6 US servicemen subpoenaed in rape case

[Warlord]

6 US servicemen subpoenaed in rape case

First posted 04:07pm (Mla time) Nov 08, 2005
By Anthony Deleon, Veronica Uy, Volt Contreras
INQ7.net, Inquirer News Service




Subscribe to Breaking News alerts, send ON EXTRA BREAKING to 2207 for Globe, or send EXTRA BREAKING to 386 for Smart.


(2ND UPDATE) SIX American servicemen were summoned Tuesday to appear before the Olongapo City prosecutor’s office to answer the rape charges against them filed by a 22-year-old Filipina.
The subpoena was served to the US Embassy, which has custody of the suspects, around 2:30 p.m. at the Department of Foreign Affairs. Accepting the subpoena on the embassy’s behalf was Deputy Chief of Mission Scott Bellard. He was accompanied by Press Attaché Matthew Lussenhop.

The subpoena was served by Acting Foreign Affairs Secretary Rafael Seguis. He was accompanied by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuño of the Department of Justice.

In the subpoena sent by Olongapo City prosecutor Prudencio Jalandoni, the servicemen are directed to appear before the City Prosecutor's Office in Olongapo on November 23 and 29 at 2:30 p.m.

To be summoned are suspects Chad Carpentier, Daniel Smith, Corey Burris, Albert Lara, Keith Silkwood, and Dominic Duplantis.

A separate subpoena was also issued to the complainant -- a 22-year-old Filipina from Zamboanga in southern Philippines who came to Subic on a vacation.

Viray said the subpoenas direct the American suspects to submit their counter-affidavits, list of witnesses, and documents they will use for the trial within 10 days.

During this time, Viray said, the accused servicemen are just asked to appear for the proceedings, but their presence is “not mandatory.”

On the alleged retraction of the testimony of driver Timoteo Soriano, Viray said that his office has not received any document of recantation so his statement stays.

Bellard told reporters later that the US Embassy will comply with all terms of the Visiting Forces Agreement.

“We are required to cooperate and we will cooperate,” Bellard said.

The accused US Marines had recently joined a large-scale joint US-Philippine military exercise in Subic, some 80 kilometers west of Manila.

[Warlord]

Tell it to the (US) Marines

First posted 01:11am (Mla time) Nov 08, 2005
By Rowena Guanzon
INQ7.net



RAPE is a crime that deserves the fiercest of our outrage. A woman who is raped suffers the violation not only of her body but also of her spirit and dignity. Even if she survives the rape, she has to struggle to maintain her sanity in a thick web of trauma, self-blame, helplessness and shame. Yet, many would not only disbelieve the 22-year-old woman from Zamboanga but would blame her for agreeing to have a drink with servicemen of the United States Marines. They would unfairly label her as a loose or prostituted woman who was asking for it. Rape victims are prejudiced not only in society but also in our courts, and it is no wonder that many victims do not report or sue their attackers.
How could we not believe that the young woman was raped when witnesses saw that she was, in their own words, “carried like a pig” by Caucasian men from a van, and dropped on the street with only her shirt and panties on? This victim is not the first, and she won’t be the last Filipino woman who will be raped by foreigners in this country who think that they are a superior race, and who believe that they can commit crimes at will because law enforcement here is weak, and our judicial system reputedly corrupt. Did the rapists believe she was a lesser human being and an easy prey not only because she is a woman but also because she is Filipino? Yes. Would those American servicemen have committed rape so easily in their own country? I doubt it. Did they think they would get away with it because of the Visiting Forces Agreement? Yes, and they thought they could get away with it because their ship was leaving the next day.

We have enough rape in this country to be angry about without the American soldiers adding to our statistics. According to the records of the Philippine National Police, in 2004 there were 1,129 reported cases of rape and attempted rape of women and 3,572 cases of rape, attempted rape and incest rape of children. We have the Anti-Rape Act of 1997 but the law, our law enforcement agencies and our judicial system have not been able to deter rapists from committing this inhuman act.

How then can we stop rape? As stated by someone from the Women’s Crisis Center, since we cannot rely on the law and our judicial system, we must work to change society. People, especially men, must change their views of women. We must work to achieve a society where women will have economic, social and political power, and culture and traditions that prejudice against women and put them in subordinate status will be changed, and all people especially men, will have respect for women’s human rights.

The issues about rape, especially the ineffectiveness of the law, are highlighted when the accused are US personnel -- because they are covered by an international agreement. When Vietnam War veteran Victor Pearson was charged (and convicted with the help of lawyers from Gender Watch Coalition) of raping several girl-children in Negros Occidental province in 2001, the US embassy sent a representative to check if his rights were being respected while he was in jail, but categorically said it was not helping him with his case.

This time, because the accused are active in the service, the US embassy not only has them in its custody but will surely give them legal assistance. Under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the US can request our government to waive its primary jurisdiction. If they were not US servicemen, they would have been arrested immediately after the woman was found and the rape reported. They would have been thrown in jail like any other rape suspect while the prosecutor did his job, and there they will stay while the trial proceeds.

Under Section 5 of the VFA, the “Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.” This jurisdiction is exclusive to the Philippines with respect to offenses punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States. The crime of rape is punishable also under US laws and therefore the Philippines exercises primary but not exclusive jurisdiction over such crime.

The VFA states: “The authorities of either government may request the authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.” When the US government so requests, the Philippines must waive its primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance to the Philippines. Even if we protest with all our might, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will most likely waive our primary jurisdiction over this case if the US government so requests.

Why are the suspects in the custody of the US embassy? Because the VFA states so, even if our courts have primary jurisdiction over the case. The exact provision is: “The custody of any United States 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. United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which the person has been charged.”

In extraordinary cases, the Philippine government shall present its position to the US government regarding custody, which the latter is not required to accept. Judging by Malacanang’s track record for political horse-trading, we cannot expect it to even think of rape as an “extraordinary case” over which it will risk a strain in its relations with its dear big brother Bush.

Even if, in some miraculous way, our government does or is not requested by the US to waive its primary jurisdiction, if our Department of Justice and courts do not complete the proceedings in one year, the suspects can leave the US embassy and the Philippines. The VFA provides only that the one-year period will not include the time necessary to appeal and the time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.

If the suspects are convicted in one year, and while their appeal is pending the one-year period ends, the US has no obligation to retain them in its custody. As we all know our courts move slowly, aside from the sad truth that some judges can be bribed. The trial, and after conviction, an appeal to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court will certainly take more than a year.

Senator Joker Arroyo is right: The US government must stand on high moral ground, because under the VFA it has power to get its Marines easily off the hook. It should let our courts prosecute its soldiers. The US must show that it believes in truth and justice, respects the laws of the Philippines, and trusts our judicial system to respect the rights of the accused. We cannot accept the argument that the rape of our women is but a collateral damage in the global war against terrorism.

As to our government, well, quite clearly it has sold us out in the VFA. Did Presidential Spokesperson Ignacio Bunye say Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would ensure that justice is served? Tell it to the Marines.

Atty. Rowena Guanzon has a column in www.visayandailystar.net on Tuesdays and Thursdays. You may visit her weblog at rbing.i.ph.