Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    SUZETTE NICOLAS VS. ROMULO, February 11, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Nandie Joy
    1. Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, a US Marine, was convicted of raping Suzette Nicolas, a Filipina. Under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and US, Smith was to be detained in facilities agreed upon by both countries, with detention "by Philippine authorities." 2. However, Smith was transferred to a US embassy detention facility under the Romulo-Kenney Agreements, signed after his conviction. Petitioners argued this violated the equal protection clause. 3. The court found no equal protection violation, as different rules can apply to foreign forces by agreement. However, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements were found to violate the VFA, which

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SUZETTE NICOLAS VS. ROMULO, February 11, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Nandie Joy
    41 views2 pages
    1. Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, a US Marine, was convicted of raping Suzette Nicolas, a Filipina. Under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and US, Smith was to be detained in facilities agreed upon by both countries, with detention "by Philippine authorities." 2. However, Smith was transferred to a US embassy detention facility under the Romulo-Kenney Agreements, signed after his conviction. Petitioners argued this violated the equal protection clause. 3. The court found no equal protection violation, as different rules can apply to foreign forces by agreement. However, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements were found to violate the VFA, which

    Original Description:

    s

    Original Title

    Suzette

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, a US Marine, was convicted of raping Suzette Nicolas, a Filipina. Under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and US, Smith was to be detained in facilities agreed upon by both countries, with detention "by Philippine authorities." 2. However, Smith was transferred to a US embassy detention facility under the Romulo-Kenney Agreements, signed after his conviction. Petitioners argued this violated the equal protection clause. 3. The court found no equal protection violation, as different rules can apply to foreign forces by agreement. However, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements were found to violate the VFA, which

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views2 pages

    SUZETTE NICOLAS VS. ROMULO, February 11, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Nandie Joy
    1. Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, a US Marine, was convicted of raping Suzette Nicolas, a Filipina. Under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and US, Smith was to be detained in facilities agreed upon by both countries, with detention "by Philippine authorities." 2. However, Smith was transferred to a US embassy detention facility under the Romulo-Kenney Agreements, signed after his conviction. Petitioners argued this violated the equal protection clause. 3. The court found no equal protection violation, as different rules can apply to foreign forces by agreement. However, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements were found to violate the VFA, which

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    2. SUZETTE NICOLAS VS.

    ROMULO, February 11, 2009



    Facts:
    Herein respondent, Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, is a member of the United States
    Armed Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape committed against a Filipina, Suzette S.
    Nicolas.
    Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the
    Philippines and the United States, the United States, at its request, was granted custody of
    defendant Smith pending the proceedings.
    During the trial, the US Government faithfully complied with its undertaking to bring
    defendant Smith to the trial court every time his presence was required.
    Eventually, the Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision, finding defendant Smith
    guilty. He shall serve his sentence in the facilities that shall be agreed upon by appropriate
    Philippine and United States pursuant to the VFA. Pending agreement on such facilities,
    accused is hereby temporarily committed to the Makati City Jail.
    However, defendant was taken out of the Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine law
    enforcement agents, and brought to a facility for detention under the control of the United
    States government, provided for under new agreements between the Philippines and the
    United States, referred to as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement. This agreement provides that in
    accordance with the Visiting Forces Agreement signed, Smith, United States Marine Corps, be
    returned to United States military custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila.
    Petitioners contend that the Philippines should have custody of Smith because if they
    would allow such transfer of custody of an accused to a foreign power is to provide for a
    different rule of procedure for that accused. The equal protection clause of the Constitution is
    also violated.
    Issue:
    Whether or Not there is a violation of the equal protection clause.
    Held:
    The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is a substantial basis for a
    different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our
    territory and all other accused.
    The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter ones
    territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The Status of
    Forces Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and
    conditions, according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their bargaining
    power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over the
    forces of the sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties.
    As a result, the situation involved is not one in which the power of this Court to adopt
    rules of procedure is curtailed or violated, but rather one in which, as is normally encountered
    around the world, the laws (including rules of procedure) of one State do not extend or apply
    except to the extent agreed upon to subjects of another State due to the recognition of
    extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting foreign armed forces.
    Applying, however, the provisions of VFA, the Court finds that there is a different
    treatment when it comes to detention as against custody.
    It is clear that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody during
    the trial and detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific arrangement to
    cover detention. And this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the detention shall
    be carried out in facilities agreed on by authorities of both parties, but also that the detention
    shall be "by Philippine authorities." Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19
    and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States
    Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not "by Philippine
    authorities."
    Respondents should therefore comply with the VFA and negotiate with representatives
    of the United States towards an agreement on detention facilities under Philippine authorities
    as mandated by Art. V, Sec. 10 of the VFA.
    The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the
    United States, is UPHELD as constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney Agreements are DECLARED
    not in accordance with the VFA.

    You might also like