SENATE POISED TO SCRAP VFA

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, chair of the legislative oversight committee on the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (Lovfa), set for hearing next week a proposed Senate resolution calling for the unilateral termination of the VFA.

"The VFA is now ten years old. Under President Estrada, it was an outright deal. The RP got used military equipment, and the US had the right to snoop around Mindanao , as part of the war on terror of President Bush. We got the equipment, and they snooped for ten years. End of the deal," she said.

Santiago said that the 1999 Senate Resolution 18 categorically stressed that the Philippine Constitution prohibits the permanent stationing of foreign troops on Philippine soil, and it is the Senate duty to prevent the VFA from turning into a permanent arrangement.

"Resolution 18 specified that the VFA envisioned only temporary visits of US personnel engaged in joint military exercises or other activities approved by the RP government. Beyond 10 years, the VFA will become a permanent visit," she said.

Santiago said that recently the US defense department sent an email declaring that the phrase "war on terror" would now be replaced by the phrase "overseas contingency operation."

"The Obama administration has stopped using the phrase 'war on terror,' which is the explanation for the presence of US soldiers in Mindanao . Since there is no more war on terror, then there is no more rationale for US troops to be stationed in Mindanao ," she said.

Santiago quoted the VFA as stating that the Philippine government reserves the right to terminate unilaterally the VFA, once it no longer redounds to Philippine national interest.

"My main objection to the VFA at this time is that it continues to foster an attitude of dependency on our part, and an attitude of arrogance on the part of the US ," she said.

Santiago said that she has several reservations on the February 2009 Supreme Court decision in Nicolas v. Romulo, which affirmed the prior decision in Bayan v. Executive Secretary, upholding the validity of the VFA.

"The authoritative force of the Nicolas case is weak, because it was promulgated by a divided court. Four justices dissented, while two justices did not take part," she said.

Santiago said that the Supreme Court majority failed to duly consider the constitutional provision that the VFA should be "recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state."

"Under the US Case-Zablocki Act, the VFA was submitted to the US Congress, because it is not characterized as a treaty. Under American law, any international agreement which is not a treaty has to be submitted to the Congress after it has entered into force with respect to the US . The US government does not recognize the VFA as a treaty, and therefore there is no compliance with the RP Constitution," she said.

Santiago said that under the US Constitution, a treaty is an agreement of the US President made "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

"In the US , since the VFA is not a treaty, it is not self-executing. It cannot be considered enforceable without an enabling law and it would not be recognized by US courts," she said.

Santiago said that the majority rule was wrong in citing the 2008 US Supreme Court decision in Medellin v. Texas.

"Medellin dealt with agreements that are considered as treaties. The VFA, under US law, is merely an executive agreement," she said.

Santiago scheduled the Lovfa hearing on Thursday, April 23, at 10:00 a.m.