Even before the
death of Laude, the US
has been talking with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of
National Defense about clarifying implementation of various aspects of the VFA.
But the Laude case has revived calls to amend or even abrogate the VFA itself.
Rappler's Carmela
Fonbuena joined the roundtable with Goldberg on Friday, October 24. Here are
excerpts of the discussion.
On the
transfer of Pemberton to Camp
Aguinaldo.
We need to always
be conscious of the feelings here among people. We took this step – allowing
within our custody under the VFA – a suspect to be moved to a sovereign
Philippine soil. It is an unusual step, one meant to build confidence that we
understand the situation here.
How is
this different from the 2006 rape case of former US
Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, who was detained inside the US embassy?
I’m not going to
comment on the earlier case, the Corporal Smith case. But what I will say is we
went beyond, I think, our obligations under VFA by reaching an agreement with
the Philippines that allowed
the suspect to be moved to a facility at Camp
Aguinaldo that maintains the
principles of VFA – remaining under US custody – but also did it in a
way that's sympathetic to public opinion here. It is sympathetic to the
government and judicial process here, assuring the people that the suspect will
be here for the length of hearings and, possibly, if it will come to a trial.
Will the US give the Philippines custody over Pemberton
if and when a warrant of arrest is issued?
We'll follow the
VFA and the VFA gives custody to the US through the judicial process.
I'm going to be very theoretical because nobody has been charged and nobody has
been indicted. There is a suspect. But in a case such as one where a US service person is involved, the US retains
custody and has obligations under the VFA to make sure that a person identified
would then be present for all hearings and so forth, and the witnesses would as
well. Those are our obligations under the VFA, and we intend to follow them
just as we expect that all the provisions will be followed. We have to
understand that we have a legally constituted agreement that is part of the
rule of law and we are very interested in that. I know the Philippine is as
well.
Does the
transfer of Pemberton to Camp
Aguinaldo shut down talks
over custody issue?
We intend to
follow the VFA. And the US
retains custody through the judicial process.
Do you
consider this an ‘extraordinary case’?
I’m not going to
judge. Certainly it might be a question or an appeal. But I can tell you that
under VFA it is clear that the custody remains with the US. They can
make the request if that is what it says in VFA.
The US has the option to say yes or no to any
request from the Philippines
for custody?
That is my
understanding.
How does
the US
interpret the phrase “completion of judicial proceedings”?
I think the
judicial process includes the entire judicial process, the trial as well as the
appeal that might take place.
ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: US Ambassador Philip Goldberg says 'VFA as it is' should be followed in the case of US Marine Joseph Scott Pemberton. Photo by Mark Cristino/Rappler
On Justice
Secretary Leila De Lima’s statement that the executive branch is reviewing the
implementation of the VFA because of ambiguous provisions.
The Philippines is
free to raise any issues that they want but that doesn’t mean on the other side
that it is immediately agreed to. There are two sides to an agreement. I think
we should separate that from the current situation. The current situation is
that we have to apply VFA as it is. We have enough clarity in the steps under
way for example. The Philippine government has said, as we have, that custody
goes to the US
and that jurisdiction will be applied here.
We need to follow
the VFA at the moment. While we’re always open to talking to our friends and
allies about these issues, this shouldn’t be done in the middle of something
that we have to handle through rule of law. We can continue talking about it,
but it’s not part of this process. It’s part of the process between the
countries to clarify what these things mean. If the Philippines
wants to bring additional things to the table as the Secretary of justice
suggested, that’s the Philippines’
right.
On
proposals to abrogate the VFA.
I
can’t imagine abrogating VFA but i don’t want to get into a political debate
here. I took note that the President said, "No, it should not be." We
believe it should not be. From my point of view, it’s an agreement and it shouldn’t
be abrogated. It allows us to do something that’s important for both countries.
That is to ensure mutual security and to carry out exercises.
Last year in Leyte we were able to deploy as quickly as we did [in the
aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda] because we have a VFA. We wouldn’t put soldiers,
airmen, sailors, marines into a situation where there is no certainty about
process and what happens, and the rights and obligations. We do this all around
the world.
On the
involvement of the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS).
Our work to date
through the VFA has allowed us to identify the suspect, identify witnesses, to
cooperate and collaborate with the Philippine National Police. And quite
frankly I don't know if that would have happened if it hadn't been for our
cooperation with investigators from the NCIS.
This case may not
have been resolved as quickly or as effectively without our cooperation. That’s
a very important point. It is our obligation obviously, but it is also our
instinct. Our instinct is to actually pursue justice. i think most people who
know the US and the US military
would agree with that proposition.
What
constitutes justice for Jennifer Laude?
Somebody is a
suspect at the moment and hasn’t been accused of a crime. What constitutes
justice is that if a crime occurs, that the person or people responsible are
found. I’m speaking hypothetically here because I don’t want to talk about a
particular person because nobody has been accused of anything at this point,
but that first, the facts are established. There is a judicial process that is
good and is according to law. Justice is served by finding the truth and
punishing those who are responsible for crimes. That is what we are committed
to doing in this or any other case.
On the
rights of the US
Marine as a suspect.
We’re sympathetic
to the Filipino people but we also have to observe the rule of law and our
obligations to a member of the US
armed services. This is the commitment we make to the American people and
American Congress, to do those things as government representatives.
How will
the case affect EDCA?
On EDCA, we have
an agreement and I understand it's before the Supreme Court here for
consideration on certain legal grounds. I'm really not in a position to comment
because it's in a court here. But it's a fully legal agreement as far as we are
concerned. We went to great lengths when we negotiated the EDCA to make sure
that the provisions of the EDCA from the Philippine side were constitutional.
But that’s for the court to decide, not for me or anyone else.
