Case 6: NICOLAS vs. ROMULO FACTS: Herein respondent, Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, is a member of the United States Armed Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape committed against a Filipina, Suzette S. Nicolas. Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States, the United States, at its request, was granted custody of defendant Smith pending the proceedings. During the trial, the US Government faithfully complied with its undertaking to bring defendant Smith to the trial court every time his presence was required. Eventually, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision, finding defendant Smith guilty. He shall serve his sentence in the facilities that shall be agreed upon by appropriate Philippine and United States pursuant to the VFA. Pending agreement on such facilities, accused is hereby temporarily committed to the Makati City Jail. However, defendant was taken out of the Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine law enforcement agents, and brought to a facility for detention under the control of the United States government, provided for under new agreements between the Philippines and the United States, referred to as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement. This agreement provides that in accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement signed, Smith, United States Marine Corps, be returned to United States military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. Petitioners contend that the Philippines should have custody of Smith because if they would allow such transfer of custody of an accused to a foreign power is to provide for a different rule of procedure for that accused. The equal protection clause of the Constitution is also violated. ISSUE: Whether or Not there is a violation of the equal protection clause. HELD: The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is a substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused. The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The Status of Forces Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and conditions, according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their bargaining power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties. As a result, the situation involved is not one in which the power of this Court to adopt rules of procedure is curtailed or violated, but rather one in which, as is normally encountered around the world, the laws (including rules of procedure) of one State do not extend or apply – except to the extent agreed upon – to subjects of another State due to the recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting foreign armed forces. Applying, however, the provisions of VFA, the Court finds that there is a different treatment when it comes to detention as against custody. It is clear that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody during the trial and detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific arrangement to cover detention. And this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the detention shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by authorities of both parties, but also that the detention shall be "by Philippine authorities." Therefore, 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." Respondents should therefore comply with the VFA and negotiate with representatives of the United States towards an agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities as mandated by Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA. The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States, is UPHELD as constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney Agreements are DECLARED not in accordance with the VFA.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 07:31:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015