Philippine civil society groups continue the clamour for justice after its own government authorised the transfer of convict Lance Corporal Daniel Smith to US custody on December 29, 2006, after he was found guilty of raping “Nicole.”

This prompted feminist activist, human rights lawyer, and Nicole's private prosecutor Evalyn Ursua to file contempt charges against government officials Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno, Presidential Legal Counsel Sergio Apostol, and Makati City jail warden Superintendent Delvic Oreiro. Nicole, together with former Senators Jovito Salonga and Wigberto Tañada, serve as petitioners in the contempt charge filed before the Court of Appeals in January 2007.

According to Ursua, Smith is an “escaped prisoner.” As such, the Court of Appeals must declare his conviction executory and must issue a warrant for his arrest, she added.

Nicole (not her real name), a 23-year-old Filipina, filed rape charges against United States (US) military servicemen Lance Corporals Keith Silkwood, Daniel Smith, and Dominic Duplantis, and Staff Sergeant Chad Carpentier in November 2005. The rape supposedly occurred at Subic Bay, a former US naval base, and now the site of US military exercises as allowed by the Philippine-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The court, in its verdict read on December 4, 2006, found US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while the three others were acquitted.

Prior to the court's decision, Isis International-Manila had the chance to talk to Evalyn Ursua as she spoke of Nicole’s case and its implications to the women's issues in the Philippines.

Isis International-Manila [Isis]: What makes Nicole’s case a landmark case in the Philippines?

Evalyn Ursua [Ursua]: This case has foreign elements—the fact that the accused are US servicemen and the fact that the VFA is being enforced. These two factors make this case significant in the judicial history of the country.

This is the first ever rape case involving US servicemen that reached the Philippine courts. We know of so many cases of abuse committed against Philippine women in the past, but those cases never got to court. Those cases either were settled out of court, or the soldiers were never charged, or shipped out of the country, or the victims simply did not report the violation.

In this sense, Nicole’s case is a landmark case.

Isis: You talked about the VFA. Can you further explain its components and its implications to the country, in general, and to women, in particular? How is it pertinent in Nicole’s case?

Ursua: The Visiting Forces Agreement is an agreement that was concurred into by the Philippine Senate in 1998. From the point of view of the Philippines, this is a treaty; but from the standpoint of the US government, it is simply an executive agreement. And so, the nature of the agreement has always been an issue for many who are in the know about the lopsidedness of the agreement.

This agreement allows the US to conduct military exercises on Philippine soil. The scope of the exercises is undefined. It is so broad that anything and everything can be done under the framework of the VFA because of the term “exercises” used in the agreement.

Under the agreement, there are provisions on criminal jurisdiction related to the commission of offences on Philippine soil by US servicemen. And the criminal jurisdiction provisions in the VFA define who should take jurisdiction over the offence, who should have custody of the accused military personnel, how the process should be done in terms of prosecution as well as serving of sentence, among others. In Nicole’s case, the provisions of criminal jurisdiction were enforced.

When the US servicemen were charged of raping Nicole, the US government actually immediately took custody of the four accused US marines.

The Philippine government asked for custody but the US insisted that it should have custody because of the provision under the criminal jurisdiction part of the VFA that says, “...immediate custody shall be with US military authorities, if they so request...”

So the issue in this case is, one, the interpretation of that particular provision; and two, the way the provisions were formulated.

Isis: Does this mean there is a need for the women's movement to refine its advocacy around violence against women (VAW), particularly in terms of having to look at the laws that have been put into place? If so, how do you propose to proceed?

Ursua: Yes, of course. We have a long way to go in terms of educating the public about violence against women. In Nicole’s case, the many misconceptions that we thought the public does not subscribe to anymore came out to the fore—in the discussion of this case, in the reporting of this case, in the way this case was tried inside the courtroom.

The victim-blaming, the condemnation, the character assassinations that came out against Nicole, that she was a woman of loose morals; a prostitute, etc.—all these things somehow affected the conduct of the trial, and shaped public opinion about Nicole and the truthfulness of her claims.

Maybe in the long run, we could analyse the case’s impact on other survivors of rape and on the public consciousness, in general, and about violence against women, in particular.

Isis: What are the implications of this case to women's issues in the Philippines?

Ursua: This case, being so high profile and so controversial, has provided a very rare opportunity for us to link the issues that we have been working on. This case illustrates how women's human rights can actually operate in a rape case.

This case shows the connection between the US military and abuse against women, particularly in Third World countries. Nicole’s rape, no matter how the accused claimed it as consensual, exemplifies how the US military uses women in the Third World for their gratification.

The case can also be linked to militarisation. The presence of the US military in countries like the Philippines impacts on the women and can be directly connected to women’s exploitation. It can be further related to issues of peace, security, and the promotion of women's human rights.

Sources:
“Contempt raps filed vs Palace executives for Smith 'escape'” from GMANews.TV, posted on January 2, 2007, <http://www.gmanews.tv/story/25399/Contempt-raps-filed-vs-Palace-executives-for-Smith-escape>.
For more information about the case, go to The Subic Rape Case, <http://subicrapecase.wordpress.com> .
For the full text of the Visiting Forces Agreement, visit <http://subicrapecase.wordpress.com/full-text-of-republic-act-8505-rape-victim-assistance-and-protection-act-of-1998/>.
For the Subic rape case timeline, read “Timeline: Subic rape case, Nov 3, 2005 - Dec 4, 2006” from GMANEWS.TV, posted on December 4, 2006, <http://www.gmanews.tv/breakingnews.php?sec=13&id=22715>.