Subic rape case far from settled
The Subic rape case continues to rage despite the conviction of Lance Corporal Daniel Smith and his midnight transfer back to US custody.
In interviews with the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Tuesday, lawyers of the opposing camps argued their respective positions on a new petition filed by "Nicole" asking the Supreme Court to declare illegal a disputed provision of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement.
Jose Justiniano, lawyer of the US Marine whose case is the first to test the 1999 accord governing the conduct of visiting American troops, said the high court could dismiss Nicole’s petition "outright" as it had already upheld the constitutionality of the VFA and thrown out a taxpayers' suit filed against it by senators, activists and lawyers' groups in October 2000.
But Evalyn Ursua, lawyer of the Filipino complainant who won the historic rape case at the trial court stage, expressed the belief that the high court would give the petition due course because the earlier ruling was made without a concrete case to consider.
Smith was convicted on December 4 of raping Nicole at the back of a van during a short ride at the Subic Bay Freeport, a former US naval base, on November 1, 2005. The American serviceman is appealing his conviction.
On Monday, Ursua filed a petition asking the high court to declare unconstitutional Article 5, Paragraph 6 of the VFA, which grants US authorities custody of American servicemen charged in Philippine courts "from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings."
The petition also seeks the issuance of an arrest warrant against Smith and questions his clandestine transfer on December 29 to the US Embassy from the Makati City Jail, to which he was committed upon his conviction.
"[Regarding the] constitutionality of the VFA, the Supreme Court already made a ruling on that... Even the Supreme Court respects judicial precedents, unless there is a compelling reason. And in this case, there is none," Justiniano said.
But Ursua said the legal question raised by her client on the VFA had not been ruled upon by the Supreme Court and that the issues the petition sought to ventilate were "issues of first instance," or matters being brought up for discussion in the high court for the first time.
"You can't say that the Supreme Court has already declared the VFA constitutional when it was never confronted with the concrete application of [the agreement’s] provisions in a specific case, where a victim is involved," she said.
Justiniano said that while he had yet to read Nicole's petition, he would cite the Supreme Court's earlier decision in favor of the VFA in answering the latest pleading.
"We are prepared to file the comment but we will wait for the Supreme Court to require us to file a comment because that might not be necessary as the issues in the petition had been resolved before," he said.
In October 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the VFA as constitutional and ruled against the taxpayers’ suit filed by Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Raul Roco (now deceased) and Teofisto Guingona Jr., former senators Jovito Salonga and Wigberto Tañada, the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and its allied militant groups, and a number of lawyers' groups.
Justiniano said he believed that such a ruling could apply to Nicole's petition.
But Ursua said the ruling’s "wholesale" affirmation of the VFA must not cause the dismissal of the petition even before it could be discussed and answered by the respondents.
"Why would the court dismiss our petition now when, in fact, the issues are more concrete? I don't see that the court will dismiss this one when it [takes cognizance of issues] of transcendental importance, such as that taxpayers' suit. And this is a suit where an offended party is involved, a specific case where the VFA is applied," Ursua said.
Ursua said she was confident that the tribunal would deliberate on the petition because it had entertained a similar petition from Nicole questioning the same VFA provision. That petition was filed in June last year, before the rape trial began.
According to Ursua, the high court may consolidate the two petitions involving the same issues and rule on these in one resolution.
Smith was taken from the Makati City Jail in a move arranged by Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno five days before the Court of Appeals ruled on the soldier’s appeal to be returned to US custody.
The appellate court upheld the decision of Makati Judge Benjamin Pozon committing Smith to the city jail, but said it was considering the soldier’s appeal "moot" because his transfer to the US Embassy had already been effected. By Tarra Quismundo - Inquirer
In interviews with the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Tuesday, lawyers of the opposing camps argued their respective positions on a new petition filed by "Nicole" asking the Supreme Court to declare illegal a disputed provision of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement.
Jose Justiniano, lawyer of the US Marine whose case is the first to test the 1999 accord governing the conduct of visiting American troops, said the high court could dismiss Nicole’s petition "outright" as it had already upheld the constitutionality of the VFA and thrown out a taxpayers' suit filed against it by senators, activists and lawyers' groups in October 2000.
But Evalyn Ursua, lawyer of the Filipino complainant who won the historic rape case at the trial court stage, expressed the belief that the high court would give the petition due course because the earlier ruling was made without a concrete case to consider.
Smith was convicted on December 4 of raping Nicole at the back of a van during a short ride at the Subic Bay Freeport, a former US naval base, on November 1, 2005. The American serviceman is appealing his conviction.
On Monday, Ursua filed a petition asking the high court to declare unconstitutional Article 5, Paragraph 6 of the VFA, which grants US authorities custody of American servicemen charged in Philippine courts "from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings."
The petition also seeks the issuance of an arrest warrant against Smith and questions his clandestine transfer on December 29 to the US Embassy from the Makati City Jail, to which he was committed upon his conviction.
"[Regarding the] constitutionality of the VFA, the Supreme Court already made a ruling on that... Even the Supreme Court respects judicial precedents, unless there is a compelling reason. And in this case, there is none," Justiniano said.
But Ursua said the legal question raised by her client on the VFA had not been ruled upon by the Supreme Court and that the issues the petition sought to ventilate were "issues of first instance," or matters being brought up for discussion in the high court for the first time.
"You can't say that the Supreme Court has already declared the VFA constitutional when it was never confronted with the concrete application of [the agreement’s] provisions in a specific case, where a victim is involved," she said.
Justiniano said that while he had yet to read Nicole's petition, he would cite the Supreme Court's earlier decision in favor of the VFA in answering the latest pleading.
"We are prepared to file the comment but we will wait for the Supreme Court to require us to file a comment because that might not be necessary as the issues in the petition had been resolved before," he said.
In October 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the VFA as constitutional and ruled against the taxpayers’ suit filed by Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Raul Roco (now deceased) and Teofisto Guingona Jr., former senators Jovito Salonga and Wigberto Tañada, the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and its allied militant groups, and a number of lawyers' groups.
Justiniano said he believed that such a ruling could apply to Nicole's petition.
But Ursua said the ruling’s "wholesale" affirmation of the VFA must not cause the dismissal of the petition even before it could be discussed and answered by the respondents.
"Why would the court dismiss our petition now when, in fact, the issues are more concrete? I don't see that the court will dismiss this one when it [takes cognizance of issues] of transcendental importance, such as that taxpayers' suit. And this is a suit where an offended party is involved, a specific case where the VFA is applied," Ursua said.
Ursua said she was confident that the tribunal would deliberate on the petition because it had entertained a similar petition from Nicole questioning the same VFA provision. That petition was filed in June last year, before the rape trial began.
According to Ursua, the high court may consolidate the two petitions involving the same issues and rule on these in one resolution.
Smith was taken from the Makati City Jail in a move arranged by Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno five days before the Court of Appeals ruled on the soldier’s appeal to be returned to US custody.
The appellate court upheld the decision of Makati Judge Benjamin Pozon committing Smith to the city jail, but said it was considering the soldier’s appeal "moot" because his transfer to the US Embassy had already been effected. By Tarra Quismundo - Inquirer
posted by OlongapoCity Zambales at
12:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home