BY EMILY VITAL
Bulatlat
Seven years after the concurrence by the Philippine Senate of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), critics reiterate the demand for the junking of the said agreement. They also hit the new RP-US accord which they say will further strengthen and widen the scope of US intervention in the Philippines.
Seven years after the concurrence by the Philippine Senate of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), critics reiterate the demand for the junking of the said agreement. They also hit the new RP-US accord which they say will further strengthen and widen the scope of US intervention in the Philippines.
Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr., one of the Magnificent 5 in the VFA voting in the Senate in 1999 said that many rules and procedures are favorable only to the Americans.
The case of Nicole, the Subic rape victim, is a litmus test to the VFA, said Guingona in a press conference on May 27. He said that there were reported abuses by U.S. soldiers in Cebu and Mindanao that warranted prosecution but were not pursued.
Constitutionality
Atty. Evalyn Ursua, lawyer of Nicole, said there are unjust provisions in the VFA that affect the rights of the victim and Philippine sovereignty.
Ursua announced they will file a petition before the Supreme Court next week to question the constitutionality of the provisions of the VFA on the one-year deadline for resolution of cases and the issue of custody.
Ursua said they will elevate the issue to the high court because the “executive branch has no effort to correct this obvious injustice not only to Nicole but to the Filipino people.”
Article V paragraph 6 states that judicial proceedings shall be conducted within a one-year period otherwise the U.S. authorities shall have no obligation to produce the accused.
Ursua said that Judge Benjamin Pozon who handles the rape case is pressured by the one-year period. Ursua said hearings will take place three to four times a week as Pozon intends to resolve the case by August.
Ursua said, “This is being done not in the interest of justice but in the interest of the VFA.” She said a speedy trial must have a reasonable schedule of hearings. “We need time to prepare for every hearing. Ang depensa naman, maghihintay lang. (The defense will only wait.)”
Ursua revealed they are also asked to trim down their witnesses to hasten the process. “Masasakripisyo ang hustisya. (Justice will be sacrificed.)”
Nicole’s lawyer also said that Pozon has yet to clarify when the one-year period starts.
Guingona said it must start on the day of the arraignment. For the Subic rape case, arraignment took place on April 28 this year. “Preliminary investigation to determine probable cause is not part of the judicial proceedings.”
Moreover, Ursua said the issue of custody is prejudicial to the rights of the victim.
It is stated in Article V, paragpraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b) that “the US military authorities have exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable under the Philippine law as long as these are also punishable under the criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred upon U.S. authorities by military law, and of offenses arising out of performance of official duty.”
“In effect, Article V, paragraph 6 of the VFA amends the rules of the court,” Ursua said.
The suspects are outside the Philippine territory, Ursua said. The U.S. Embassy keeps custody over the U.S. Marines. “The Embassy is considered a foreign territory. In effect, they were granted bail. Our courts should have the power over the accused.” Under the Philippine law, rape is a capital offense and non bail-able.
On Malacañang’s stand on the case, Ursua said, “They are not with us in the fight to assert custody.”
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) issued a note verbale to the US Embassy asking for custody. The U.S. Embassy rejected the request. Ursua said, “They gave up instantly.”
