DEAN Amado Valdez of the University of the
East College of Law yesterday said Foreign Affairs Secretary
Alberto Romulo should resign for waiving the Philippine
government’s right to assert its sovereignty on the custody of
Subic rapist Daniel Smith.
"Mr. Romulo should accept responsibility
for this debacle and also to show the United States we care
about our own sovereignty. What he has done is the reason for
this scandalous issue," Valdez said in a forum.
"Sadly, the message we are sending to the
US shows we are not that serious in protecting and fighting
for our rights," he added.
Valdez said Romulo erred when he entered
into an executive agreement with US Ambassador Kristie Kenney,
which resulted in Smith’s transfer from the Makati jail to the
US Embassy in Manila in December 2006.
The Supreme Court last Feb. 10 ruled that
the executive agreement was not in accordance with the
provisions of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement and directed
the Philippine government to take up with the US the place of
detention for Smith "under Philippine authorities."
But the DFA said the status quo on Smith’s
detention in the US Embassy in Manila remains until it has
consulted the Office of the Solicitor General, the Department
of Justice and the Department of the Interior and Local
Government.
Valdez said he does not foresee the US
government making any move despite the assurance of Kenney
that legal experts in Washington D.C. would be looking into
the Supreme Court ruling.
"This problem is of our own making since
our officials agreed to the agreement with Kenney. The problem
is our implementors are always taking the side of the
Americans. No amount of safety nets in the VFA or even in a
re-negotiated VFA would suffice if the thinking of the DFA
officials remained colonial," Valdez said.
Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera asked
the Supreme Court to clarify its decision on the transfer of
Smith’s custody "under Philippine authorities."
Devanadera said a provision in the VFA says
"the custody over US personnel shall reside with US
authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the
offense, during the trial and even on appeal until the
judgment of conviction is final and executory."
The government lawyer said that even if the
Court of Appeals has resolved Smith’s appeal, it cannot be
considered final and executory until it is elevated to the SC
for final adjudication.
Devanadera cited paragraph 6, Article V of
the VFA, which refers to the confinement of a convicted US
serviceman after finality of judgment, but not pending appeal.
She also cited paragraph 10, Article V
which applies to detention or confinement of US personnel
carried out by Philippine authorities when the accused has
been convicted with finality.
"Read together, paragraphs 6 and 10 provide
that custody over US personnel shall reside with US
authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the
offense, during trial and even on appeal until the judgment of
conviction rendered by the court becomes final and executory,"
she said. – With Evangeline de Vera
