By Michael Lim Ubac, Christian V. Esguerra
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:05:00 03/20/2009
MANILA, Philippines— Was her convicted rapist, if not the US government itself, behind change of heart of " Nicole", the Filipino woman wh briefly served as a symbol of the purported inequity of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)?
At least three senators are nursing suspicions in the wake of Nicole’s submission of a sworn statement raising doubt about her rape by Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, and her flight to the United States, apparently for good.
According to Sen. Loren Legarda, Nicole’s case has implications on the VFA, which governs the conduct of US troops in the Philippines and which is now the subject of calls for review or outright termination.
“There’s more than meets the eye in this issue,” she said, noting that the agreement that became effective in 1999 was very important with respect to the United States’ war on terror and its strategic and security interests in the Asian region.
“It cannot be discounted that extreme pressures may have been applied on Nicole for her to recant her [court testimony] at the risk of inviting perjury and other charges against her,” said Legarda, who had voted against the ratification of the agreement.
“Nicole’s leaving for the US also raises questions because if it is true that she may have wrongfully accused Smith of raping her, why would she choose to live in the native land of the man she may have wronged?” Legarda said.
Form and timing
In a statement, Sen. Francis Pangilinan raised “serious questions about the form and timing” of Nicole’s sworn statement dated March 12.
“What boggles my mind right now is why the new affidavit came from the lawyer of Daniel Smith and not her own lawyer,” Pangilinan said.
“Isn’t that strange?” he said, calling attention to “the timing of events” that included the “scuffle over Smith’s custody,” US President Barack Obama’s telephone call to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo stating his commitment to the VFA, and Nicole’s affidavit.
“Why just now?” said Pangilinan, who filed in February Senate Resolution No. 892 calling for the termination of the VFA.
He added: “We do not wish to question Nicole’s integrity, but we wonder if there’s a higher hand behind all this.”
On the phone, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said that if not the US government, “others operating to acquit Smith” were behind Nicole’s affidavit.
Pimentel declared, however, that Nicole’s moves would have no bearing on the planned review of the VFA.
Japan Airlines
Nicole’s departure for the United States was announced on March 17, by her now ex-lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, who said she had no prior knowledge of the move. Nicole’s mother confirmed Ursua’s announcement.
Based on records of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and the Bureau of Immigration office made available to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nicole flew to Japan on Mar. 16 on board Flight 746 of Japan Airlines.
Flight 746, a Boeing 747 plane with 400 passengers, left NAIA 1 at 9:06 a.m. and arrived at Tokyo’s Narita Airport at 1:55 p.m.
Nicole was listed among the passengers, but the records did not indicate her connecting flight to United States.
The US Embassy in Manila Thursday maintained a tight lip on the matter, saying it had no knowledge of Nicole’s whereabouts.
Spokesperson Rebecca Thompson told the Inquirer that the embassy was aware of media reports stating that Nicole had flown to the United States.
“We don’t have further information suggesting her whereabouts,” Thompson said.
“Every day, people come here for visa applications and for privacy reasons, we don’t divulge details about them or their applications,” she said.
Palace to the defense
Malacañang defended Nicole against criticisms over her decision to all but clear her convicted rapist.
Anthony Golez, deputy spokesperson of Ms Arroyo, said Ursua should respect her former client’s decision.
“The lawyers know that they cannot be very emotional on a case. They should be objective. They must also respect the client’s right to reach her decision. The reason is very personal to Nicole, whatever that is,” Golez told reporters in a chance interview.
“We should all respect [the decision] and we should move on,” he said, adding: “We cannot do anything about it because Nicole is the key player in this and it’s her right to [do] what she has done. [Let’s] respect that. Lawyers, most especially, should also.”
Golez said the government would continue negotiating with US authorities on the Philippine-run facility that should hold Smith. “The process still continues,” he said.
But US Ambassador Kristie Kenney has yet to sit with Foreign Secretary Albert Romulo for a formal negotiation.
Smith has been detained at the US Embassy since his midnight transfer there from the Makati City Jail in December 2006.
In a ruling issued last month, the Supreme Court said Smith should be held in a Philippine-run facility while he awaits the resolution of his appeal.
The ruling also upheld the constitutionality of the VFA.
Golez said Malacañang was also awaiting the high court’s word on its motion for clarification regarding Smith’s custody.
Asked if Malacañang was open to the review of the VFA, he said: “Anything for the betterment of anything in our government, the Palace is for it.”
But he said the government could not just rush into the review of the agreement: “There is a process in reviewing the VFA. It must not be unilaterally done.”
Dismayed
Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, said he too was dismayed by the contents of Nicole’s affidavit.
He said it had put the Philippines’ criminal justice system “in an embarrassing situation.”
“Because of the involvement of money in her recantation, people will somehow doubt the credibility of her recent statement,” Lagdameo said, referring to the admission of Nicole’s mother that the family had received P100,000 from Smith as payment for “damages.”
