Catanduanes Forum

The RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the Philippines and the United States consisting of two separate agreement documents. The first of these documents is commonly referred to as "the VFA" or "VFA-1"[1], and the second as "VFA-2" or "the Counterpart Agreement".[2] Both documents became effective on May 27, 1999, upon ratification by the Philippine Senate. [3] [8], [10] The United States government regards these documents as Executive Agreements not requiring approval by the U.S. Senate. [3] [42]

The term "VFA" is usually used in the Philippines to refer specifically to just the first of these two documents, which has been the subject of continuing controversy in the Philippines.

Arguments of PRO-VFA

 The VFA is a good deal because we are not getting any less than the rest. The US had made similar agreements with other countries.

 Ratifying the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) will reaffirm friendly relations between the Philippines and the United States.

 The VFA would define the movement of American forces in the Philippines. The VFA would provide the guidelines for determining the legal status of American soldiers in the Philippines during joint military exercises provided under the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). It also provides the framework for continued defense relationship between the US and the Philippines aimed at preserving the security and stability in the Asia-Pacific, he said.

 One of the salient features of the VFA, is respect for law as the US personnel are prohibited from participating in any political activity in the Philippines and in any activity inconsistent with the spirit of the VFA.

 A continuing bone of contention in the VFA is criminal jurisdiction over US troops. But the VFA does have specific rules on criminal jurisdiction which are based on a standard framework followed by the United States in similar arrangements with about 80 other countries. The VFA also provides mechanisms to settle disputes over criminal jurisdiction. Diplomatic rhetoric notwithstanding, relations between the Philippines and its former colonizer since the shutdown of the bases have been frosty. Ratifying the VFA will show that the two nations are ready for a more mature partnership.

 The existence of the VFA 2,which is the counterpart made by the Philippines to the original VFA, promotes the welfare of the Filipino. VFA 2 is a "sweetener" to the "one-sided" VFA 1 that would allow the resumption of joint exercises in the country by Philippine and American troops. VFA 2 grants benefits to Filipino soldiers training in the United States. The second VFA prescribes the legal status of Filipino military personnel visiting the US for joint military exercises under the 1951 MDT

 Under the counterpart agreement, the Philippines will exercise jurisdiction over any Filipino soldier who commits a crime in the US, except in cases where the US, "after special consideration, determines that US interests require the exercise of federal or state jurisdiction."

 Philippine military personnel can travel to the US in emergency cases without passports or visas. While in the US, they will be allowed to import articles and send these back to the Philippines free of duties and taxes.

 In case the US government requests the removal of a Filipino soldier from its territory, the Philippine government "shall be responsible for receiving the person concerned within its territory or otherwise disposing of said person outside of the US."

 The counterpart agreement includes 10 provisions, including two which are not present in the VFA.
One allows Philippine military personnel to use US military service exchanges, commissaries and recreational facilities, while the other requires the US to provide medical care for Filipino soldiers in American military hospitals

 So far, only three countries have similar arrangements with the US: Singapore, Spain and Israel.

 Joint exercises with the United States will help improve the capabilities of the country's poorly armed military forces.

 The Philippines is not permanently bound to the proposed RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement as it can terminate the pact if this proves ''inimical'' to the country's national security and welfare. All the government has to do to terminate the pact is to give Washington a written notice. The pact then ceases to be effective 180 days later.

 VFA does not violate the country's sovereignty because the Philippine government will still have to approve the entry and all activities of US forces in the country. The Philippine government will not allow any visit by US personnel to be conducted in derogation of Philippine sovereignty.

 The VFA does not call for the reestablishment of an agreement on US military bases, pointing out that the Senate's rejection of the extension of the 1947 bases treaty had put a stop to such a move.

 The VFA will not allow unrestricted entry to US vessels and aircraft, nor unhampered access to any airport or 22 seaports in the country.

 The VFA will not require the military vessels in the exercises to be conducted here to carry nuclear weapons - a fear often raised by anti-VFA groups. Most of the exercises are conventional in nature and do not all involve training in biological, chemical, or even nuclear warfare.

 Conducting war games with US forces is important in upgrading the capabilities of Filipino soldiers in land, sea and air operations, which the Americans have perfected. War games, in fact, constitute a transfer of technology; and the Armed Forces of the Philippines can only benefit from the infusion of sophisticated military know-how from the troops of a country that just happens to be the planet's sole, undisputed superpower.

