Reversal of SC ruling on VFA, Smith custody sought

MANILA, Philippines – Various parties on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to overturn its earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States. In a 66-page joint motion for reconsideration filed before the High Court, the petitioners also questioned the SC decision that allowed for the re-negotiations on the custody of convicted rapist Lance Corporal Daniel Smith. The petitioners include Evalyn Ursua, lawyer of Smith’s rape victim, Nicole; Harry Roque Jr. representing former Senate President Jovito Salonga; and militant lawyer Neri Colmenares representing militant groups Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and Gabriela. The Supreme Court last February 11 affirmed the constitutionality of the VFA. It also ruled that the executive agreement between the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the US Embassy that paved the way for Smith’s detention at the embassy building is not in accordance with the VFA. The court then ruled that Smith be transferred to a detention facility under Philippine authorities, ordering the DFA and the US Embassy to swiftly re-negotiate where Smith should be detained. The court, however, did not impose a deadline on the negotiations. The DFA and the US Embassy have yet to begin their negotiations as well. In their motion, the petitioners asked the SC to "direct the immediate transfer of Daniel Smith to the custody of Philippine authorities." The petitioners then pointed out that it is unfair that Smith can be detained at the US Embassy when a supposedly secret “VFA-2" complementary agreement states that Filipino military personnel convicted by US courts will be detained in US penal institutions. Last week, Sen. Joker Arroyo claimed a secret VFA agreement signed by then DFA secretary Domingo Siazon Jr. and then US envoy Thomas Hubbard allowed the detention of a visiting Filipino soldier in US penal institutions. In their motion, the petitioners stressed that that the VFA should be declared void and unconstitutional because the Philippine Senate would not have ratified the agreement in 1999 had it known of the existence of the VFA-2. "The VFA is unconstitutional and void because an integral part of it, the so-called VFA 2, was not included in the Senate deliberations and resolution of concurrence. It is most likely that the Philippine Senate would not have concurred in the VFA had it known about the VFA-2," they said. Task Force Subic Meanwhile, some 40 members of the Task Force Subic marched to the Court of Appeals to ask the appellate court not to be influenced on the rape case against Smith. Smith, a participant in the 2005 Balikatan exercises under the auspices of the VFA, was convicted by the Makati Regional Trial Court of raping a Filipina inside the Subic Bay Freeport last Nov. 1, 2005. The rape case is currently on appeal at the CA. The protesters said the appellate court must not be pressured by the American government and Malacañang, adding that rumors are brewing that the Makati RTC’s guilty verdict against Smith will be reversed. - GMANews.TV