At first glance, the latest Supreme Court (SC) decision on the petitions of Suzette Nicolas, Bayan et al and Salonga et al appears to be a welcome, if unexpected assertion of Philippine sovereignty. The SC ruled that the transfer of convicted rapist Cpl. Daniel Smith to the US embassy from a Philippine jail, violated the terms of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
But on closer scrutiny, the SC decision continues to undermine, if not surrender, Philippine sovereignty by once more affirming that the VFA is constitutional.
BY CAROL PAGADUAN-ARAULLO
Streetwise/Business World
Posted by (Bulatlat.com)
“I strongly dissented in the case of Bayan v. Zamora proffering the view that the VFA falls short of the requirement set by … the 1987 Constitution stating that the agreement allowing the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines must be “recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.” The circumstances present in the case at bar and recent case law in the United States’ policy on treaty enforcement further expose the anomalous asymmetry in the legal treatment of the VFA… This slur on our sovereignty cannot continue, especially if we are the ones perpetuating it.” – Justice Reynato S. Puno
At first glance, the latest Supreme Court (SC) decision on the petitions of Suzette Nicolas, Bayan et al and Salonga et al appears to be a welcome, if unexpected assertion of Philippine sovereignty. The SC ruled that the transfer of convicted rapist Cpl. Daniel Smith to the US embassy from a Philippine jail, violated the terms of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
But on closer scrutiny, the SC decision continues to undermine, if not surrender, Philippine sovereignty by once more affirming that the VFA is constitutional. It gives the US greater legal license to station more troops in the country and increase the scope of its military intervention while claiming legal immunity for criminal acts of its forces on Philippine soil.
Further watering down the impact of the decision is the directive of the Court to the Foreign Affairs Secretary to “negotiate“ with US government representatives “pending which the status quo shall be maintained…” In other words, the Philippine and US governments can both drag their feet transferring Cpl Smith back to a Philippine jail while they take their time agreeing as to what detention facility is most “appropriate”. Meanwhile Cpl Smith gets to stay put in his comfortable quarters surrounded by supportive fellow Americans.
The SC decision, penned by Justice Adolfo Azcuña and assented to by nine justices against four dissenters, flies in the face of a 25 March 2008 ruling by the US Supreme Court, in Medellin v Texas that “a treaty, even if ratified by the United States Senate, is not enforceable as domestic federal law in the US, unless the US Congress enacts the implementing legislation, or the treaty by its terms is self-executory and ratified by the US Senate as such.”
In a separate dissenting opinion, Justice Antonio Carpio said, “Under Medellin, the VFA is indisputably not enforceable as domestic federal law in the United States. On the other hand, since the Philippine Senate ratified the VFA, the VFA constitutes domestic law in the Philippines. This unequal legal status of the VFA violates Section 25, Article XVIII of the Philippine Constitution, which specifically requires that a treaty involving the presence of foreign troops in the Philippines must be equally binding on the Philippines and on the other contracting State.” In the light of the Medellin ruling, any assertion of sovereignty by the Philippines is rendered legally in doubt and is certain to be an uphill battle.