 In addition, the VFA reinforces the long-standing alliance between the United States and the Philippines and sends out a strong signal to the other powers in Asia not to mess around with the Filipinos because they - just like the Japanese, the South Koreans and, to a still significant extent, the Taiwanese - are under the protective cover of the Americans.

 In explaining the provisions of the agreement on the question of sovereignty, Ambassador Clemencio Fortu Montesa, DFA spokesman on VFA matters, said the United States' affirmation of its recognition of the prerogatives of the Philippines as a sovereign country leaves no doubt in the clear wordings of the document. "All military exercises and any activities of US defense personnel could only be possible if approved by the Philippine government," Montesa pointed out. He said in no way would the government allow visit of US personnel to the country in disparagement of our sovereignty

 Some people fear that the VFA might be used as an excuse to permanently station US troops and military equipment in the country in place of the booted US bases. This is not possible. The VFA is about the treatment of US military personnel while in the country on bilateral exercises.

 The anti-VFA groups' fear of nuclear weapons entering the country is allayed by the government's authority to deny such entry under the agreement. Since 1987 when our constitution adapted freedom from nuclear weapons as a state of policy, some 600 foreign vessels have passed Philippine waters or made port calls with the approval from the government under certain conditions. No incident involving foreign vessels - US, British, or French - carrying nuclear weapons ever occurred, according to official records. US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and Defense Secretary William Cohen have publicly assured the Philippine government the United States would respect the country's prohibition against nuclear weapons.

 Another touchy issue that disturbs some sector is the suspicion that the VFA may grant criminal immunity to members of US troops. In a recent television interview, DFA Secretary Domingo L. Siazon clarified that the guidelines on the prosecution of erring US personnel ensure that justice is served for every offense committed here. He said that, precisely, the agreement would establish the manner of disposition of criminal cases against members of US troops. No US troop member who violates Philippine law will ever escape justice under the VFA, Siazon pointed out.

 Close aides of President Joseph Estrada says that VFA will promote regional security as well as pump-prime the economy. In separate interviews, National Security Adviser Alexander Aguirre and Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora explained that provisions of the agreement would assure the Philippines of much-needed help from the Americans. Aguirre said the VFA would enable the cash-strapped government to improve the fighting capability of Filipino soldiers.Besides this, he said that the presence of American forces here would thwart attempts by external aggressors. "We may have potential threats... they can occur anytime," he said. For his part, Zamora said the pact would allow Americans to dock their naval vessels in local ports, thus generating more jobs in terms of ship repairs and provisions. "Lahat makikinabang, Lahat mangangalakal (Everybody will benefit. Everybody will be engaged in commerce)," Zamora said in an interview. However, Aguirre refused to identify who such aggressors might be "because our policy is to be friendly with everybody in Asia-Pacific and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)." He also expressed belief that the VFA would be beneficial for the entire ASEAN, saying regional stability would result in more economic activity. On the presence of nuclear weapons, Aguirre said the US does not allow any of its ships and aircraft to carry nuclear weapons during training exercises.

 After the ratification of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), come the rewards. The United States Congress is now arranging military assistance to the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the form of navy and coast guard ships, attack aircraft and helicopters . Being considered for transfer are excess US defense equipment such as point class Coast Guard cutters, Vietnam war-vintage UH-1 helicopters and fighter A-4 aircraft.

Arguments of ANTI-VFA

 The VFA contributes to the erosion of Philippine sovereignty by denying our government the power to exercise full jurisdiction within Philippine territory. As it stands, US forces will be exempt from taxes, charges, duties, visa regulation and accountability to Philippine justice system for crimes committed on Philippine soil.

 The application of the VFA constitutes an affront to the dignity of all Filipinos. By granting visiting forces the privileges mentioned above, a disparity is created between the rights and dignity of Filipinos and the rights and dignity of Americans. True friendship should be marked by mutual respect for one another's prerogatives and laws and the willingness to abide by them when one is the guest of a host nation.

