N.B. – This was published in the February 20-26, 2009 issue of Pinoy Weekly, the full text of which may also be retrieved from http://www.pinoyweekly.org/cms/2009/02/ilang-paglilinaw-tungkol-sa-vfa. With regard to the reciprocal agreement popularly known as “VFA 2,” I gave a clarification to friends at the Philippine Daily Inquirer which was included in a February 21 news article titled “`Junk VFA’ gains ground.”
Bakit kailangan pang magahasa ng isang sundalong Amerikano ang isang inosenteng dalaga bago muling mapansin ang pangangailangang ibasura ang Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) na pinirmahan nina Domingo Siazon, Jr. (na noo’y kalihim ng Department of Foreign Affairs) at Thomas Hubbard (na noo’y ambassador ng Estados Unidos o EU) noong Pebrero 10, 1998?
Bakit kung kailan ayaw sundin ng EU ang kautusan ng Korte Suprema na ikulong sa isang piitan sa Pilipinas ang isang nagkasalang sundalong Amerikano (na habang isinusulat ito’y nananatili pa rin sa kustodiya ng embahada ng Amerika) ay saka lang muling napansin ang makaisang-panig na katangian ng VFA?
Gaya ng nabanggit, 11 taon na ang nakaraan mula nang pirmahan ng mga kinatawan ng EU at Pilipinas ang VFA na niratipika rin ng Senado ng Pilipinas makalipas ang matinding debate.
Ang mga isyung pinagtalunan ay siya ring pinag-uusapan sa kasalukuyan. Para sa mga katulad kong pinagdaanan ang debate ng nakaraan (at natatandaan ang konteksto ng pangyayari), ang argumento ng mga sumusuporta’t kumokontra ay tila walang katapusan.
Kung walang pagkilos sa bahagi ng nakararaming mamamayan, ang simpleng kahihinatnan lang ng lahat ay ang pananatili ng kasalukuyang kaayusan – tuluy-tuloy na pagpasok ng mga tropang Amerikano, muling pakikialam nila sa mga isyung internal (tulad ng insurgency) at ang walang pakundangang paglabag sa ating karapatan.
Noong 1998, may tatlong policy paper akong isinulat tungkol sa VFA nang ako’y nagtatrabaho pa sa IBON Foundation, isang kilalang research think-tank. Sa aking muling pagbasa sa una kong isinulat noong Abril 1998 (”The US-RP Visiting Forces Agreement,” IBON Special Release, 18 pahina), naalala ko ang diskurso sa espesyal na relasyon kung ang isang bansa’y tunay na malaya (na siyang ipinagpipilitan ng mga nasa kapangyarihan na totoo para sa Pilipinas): ”(S)pecial relations have no place in a country that claims to be independent. Diplomatic courtesy should be extended to all friendly countries, and friendly relations must be established on the basis of mutual benefit sand the noncompromise of each other’s sovereignty. (p. 5)”
Bakit ba may pagtinging binigyan ng espesyal na pagtrato ang US sa pamamagitan ng VFA? Mainam na balikan ang ilang kontrobersyal na nilalaman ng VFA na binubuo ng siyam na artikulo:
- ”United States personnel shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations upon entering and departing the Philippines. (Art. III, Sec. 1)
- “United States civilian personnel shall be exempt from visa requirements but shall present, upon demand, valid passports upon entry and departure of the Philippines. (Art III, Sec. 4)
- “Philippine authorities shall accept as valid, without test or fee, a driving permit or license issued by the appropriate United States authority to United States personnel for the operation of military or official vehicles. (Art. IV, Sec. 1)
- “Vehicles owned by the Government of the United States need not be registered, but shall have appropriate markings. (Art. IV, Sec. 2)
- “When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph 3(b)(2) of this article. (Art. V, Sec. 3.e, tingnan ang susunod na probisyon para sa teksto ng naturang talata)
- ”United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to…offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty. (Art. V, Sec. 3.b.2)
- “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. (Art. V, Sec. 6)
- “The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. (Art. V, Sec. 10)
- “United States Government equipment, materials, supplies and other property imported into or acquired in the Philippines by or on behalf of the United States armed forces in connection with activities to which this agreement applies, shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes and other similar charges. (Art. VII, Sec. 1)
- “Reasonable quantities of personal baggage, personal effects, and other property for the personal use of United States personnel may be imported into and used in the Philippines free of all duties, taxes and other similar charges during the period of their temporary stay in the Philippines…The exportation of such property and of property acquired in the Philippines by United States personnel shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes, and other similar charges. (Art. VII, Sec. 2)
- “Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces shall not be subject to the payment of landing or port fees, navigation or overflight charges, or tolls or other use charges, including light and harbor dues, while in the Philippines…Vessels owned or operated by the United States solely on United States Government non-commercial service shall not be subject to compulsory pilotage at Philippine ports.” (Art. VIII, Sec. 3)
Malinaw sa mga nabanggit na probisyon ang espesyal na pagtratong ibinibigay sa mga tropang Amerikano sa kasalukuyan, salamat sa VFA. Bagama’t susing usapin sa kasalukuyan ang kustodiya ng Amerikanong sundalong napatunayang nanghalay sa isang Pilipina, kailangang tandaang ang panawagang ibasura sa VFA ay nasa konteksto ng pakikibaka para sa pambansang kalayaan.
