Testing the Visiting Forces Agreement

The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), a security accord between the Philippines and the United States, faces an acid test with this report that a 22-year-old Filipina was raped last week by six US servicemen. The American soldiers were in a temporary stay at the former US naval base in Olongapo.

This post-bases accord will be the basis of any resolution to the case, now getting hotter with every passing day since the government announced that there was such an incident. How the state prosecutors will behave to protect the national interest depends on the accord that was passed during the term of former President Joseph Estrada.

To start with, there is really no big difference between the VFA and the old bases agreement on the issue of how to treat US servicemen who commit an offense in Philippine territory. As in some 30 other US foreign bases all over the world, the Americans do not allow local courts to try US soldiers. We have heard though from the VFA commission chief that there is a provision that the Philippine authorities can compel a charged serviceman to appear in Philippine courts within one year after a case is filed against him. If that provision really exists, it would be interesting if the Philippine prosecutors will make that demand.

From our little studies on the bases, we have not heard of any American soldier who was tried in a foreign country hosting American bases. Have you heard of an American ever tried in a Spanish court, or even Japanese court? We know that that the Okinawa Incident (where there was also a reported rape of a local girl by a US soldier) led to a tense relationship between Washington and Tokyo. In the end, the Americans won the battle - the US soldier was not tried in Japanese court.

As a matter of fact, we have already lost the first round on this latest rape victim. Reports said that the government cannot even take custody of the US servicemen because, according to Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, the government had waived such power. In short, the US government has the complete control of the situation. It could, for instance, issue a statement that the servicemen were on official duty at the time of the rape incident. It could also send the soldiers back to the US, without having to report to Philippine authorities.

The US embassy vowed to cooperate with the Philippine government, suggesting that it would make available the servicemen in needed by the courts. But I predict that the court battle is not going to happen. Even before the trial begins, the family of the victim would have already agreed to withdraw the case in exchange for some favors.

In the old bases regime, offenses committed by US servicemen were settled by negotiations and not by court battles. The situation today is similar to yesterday.

* * *

Under pressure to pass anti-terror law

The incoming Congress will be under pressure to pass an anti-terrorism law, according to Rep. Imee Marcos, our guest in Saturday's Kapihan sa Sulo. Reasons are the continuing lobby by the US government and also the recent incident involving suspected "terrorist" Dawud (or Tyrone) Santos. Of course, it is obvious that the US government has been pressing President GMA to pass an anti-terrorism law that would support the US campaign worldwide. We heard that full military aid by the US to the Philippines hinges on the passage of this law.

The Dawud Santos case focuses on the weakness of the law that would allow detention of suspected terrorists. Authorities, specially the ISAFP, believe that Santos had links with terrorists, but they could not pin him legally. In the end, he had to be charged with illegal possession of firearms for which he was entitled to bail. He is now on provisional liberty.

(There is a sideshow to this Santos incident where broadcaster Julius Babao of ABS-CBN was alleged to have guaranteed the bail bond of Santos. The Babao case is now being investigated by the network, more for its ethical value than anything else.)

In any case, according to Ms. Marcos, the problem of the anti-terror law is more on the definition of terrorism. That is true, because some of our party list groups believe that there is a thin line that divides terrorism from genuine national liberation. On this issue, Congress is so divided that it cannot go first base. But with the recent incident perhaps, Congress would be more focused on its task, now that that the impeachment trial is finished.