JUSTICE Secretary Raul Gonzalez yesterday
said it might be necessary for the Supreme Court to clarify a
portion of its ruling on the custody case of rapist Daniel
Smith.
In a press briefing, Gonzalez said the phrase
in the SC ruling last Feb. 11 ordering the return of Smith, an
American serviceman, to the custody of "Philippine authorities,"
could be subjected to various interpretations.
"I think it’s a little vague. That should be
clarified, what is meant by the Supreme Court when it talks
about that," Gonzalez told reporters. "That is something that
could be debated."
He said the best move to resolve the issue is
for an interested party to file a motion to clarify before the
High Court.
"The Philippine embassy in Washington is a
Philippine territory… that is when you speak of Philippine
authority or jurisdiction… That’s why embassies have been used
for asylum by some foreigners who ran afoul in their country…
They run to their embassies to seek asylum," he said.
"The Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the
Philippine jurisdiction includes people on-board Philippine ship
or airship. Even if the crime is committed in the high seas on
board a Philippine ship or airship, that is jurisdictional for
us," he added.
The Tribunal ordered the Department of
Foreign Affairs to negotiate with the US Embassy regarding the
details of the transfer.
Talks between the two camps, however, have
yet to formally begin as Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto
Romulo is out of the country while the US Embassy is still
waiting for lawyers from the US State department.
His case is on appeal before the CA.
Gonzalez said the Philippine government will
never allow Smith to be brought back to US soil as it could be
too risky.
"We will fight that. We will object to that,
of course, because that is already risky on the part of the
Philippines… Baka i-spirit out siya dun," he said.
Sen. Joker Arroyo slammed the "double
standard" provisions in the VFA which he described as "idiotic
provision."
In the confinement and visitation provision
(Article IX) of the VFA, it states that the confinement imposed
by a US federal or state court upon Filipino personnel "shall be
served in penal institution in the United States suitable for
the custody level of the prisoners chosen after consultation
between two governments."
This means, he said, that Filipino personnel
cannot be housed in the Philippine Embassy or in a Philippine
consulate.
"In short, confinement shall always be in the
US penal institution. The only `consuelo de bobo’ is that he may
ask which prison he may be confined," Arroyo said.
"Idiotic provision! Why should a Filipino ask
that he be confined in a military prison?" Arroyo said. He said
in the case of Smith, US authorities spirited him to the US
Embassy. "Downright iniquitous," he said.
"The terms on confinement are so glaringly
iniquitous. Why Philippine authorities ever agreed to this
reflects our residual colonial mentality," Arroyo said.
Arroyo added that the main issue in relations
with the US for the past 68 years has "always been the question
of jurisdiction the moment US personnel commits a crime in the
Philippines."
He said that the Philippines should "either
suspend, renegotiate or abrogate (the Visiting Forces
Agreement); we cannot leave this alone."
He admitted, however, that it is unlikely
that the government will press the US on the issue out of
"colonial mentality and (an) inferiority complex."
"Not even our senators want to listen. How
many signatures did (Sen. Francis Pangilinan) get for his
resolution?" he asked, referring to a resolution calling for the
abrogation of the treaty. Only six out of 23 senators supported
the resolution.
He said he signed the resolution despite its
slim chance of being passed by the Senate. "What’s the
alternative, we just let it go?" he asked. – Gerard Naval
and JP Lopez