Maraming implikasyon ang VFA hindi lang sa soberanya ng bansa kahit na ito ang pangunahing isyung dapat tutukan.
Ang pagpasok ng mga tropang Amerikano ay nangangahulugan ng paggamit ng limitadong rekurso natin tulad ng lupa, at kailangang tandaang ang pagbisita nila ay walang takdang panahon.
Nariyan din ang posibilidad ng pagpasok ng weapons of mass destruction at mga aksidenteng maaaring idulot ng mga ito.
Kailangan ding idiin ang paglalagay sa Pilipinas sa isang delikadong sitwasyon kung ang EU ay maglunsad ng isang giyera ng agresyon.
At, siyempre pa, tulad ng naranasan natin noong ang mga base militar ng EU ay nasa Pilipinas pa, malaki ang posibilidad ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao at pang-aabuso (tulad ng panggagahasa) sa kamay ng mga sundalong Amerikano.
Ganito ang konteksto ng pakikibaka noon para ibasura ang VFA. Malinaw na kailangang ipagpatuloy at muling ulitin ang mga argumento laban dito ngayon.
Para makipag-ugnayan sa awtor, pumunta sa www.dannyarao.com.
Ginoong Danny,
Napakaganda sa sinabi mo, “Special relations have no place in a country that claims to be independent.” Special relations encouraged preferential treatment and we know today that we put our women like Nicole in harm’s way and greatly compromised our justice system (to put Americans in jail). It is so sad to look back how then DFA Secretary Siazon urged for the signing of VFA for such flimsy reason of modernizing our military and the military aid. To-date, the Filipinos did not benefit from either the military aid nor our needed military equipment (still junks) to protect our huge seawater and fishing territory.
The VFA is anchored on Mutual Defense treaty and yet US recognized China’s claim on Kalayaan reefs instead of supporting Philippine position. It is so ironic.
You have to wonder how creative are the Americans to pin down detention of Filipinos by US authorities under VFA2 on the reason that Federal cannot alter power expressly granted to the States under US Constitution. And yet we are so damned in our nuclear free Constitutional provision in regards to VFA1.
May kasabihan, “We are cooked in our own lard.”
Sana nakinig ang ating pamahalaan sa mga sa mga ulat na ginawa ng sariling mamamayan na katulad mo sa IBON Foundation labing isang taon na nakalipas. Sana matutunan ng pamahalaan sa kasulukuyan na kailangan gawin tama ang anumang pagkakamali noon.
More power to you!
Reply: Thank you for your insightful comment. It was only in 1991 that the Senate rejected the extension of the 1946 Military Bases Agreement (MBA). Let’s hope that the abrogation of both the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does not take that long. Then again…
masyado kasi tayong mga Pilipino na umaasa at takot sa mga kano!!!
Sagot: Kung may mga Pilipinong umaasa o takot sa mga Kano, mayroon din namang lumalaban at patuloy na nananawagan ng pagbabasura sa mga maka-isang panig na tratado tulad ng Visiting Forces Agreement at Mutual Defense Treaty. Kung susuriin natin ang ating kasaysayan, kapansin-pansin ang paglaban ng masa sa dayuhang pananakop bagama’t ang mga nasa kapangyarihan ay piniling magpaalipin kapalit ng ilang ganansiya.