FORMER Senate President Jovito Salonga is asking the Supreme Court (SC) to rule on the constitutionality of contentious provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) claiming the suits pending before the high court on the matter had not been rendered moot by the decision last April 19 by the Court of Appeals (CA) reversing the conviction of United States Marine L/Cpl. Daniel Smith who had been found guilty of rape by a Makati court.
In an 8-page opposition Salonga through his lawyer Allan Jones Lardizabal pointed out that the supposedly vague provisions of the military training pacts being questioned before the SC may again become an issue in future cases.
" Clearly , there is a need for the Honorable Court to rule on the issues that are currently pending adjudication. Foras long as the VFA remains in place, and for as long as US soldiers come and go to participate in military activities, the issues will keep repeating themselves; unless the COurt makes a definitive ruling that settles them with finality, " Salonga said.
Last April,three female magistrates of the Court of Appeals (CA) Eleventh Division acquitted Smith. A few day later, Evalyn Ursua the lawyer of Smith's alleged victim, presented to the public another Filipina, "Vanessa" supposedly raped by an American serviceman inside a hotel in Makati City.
Last May 11, government lawyers asked the SC to dismiss the three cases involving the VFA pending before the SC citing the CA decision to clear Smith.
In his latest pleading , Salonga underscored that the case should not be dismissed because it fell into the category of exceptional instances when the high court may still rule on a case which would otherwise be moot and academic.
"The petition before the Supreme Court (SC) involves issues centering not only on the invalidity of the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) on custody of prisoners; it also involves the invalidity of the entire VFA itself. Hence, the questions raised and the arguments forwarded by the parties revolve not only around the issue of custody of convicted rapist Daniel Smith , but also on the status of the VFA under the different legal regimes, i.e. internaTional law,United States law, and Philippine law," Salonga said.
Citing court precedents, the SC said "the Court will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if there is a grave violation of the Constitution; the situation is exceptional in character and paramount public interest is involved; the constitutional issues raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench,the case is capable of repetition yet evading review,"
In citing that the case fell into the exception, Salonga said it is their contention " that there was a grave violation of the constitution when the VFA was entered into by officials of the government of the Philippines without complying with the strict requirements in the Constitution,"
Salonga claims the provisions of the VFA are violative of the constitution adding that it "transgress several rules of criminal jurisdiction, equal protection,and the procedure,validity and effects of treaties and laws. The instant case is exceptional in character, and paramount public interest is involved,"
Citing compliance with the public interest requirement , Salonga said " there is no question that the entire Filipino nation should take interest when foreign armies are allowed to enter our territory. Paramount public interest is involved in regulating the manner in which such armies are supervised, restrained to their assigned quarters, and , in case they commit any crime while they are in Philippine territory, arrested, prosecuted , and detained,"###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