 The VFA poses a threat to national security. As it stands, the US military has no obligation to declare whether or not nuclear weapons are on board vessels entering the Philippine area of responsibility. This makes a mockery of the constitutional provision declaring the Philippines a nuclear-free zone. Under the VFA, Philippine authorities waive the right and obligation to conduct searches and investigations of US vessels, vehicles and equipment for potential threats to our national wellbeing. Our country's security cannot be assured under such an agreement.

 The VFA will prove detrimental to the welfare of Filipino women and children. Past experience has witnessed the growth of prostitution industry in areas which have welcomed the US military presence. The appalling exploitation of Filipinos young and old both sexes has been well documented. This must be taken into account.

 The military maneuvers in our country can only hurt our already damaged natural environment and ecosystems. The US military presence will inevitably carry an environment cost. Yet, under the agreement, the US is under no obligation to "clean up its act" or pay for the rehabilitation of areas damaged by the deployment of high powered weaponry or improper waste management.

De La Salle University (DLSU) stand on VFA

 The following provisions are most objectionable and constitute the basis for the people's outrage over the VFA:

1. Art. II, Sec.1 which allows the entry of US personnel without any visa and passport documentations.

2. Art. VII and Art. VIII which allows tax exemptions for US military supplies, materials, landing or port fees, navigation and overflight charges, tolls and other similar charges.

3. Art. 5, Sec 3 and Art. 5, Sec. 6 which gives virtually full legal immunity of US personnel for crimes committed in the country as the US will have jurisdiction and custody in almost all cases involving US personnel performing official duty.

 Considering its social impact, the VFA will prove to be a very costly and dangerous treaty. It paves the way for US military intervention in our internal affairs. It may very well make us accomplices to wars of aggression and intervention in other Asian or Middle Eastern countries as was done in Korea and Vietnam.

 The VFA also exposes the country to potential nuclear disasters as US forces will neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons in their ships. The so-called Joint US-RP military exercises will only result to massive displacement of peasants and rural folk as well as intensified militarization of the countryside.

 The easy access of US servicemen will result to the proliferation of prostitution, drugs, gambling and other antisocial activities dubbed as "Rest and Recreation".

 The US will not protect the Philippines from the US itself which is the No. 1 imperialist enemy of the Filipino people and from other countries in the region where the US has larger interests than in the Philippines.

 The US will not protect the Philippines from a larger US friend like China because the latter has a larger market and larger field of investments to offer to US monopolies. Moreover, the US and China can collaborate to exploit any oil resources in the Spratley islands. The US is using the China scare only to play the role of "bantay salakay".

 The US will not protect the Philippines from Japan. In fact, the latter is the principal partner of the US in oppressing and exploiting the people in the region. The US will not protect the Philippines from Indonesia because the latter has made available to the US a larger market and field of investment and oil resources.

 The inequality of the treaty is very clear. While the Philippines considers the VFA as a treaty, the American government merely considers it an executive agreement. The United States' regard for it as a mere executive agreement and therefore not needing ratification by its own Senate was against the provisions of the Philippine Constitution.

 It violates the Philippine Constitution. 'Article 18, Sec. 25 of the Constitution provides that there shall be no more foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the country except by virtue of a treaty.

 The agreement favored the United States since it specified that American soldiers could not be tried under the Philippine judiciary system unless by virtue of an executive order. Even in the case of a trial by executive order, the accord provides that a US soldier may be tried in the Philippines only within a year's time, after which the US government is no longer compelled to ensure his appearance in court.

 Plenary debates have shown that the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement revives many of the provisions of the 1991 RP-US Military Bases Agreement which was rejected by the Philippine Senate. Discussed under Article 5 of the VFA and under Article 4 of the rejected MBA, criminal jurisdiction remains a thorny issue because of the debate over who should have the right to discipline American military troops who have violated Philippine laws.

 Despite US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear arms in its warship, it is an open secret that many of these vessels are equipped with nuclear missiles. By waiving our right to inspect foreign ships, are we not unwittingly condoning an outright violation of our Constitution and an infringement of our sovereignty?

 The Catholic Church here and its thousands of members stand united against the VFA. They want to keep the hard-fought freedom of the country and not again be dominated by foreign elements nor be a testing ground for military weapons.

 Until now, former American military bases in our country are yet to be purified of the lethal wastes left behind by the bases. And the United States is not taking responsibility. Until now, the agony of loss of lives, the future and dignity of Filipino men, women and children abused like animals by military personnel have yet to ease. And the United States will not take responsibility.