He said other rape victims whose cases were still in court and who probably found some inspiration in Nicole’s legal victory in 2006 “would somehow be confused” by her current stance. With reports from Jerome Aning, Cynthia D. Balana and Dona Z. Pazzibugan.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:05:00 03/20/2009
MANILA, Philippines— Was her convicted rapist, if not the US government itself, behind change of heart of " Nicole", the Filipino woman wh briefly served as a symbol of the purported inequity of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)?
At least three senators are nursing suspicions in the wake of Nicole’s submission of a sworn statement raising doubt about her rape by Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, and her flight to the United States, apparently for good.
According to Sen. Loren Legarda, Nicole’s case has implications on the VFA, which governs the conduct of US troops in the Philippines and which is now the subject of calls for review or outright termination.
“There’s more than meets the eye in this issue,” she said, noting that the agreement that became effective in 1999 was very important with respect to the United States’ war on terror and its strategic and security interests in the Asian region.
“It cannot be discounted that extreme pressures may have been applied on Nicole for her to recant her [court testimony] at the risk of inviting perjury and other charges against her,” said Legarda, who had voted against the ratification of the agreement.
“Nicole’s leaving for the US also raises questions because if it is true that she may have wrongfully accused Smith of raping her, why would she choose to live in the native land of the man she may have wronged?” Legarda said.
Form and timing
In a statement, Sen. Francis Pangilinan raised “serious questions about the form and timing” of Nicole’s sworn statement dated March 12.
“What boggles my mind right now is why the new affidavit came from the lawyer of Daniel Smith and not her own lawyer,” Pangilinan said.
“Isn’t that strange?” he said, calling attention to “the timing of events” that included the “scuffle over Smith’s custody,” US President Barack Obama’s telephone call to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo stating his commitment to the VFA, and Nicole’s affidavit.
“Why just now?” said Pangilinan, who filed in February Senate Resolution No. 892 calling for the termination of the VFA.
He added: “We do not wish to question Nicole’s integrity, but we wonder if there’s a higher hand behind all this.”
On the phone, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said that if not the US government, “others operating to acquit Smith” were behind Nicole’s affidavit.
Pimentel declared, however, that Nicole’s moves would have no bearing on the planned review of the VFA.
Japan Airlines
Nicole’s departure for the United States was announced on March 17, by her now ex-lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, who said she had no prior knowledge of the move. Nicole’s mother confirmed Ursua’s announcement.
Based on records of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and the Bureau of Immigration office made available to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nicole flew to Japan on Mar. 16 on board Flight 746 of Japan Airlines.
Flight 746, a Boeing 747 plane with 400 passengers, left NAIA 1 at 9:06 a.m. and arrived at Tokyo’s Narita Airport at 1:55 p.m.
Nicole was listed among the passengers, but the records did not indicate her connecting flight to United States.
The US Embassy in Manila Thursday maintained a tight lip on the matter, saying it had no knowledge of Nicole’s whereabouts.
Spokesperson Rebecca Thompson told the Inquirer that the embassy was aware of media reports stating that Nicole had flown to the United States.
“We don’t have further information suggesting her whereabouts,” Thompson said.
“Every day, people come here for visa applications and for privacy reasons, we don’t divulge details about them or their applications,” she said.
Palace to the defense
Malacañang defended Nicole against criticisms over her decision to all but clear her convicted rapist.
Anthony Golez, deputy spokesperson of Ms Arroyo, said Ursua should respect her former client’s decision.
“The lawyers know that they cannot be very emotional on a case. They should be objective. They must also respect the client’s right to reach her decision. The reason is very personal to Nicole, whatever that is,” Golez told reporters in a chance interview.
“We should all respect [the decision] and we should move on,” he said, adding: “We cannot do anything about it because Nicole is the key player in this and it’s her right to [do] what she has done. [Let’s] respect that. Lawyers, most especially, should also.”
Golez said the government would continue negotiating with US authorities on the Philippine-run facility that should hold Smith. “The process still continues,” he said.
But US Ambassador Kristie Kenney has yet to sit with Foreign Secretary Albert Romulo for a formal negotiation.
Smith has been detained at the US Embassy since his midnight transfer there from the Makati City Jail in December 2006.
In a ruling issued last month, the Supreme Court said Smith should be held in a Philippine-run facility while he awaits the resolution of his appeal.
The ruling also upheld the constitutionality of the VFA.
Golez said Malacañang was also awaiting the high court’s word on its motion for clarification regarding Smith’s custody.
Asked if Malacañang was open to the review of the VFA, he said: “Anything for the betterment of anything in our government, the Palace is for it.”
But he said the government could not just rush into the review of the agreement: “There is a process in reviewing the VFA. It must not be unilaterally done.”
Dismayed
Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, said he too was dismayed by the contents of Nicole’s affidavit.
He said it had put the Philippines’ criminal justice system “in an embarrassing situation.”
“Because of the involvement of money in her recantation, people will somehow doubt the credibility of her recent statement,” Lagdameo said, referring to the admission of Nicole’s mother that the family had received P100,000 from Smith as payment for “damages.”
He said other rape victims whose cases were still in court and who probably found some inspiration in Nicole’s legal victory in 2006 “would somehow be confused” by her current stance. With reports from Jerome Aning, Cynthia D. Balana and Dona Z. Pazzibugan.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento