Lance Corporal Daniel Smith Case

Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, member of the US Armed Forces, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in the RTC of Makati. The court ordered Smith detained at the Makati City Jail until further orders.

On December 19 and 22, 2006, Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and US Ambassador Kristie Kenney executed agreements that pursuant to the VFA, Smith be returned to the US military custody and be detained at the first floor, Rowe Building, US Embassy Compound.

Petitioner Jovito Salonga, et al. challenged the validity of the said agreements contending that the Philippines should have custody of Smith because, first of all, the VFA is void and unconstitutional since it violates Art. XVlll, Sec. 25 of the constitution.

Is the VFA constitutional? Granting that it is constitutional, Are the Romulo-Kenney Agreements in accordance with the provisions of the VFA itself?


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The SC ruled The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the VFA.

VFA is Constitutional

The SC ruled that “the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States,” and “the fact that (it) was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State.”

Section 25, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution provides that “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”

The issue, the Court said, is “whether or not the presence of the US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to the VFA is allowed ‘under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.’” “It is,” the Court ruled. “The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an implementing agreement to the main RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty,” the Court held. visit fellester.blogspot.com The RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951 was signed and duly ratified with the concurrence of both the Philippine Senate and the United States Senate.


Romulo-Kenney Agreements not in accord with the VFA itself

The Court however ruled that “the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not “by Philippine authorities.” Article V, Section 10 of the VFA provides that “the confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of the United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States authorities.” (Suzette Nicolas y Sombilon Vs. Alberto Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009)


DISSENTING OPINION

In his dissent, Chief Justice Puno maintained his view in the earlier case of Bayan v. Zamora that the VFA falls short of the requirement set by Sec. 25, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution, which provides that the agreement allowing the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines must be “recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.” For the Chief Justice, the majority of the Court in Bayan v. Zamora gave undue deference to the statement of former US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard that US Senate advice and consent was not needed to consider a treaty binding on the US, “then jumped to the conclusion that the US recognized the VFA as a treaty, and that the constitutional requirements had been satisfied.” (Suzette Nicolas y Sombilon Vs. Alberto Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009)