 The US military occupation of the Philippines had proved to be so traumatic that many Filipinos still seethe when they recall how, for example, a US Air Force sentry shot to death a Filipino scavenger at Clark after he allegedly mistook the native intruder for a pig. What further outrages Filipinos is that GIs who had committed atrocities in the Philippines escaped punishment on the strength of extraterritorial immunity - the same kind of legal protection that the VFA proposes to extend to visiting US servicemen when they come here to take part in war games.

 The extent of the access of visiting US forces including the number of forces is not clear in the provisions

 To suggest that the VFA's approval will somehow put the United States under obligation to come to the defense of the Philippines in times of need is to foist a grand deception on the Filipino people. The proposed agreement merely defines how American or Filipinos troops will be treated by the host country during joint military exercises. There is no mention whatsoever about mutual defense or military assistance in case of threats from a third country.

 There is an existing pact that mentions military cooperation between the two nations in case of threats to national security. It is called the Mutual Defense Treaty. But it didn't help keep Malaysia from holding on to what is part of Philippine territory: Sabah.

 Some of VFA's objectionable provisions:

1. Article I defines "United States personnel" as "US military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government." But it does not define "activities". And what does "temporarily" mean -- can't the agreement state a more definite period?

2. Article III would exempt US military personnel from passport and visa regulations. It would also exempt US civilian personnel from visa requirements. Why the special privilege? The exemption from passport and visa requirements is a special privilege that even diplomats entering the Philippines do not enjoy. Will US military and civilian personnel enjoy a status superior to that of diplomats? The undetermined length of stay of US soldiers who are exempted from Philippine passport and visa requirements could pose a big problem to Philippine authorities.

3. Article III also says that it is the US commanding officer of a military aircraft or vessel who shall conduct a quarantine inspection of US aircraft or vessels or cargo aboard them. Why a US officer? Why not a Filipino officer when they will be in Philippine territory?

4. Under Article V, crimes committed by US personnel may be considered "official acts" when the US military commander issues an "official duty certificate", thus placing the erring US personnel under the jurisdiction of US authorities. This would place them beyond the reach of Philippine laws although they would still be in Philippine territory. The provision on the "official duty certificate" would see a repetition of cases in the past, when the RP-US Bases Agreement was still in force, where US military commanders conveniently resorted to the ODCs to shield erring American soldiers from prosecution for crimes they committed while stationed in the Philippines.

5. Article VII would exempt from Philippine duties, taxes and other charges government equipment, materials, supplies and other property imported into or acquired in the Philippines for the use of US personnel. Why?

6. Article VIII on the movement of vessels or aircraft operated for or by the US armed forces is worded vaguely. It does not identify the areas and does not state the limits on the US forces' access to and movement within the Philippines. Does this mean that US forces would have unhampered access to and unrestricted movement within the Philippines? The agreement does not state the number of American forces who will be allowed to enter the Philippines. Neither does it specify the length of time they will be allowed to stay in the country.

7. Article IX, on "Duration and Termination", provides only that "this agreement shall remain in force until the expiration of 180 days from the date on which either party gives the other party notice in writing that it desires to terminate the agreement." The agreement, not having a definite termination date, has an indefinite life. The agreement makes no mention of nuclear weapons which are banned by the Philippine Constitution. It does not require commanders of US vessels and aircraft to declare that they are free from nuclear weapons. The Visiting Forces Agreement would give US troops virtually unlimited access to the Philippines for unspecified periods of time. It would convert the entire country into one major US base as US ships can dock in any of its 22 major ports. Are we going to allow the very real possibility of violations of our Constitution's ban on nuclear weapons just to please a military ally? Are we going to give up our sovereign right to try people who commit crimes on Philippine territory in exchange for promises of military assistance and other secret quid pro quo from the United States?

Analysis of PRO-VFA

The main argument of those who are for the VFA is that the Philippines would benefit from the joint military exercises that the VFA is promoting. With the VFA, the Armed Forces of the Philippines would learn the new tactics and techniques in military warfare and combat. The Philippines would also benefit from the presence of the US troops here, since it will give a clear signal to our more powerful neighboring countries particularly China, not to push us around. This resulting from the continuous establishment of Chinese strongholds on our reefs. Thus, the VFA can ensure the political stability of the region.

