US Intervention in RP
Stronger on 7th Year of VFA
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.
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.
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.”
New US-RP accord
Meanwhile, Dr. Carol
Araullo, chairperson of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan or New Patriotic
Alliance) condemned the signing of the new US-RP accord on May 24, three
days before the seventh anniversary of VFA.
Under the new
arrangement, a security engagement board (SEB), composed of US and
Philippine military and civilian officials, will be set up to counter the
non-traditional threats.
President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo approved the creation of the board in a memorandum issued
on April 21. No treaties were signed.
Araullo said, “The
new accord only strengthens and widens the scope of US intervention in the
Philippines. The definition of non-traditional threats is very vague and
broad. That makes it very dangerous. Both governments could use the term,
just as how they abruptly use the term terrorism, to further infringe upon
the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Non-traditional
threats include piracy, transnational crimes, maritime safety and
security, man-made disasters, natural calamities and epidemics. “They may
use any of these to justify deployment of U.S. troops and personnel to the
Philippines.”
Araullo said, “The
Philippine government has committed treason of the highest degree by
entering into this agreement. Like the VFA, the new accord disregards the
constitutional ban on the entry of foreign troops sans a treaty and
further undermines the national sovereignty.”
The Bayan leader
added, “The manner by which the Philippine government entered into this
agreement is anomalous. The Philippine government clearly intends to elude
strong opposition not only from lawmakers but from the Filipino people in
general.”
Some 70 members of
Bayan and allied organizations held a rally in Manila on May 26,
condemning the SEB. Elements of the Western Police District of the
Philippine National Police barred the protesters from getting near the
U.S. Embassy. Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
