Salonga vs. Executive Secretary (2009) Doctrine:
The VFA is constitutional for being an implementing agreement of the RP-US Military Defense Treaty
which has been ratified & concurred by both US & Philippine Senates. Also, the VFA provisions regarding the detention & custody of foreign military forces are not in violation of the Constitutional mandate about the Court’s
exclusive power of promulgating rules of procedure. On the other hand, the Romulo-Kenney agreement is void for not being in accord with the VFA.
Facts: 1.
2.
Daniel Smith a.
Member of the US Armed Forces
b.
Charged with the crime of rape against a Filipina (Suzette Nicolas, 22-year old unmarried woman)
Trial of the accused a.
Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the US, the US was granted custody of defendant Smith pending the proceedings
b.
Trial was transferred from RTC Zambales to RTC Makati for security purposes
c.
During trial, the US Government faithfully complied to their obligation of bringing Smith to the trial court every time his presence was required
3.
RTC Makati decision – Smith is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape a.
Pursuant to Article V, par. 10, of the VFA – Smith shall serve his sentence in a facility that shall be agreed upon by the Philippine and US authorities.
b. 4.
Pending this agreement, Smith is ordered to be temporarily committed to the Mak ati city jail
Romulo-Kenney Agreement a.
This is the agreement pursuant to Art. V, par. 10, of the VFA
b.
It has been agreed upon by Kristie Kenney (representative of US) and Alberto Romulo (representative of the Philippines) that Smith shall be detained at the 1
st
floor, Rowe (JUSMAG)
Building, US Embassy Compound in a room of approximately 10x12 square feet i.
The Philippine police & jail authorities shall have access to the place of detention in order to ensure the compliance of the US with the terms of the VFA
c.
Dec. 29, 2006 – Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by Philippine law enforcement agents (acting upon the orders of DILG) and brought to the US Embassy
5.
The matter was brought to the CA, which dismissed the petition for having become moot. Hence, the present action.
Procedure: 1.
RTC Makati - Smith was convicted of the crime rape
2.
CA – to question the Romulo-Kenney agreement; petition dismissed
3.
SC – petitions for certiorari, as special civil actions and/or for review of the CA decision
Issue/s: 1.
WON the VFA is void and unconstitutional – No
2.
WON the VFA provision on cases of offenses committed by the members of the US Armed Forces in the Philippines violates Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) (“...providing for the exclusive power of this Court to adopt rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines”) - No
3.
WON the Romulo-Kenney Agreement is in accord of the VFA – No
4.
WON the VFA is affected by the US SC decision on Medellin vs. Texas - No
Held/Ratio: 1.
The VFA is constitutional. a.
The petitioners contend that the issue is of primordial importance involving the sovereignty of the Republic, as well as the mandate of the Constitution
b.
The SC upheld the constitutionality of the VFA for the following reasons: i.
The SC, in Bayan vs. Zamora, has already resolved in favour of the constitutionality of the VFA. 1.
The VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the US. Thus, it follows the Constitutional mandate that an agreement concerning Military Bases shall only be allowed “under a
treaty duly concurred in by the Senate ... and recognized as a treaty by the other contract ing state” (Art. XVIII, Sec. 25) 2.
Though the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the US Senate, it is still a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the US a.
Only policymaking agreements are submitted to the US Senate
b.
Those that carry out or further implement policymaking agreements are submitted to Congress under the provisions of Case-Zablocki Act. Submission of this kind of a greement to the US Senate is not necessary.
c.
The RP-US Military Defense Treaty is the policymaking agreement, while the VFA is its implementing agreement. The RP-US Military Defense Treaty has been ratified & concurred by both Philippine & US senates.
2.
Art. VIII, Sec 5 (5) is not violated a.
Equal protection clause is not violated due to the presence of substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of foreign military a llowed to enter the Philippine territory
b.
Rule on international law – a foreign military allowed to enter one’s territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon i.
The issue does not involve the adoption of rules of procedure. Rather, it is the question of extraterritorial immunity based on what has been agreed upon by the contracting States. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such.
3.
The Romulo-Kenney is not in accord with the VFA a.
The VFA provides for a different treatment between detention and custody i.
b.
Detention – in a facility agreed by both States BUT shall be “by Philippine authorities”
Romulo-Kenney agreement is in violation of the VFA because the detention agreed upon is not “by Philippine authorities”
4.
The VFA is different from the subject matter of the Medellin vs. Texas case a.
In Medellin vs. Texas, the US SC held that “treaties entered into by the US are not automatically
part of their domestic law unless these treaties are self-executing or there is an implementing legislation to make them enforceable”.
b.
VFA vs Vienna Convention on Consular Relations & the Avena decision of the International Court of Justice (subject matter of the Medellin decision)
i.
VFA – (1) self- executing agreement because the parties intend its provisions to be enforceable and (2) it is covered by implementing legislation which is the Case-Zablocki Act 1.
These two characteristics are absent in the subject matter of the Medellin decision