Come to think of it, the VFA is really not that bad. Those who favor this pact has good intentions in mind. The problem lies in the text of the VFA itself. Some issues are not clear and some provisions are too general. This will cause many loopholes when a certain situation occurs in the country and the VFA text needs to be consulted. That is why those who are against the VFA are ranting. There would be a dual interpretation once a case results. Like in Article 1, which states that

"As used in this Agreement, "United States personnel" means United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government."
It does not specify what kind of activities they will be doing while they are here. The statement is too vague and may allow the pact to be corrupted by the American government. Some of the provisions should be revised.

The VFA was also instituted to reaffirm the desire of both the government of the Philippines and the United States of America to strengthen international and regional security in the Pacific area. It also aims to promotes their common security interests. These two ideas "strengthen international and regional security in the Pacific area" and "promote common security interests", are the main reasons why the Philippine government is for the VFA. The VFA text is just about the how the U.S. troops are to be treated when they are here. What the Philippine government needs to ensure is that the activities that they will be doing here in the Philippines foster these two ideas. The word "common" is very important here. The activities must not only serve America alone. The Philippines must also benefit from this. But the sad thing about this treaty is that there is nothing in the text at all that says that the United States of America is obliged to defend us. They may defend us out of delicadeza, but nothing is for sure. The VFA just aims to strengthen our ties with the Americans. If the aim of the Philippine government is to improve the fighting capabilities of the Philippine soldiers, then the VFA is really needed and welcome. But if the over-all purpose of the government is for America to defend us, then we may be disappointed in the future, for there is really no assurance.

Analysis of ANTI-VFA

Haven't we learned our lesson? Why is it that we always give importance to these Americans... sure they have helped us in some ways but aren't we being too much? We allow them to treat us like underdogs, like rags that they can use and abuse whenever they want to.

While other countries turn down this agreement... here we are, desperately imploring to the United States to come here and do anything they want... all they have to do is to pay a measly amount for compensation. How do we think we can say we are absolutely free? Here we can say that indirectly, we are practically asking the United States to be our colonizer. Am I right? All the laws/articles agreed upon are evidently favorable to the US. I can't seem to understand why we need to go into this agreement. Yeah, we admire the US (actually I personally admire its power and wealth). But do we really have to do this just to show our admiration. It is very apparent that we don't benefit much in this so called " mutual agreement " I have here some articles which I think violates the right of the Filipinos.
US military personnel shall be exempt from passport and visa regulations upon entering and departing from the Philippines (article III)

What can we say about this article, isn't too much? This gives US military personnel too much power of entering and departing from our country. I think the fact that they are military personnel... all the more we have to be strict with its passport and visa regulations. What if this citizen is using a fake passport and an expired visa... how are we going to be aware of that? What if he decided to stay here in the Philippines, its illegal right? This article can be compared to house wherein the owner allows any US military citizen to enter their place without thorough "investigation" if this person can be trusted or not. Isn't the owner of the house endangering the lives of the people living inside the place? The mere fact that these are military people, all the more we need to be cautious because these are people capable of killing and violence. The government cannot guarantee that these people come here to practice their war games. Practice their war games... why does it have to be here? Don't they have a bigger country to practice on? What difference does it make if they come here to practice? They can ruin our place and accidentally kill somebody... with a stray bullet(don't tell me its impossible because I know it is). Our county is a place where people live and bring up their families. This is not a playground or anything that can be used for pleasure of any one. It is obvious that we don't have to much free land space for these war games... and because too of this purpose, these people are free to bring in firearms and alike. I don't think this is favorable because indirectly it is quite easy for the US to overpower us (if they decided to... with all the high tech machines... geesh). Because of this also, we cannot have a peaceful and "war-less" country... with all the firearms... all the more we are encouraging the people to involve into war.

Haven't we also thought of the ruins left by the US military before... they incite not only war but prostitution. Encouraging our women to indulge into this kind of "profession" because they would earn more... yeah but they do ruin our women! They impregnate our women... poor child. Aren't these things enough for us to see that allowing US bases here would not do anything good? We need to make the president realize that he is starting a fire that might ruin the Philippines if this is not stopped.

______________________________________
References and Links:
http://poligov.tripod.com/index1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-US_Visiting_Forces_Agreement