Loren recalls losing but 'gallant' fight vs VFA in '99

Senator Loren Legarda said yesterday that she refused to sign the ratification by the Senate of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) forged by the Philippines and the United States in 1998 because it undermined the country's sovereignty.

One of only five senators to thumb down the VFA, Loren pointed out that the lopsidedness of the agreement in favor of the US has everything to do with the difficulty being encountered now by the Philippines in securing custody of an American soldier convicted of raping a Filipina.

"A country's claim to sovereignty is an empty one if it cannot exercise full jurisdiction over a crime committed on our soil, more so when it practically has to beg the US to get custody of Lance Corporal [Daniel] Smith," said Loren.

She added that ultimately, theirs was a losing but "gallant" fight for the VFA not to be ratified by the Senate 11 years ago.

"I said 'no' to the VFA in 1998 when it was put before the Senate for ratification. My stance has not changed: This is a lopsided agreement which, having been passed, must now be abrogated," Loren said.

She noted that a number of senators who had ratified the VFA are now up in arms over it, calling for its termination by the executive department.

"It took us over a decade to realize that a mistake had been committed. But everything's not lost yet. We, Filipinos, can move to end the VFA," she said.

Aside from Loren, those who voted against the VFA were Senator Aquilino Pimentel, the late senator Raul Roco, and then senators Serge Osmeña and Teofisto Guingona.

For voting against the VFA, Loren, Pimentel, Osmeña, Guingona and Roco were dubbed then as the "Fearless Five."

But barring the VFA's abrogation, Loren said that Article 5, Paragraph 6 of the VFA must be declared as unconstitutional at the very least, in the same vein that the Supreme Court declared recently that the executive agreement signed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) with the US Embassy in Manila, transferring to the latter custody of Smith, was illegal.

The provision referred to by Loren states that "the custody of any US personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings." Loren explained that the lingering debate over it had been the definition of the "completion of all judicial proceedings."

One school of thought claims that judicial proceedings is terminated when judgment had been rendered by a lower court, while a contending claim is that it's terminated when all appeals had been exhausted and a final judgment had already been rendered.

But Loren said that as far as she is concerned, the government taking jurisdiction over crimes committed inside Philippine territory and its taking custody of suspects are not negotiable.