Case Summary (G.R. No. 175888)
Romulo–Kenney Agreements and CA Ruling
On December 19 and 22, 2006, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Interior and Local Government and the U.S. Embassy concluded memoranda placing Smith in U.S. custody at the Embassy compound. SMith’s captors—national police bearing DILG orders—transferred him on December 29, 2006. The CA, finding the custody dispute moot, dismissed Smith’s petition for certiorari on January 2, 2007.
Issues Presented
- Whether custody transfer under the Romulo–Kenney Agreements violated the VFA and, by extension, the 1987 Constitution.
- Whether the VFA itself is void or unconstitutional under Art. XVIII § 25 (foreign troops).
- Whether U.S. Supreme Court’s Medellin v. Texas affects VFA enforceability between the Philippines and the U.S.
Majority’s Constitutionality Analysis of the VFA
– Art. XVIII § 25 requires treaties permitting foreign troops to be “duly concurred in by the Senate” and “recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”
– VFA was concurred in by the Philippine Senate (1998) and certified by U.S. representatives as a binding international agreement, satisfying § 25.
– VFA implements the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (1951), itself ratified by both Senates, so VFA presence of U.S. forces is “allowed under” that earlier treaty.
– Equal protection and court‐rule arguments (Arts. III § 1; VIII § 5) do not invalidate VFA: differential treatment of visiting forces is recognized under international law and adopted by the Constitution (Art. II § 2).
Custody Versus Detention under VFA Art. V(6) and (10)
– Art. V § 6 grants U.S. custody from offense commission to end of judicial proceedings, with an obligation to make accused available “in time” for trial.
– Art. V § 10 distinguishes post-conviction “detention by Philippine authorities” in agreed facilities.
– Romulo–Kenney Agreements placed Smith in U.S. Embassy custody post‐conviction, violating Art. V § 10’s requirement of Philippine-administered detention facilities.
Impact of Medellin v. Texas on VFA
– Medellin (U.S. Sup. Ct., 2008) holds that treaties are not domestic law unless self-executing or implemented by U.S. legislation.
– VFA is “self-executing” because it was intended to implement obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty and U.S. fully complied with trial custody obligations.
– VFA was transmitted under the Case-Zablocki Act (1 U.S.C. § 112b) within 60 days, fulfilling U.S. implementation requirements for executive agreements.
– RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty itself was ratified by the U.S. Senate (March 20, 1952).
En Banc Holding and Relief
– VFA upheld as constitutional and binding under the 1987 Constitution.
– Romulo–Kenney Agreements declared inconsistent with VFA Art. V § 10 and thus void.
– Secretary of Foreign Affairs ordered to negotiate appropriate Philippine-administered detention facilities under VFA Art. V § 10; status quo (Makati jail custody) to be maintained pending new agreement.
– CA directed to resolve pending contempt petition and Smith
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 175888)
Procedural History
- Three consolidated petitions for certiorari and review of the Court of Appeals’ decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212 dated January 2, 2007 (G.R. Nos. 175888, 176051, 176222).
- Originated from the conviction of Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith by the RTC of Makati, with petitions filed by the rape victim, various petitioners including former Senators and civil society groups, and intervention by the Department of Foreign Affairs.
- Issue on custody transfer arising from agreements purportedly made under the VFA and subsequent Romulo-Kenney Agreements.
- Heard on oral arguments on September 19, 2008, with memoranda filed thereafter; resolution on February 3, 2009 raising questions on Medellin v. Texas.
Facts
- L/Cpl. Daniel J. Smith, United States Marine Corps member, was charged with rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code for alleged sexual assault of Suzette S. Nicolas on November 1, 2005, within Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
- Accused Smith and others were granted U.S. custody pending proceedings under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
- Trial was transferred from RTC Zambales to RTC Makati for security; the U.S. Government produced Smith at every required hearing.
- On December 4, 2006, RTC Makati (Branch 139) convicted Smith of rape, acquitted co-accused, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties, ordered indemnification of ₱50,000 compensatory and ₱50,000 moral damages, and temporarily committed him to Makati City Jail pending agreement on long-term facilities.
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) Provisions
- Entered into on February 10, 1998 between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America.
- Article V, paragraph 6: custody over U.S. personnel resides with U.S. military authorities from commission of offense until completion of judicial proceedings; Philippines may request position on custody in extraordinary cases.
- Article V, paragraph 10: detention or confinement post-conviction to be carried out by Philippine authorities in facilities agreed upon by both parties; U.S. personnel serving sentences in the Philippines have right to visits and material assistance; Philippine police and jail authorities to have access to ensure compliance.
RTC Makati Decision (December 4, 2006)
- Acquitted S/Sgt. Carpenter, L/Cpl. Silkwood, and L/Cpl. Duplantis for insufficient evidence.
- Found L/Cpl. Daniel J. Smith guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a), as amended by R.A. 8353; sentenced to reclusion perpetua with accessory penalties under Article 41, RPC.
- Ordered Smith to serve sentence in agreed-upon facilities under Article V, paragraph 10 of the VFA; temporarily committed to Makati City Jail pending final agreement.
- Awarded ₱100,000 damages in favor of Suzette S. Nicolas.
Romulo-Kenney Agreements (December 2006)
- December 19, 2006 Agreement: Smith to be returned to U.S. military custody at th