Silence in Subic

NOT A WHISPER of protest can be heard from the people or the elected officials of Olongapo city, where a 22-year-old woman said US servicemen raped her in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone on Nov. 1. Along with Clark Field in Pampanga province, Olongapo was host to the US military bases for 40 years until the Philippine Senate voted against renewing a treaty that allowed American military bases in the country.

Most people in Olongapo had enjoyed many years of commercial benefit from American servicemen in the past, and that has numbed their senses. The city’s economy was boosted by the dollars the Americans spent for rest and recreation in bars, clubs and hotels. Anything and everything that the servicemen wanted was for sale, including women’s bodies. Although the US military base has been closed and its facilities dismantled since 1991, Olongapo’s businesses still benefit today from the visiting US servicemen who are in the country for military exercises.

If the officials of Olongapo are slow to react to the rape of a Filipina, it is because of their collective belief that howling a protest is not good for Philippine-US diplomatic relations, which they think they have a duty to protect as host. Another reason is that the woman is not from Olongapo. Still another reason is, in a city where a number of women are sexually prostituted, a charge of rape is viewed with disbelief. If the woman had worked in the bar, everyone, especially her employer, would now be convincing her to withdraw her complaint.

In contrast, the people and the governor of Okinawa were outraged when three American servicemen kidnapped and raped a 12-year-old schoolgirl in 1995. People carried placards that said, “American animals get out of Okinawa!” The governor was outspoken against the US military base, which occupied one-fifth of his province.

All three US servicemen were convicted and served seven years in Okinawa prison. They were Navy Seaman Marcus Gill of Woodville, Texas, Marine Pfc. Rodrico Harp of Griffin, Georgia, and Marine Pfc. Kendrick Ledet of Waycross, Georgia.

The three were immediately arrested before the US authorities arrived, and the governor of Okinawa refused to give them custody. The people of Okinawa followed the case to the end, and many felt that the sentence of seven years was too light.

As if that was not lesson enough for American servicemen, in 2001 Marine Sergeant Woodlands was convicted of raping a 24-year-old Okinawa woman on the hood of a car in a parking building. Woodlands’ defense was that the sexual contact was consensual, but the woman testified that Woodlands grabbed her from behind, and that she banged the hood of the car with both her fists, so how could the accused have not understood her resistance? While on trial, Woodlands was detained in Okinawa.

In both cases in Okinawa, the US did not request for custody of the accused. So why is the US treating our country differently?

Why isn’t the US handing over the Marines and any evidence that they can acquire to the Philippine government as provided for in the Philippine-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)? The undersecretaries of the Department of Foreign Affairs, when asked by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, admitted that the US government did not make a formal request of waiver of custody, which is required under the VFA.

Since the Philippine authorities did not make an immediate arrest, and the accused are in US custody, it is now our government that must make a request for a “handover.”

There are many questions unanswered that have bearing not only on the case but also on the implementation and review of the VFA by our officials.

When the Marines were presented to former general Jose Calimlim, vice president of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, did he inform them that a rape complaint had been filed against them and therefore they were under arrest?

Even if the US immediately took custody of the accused, why did not the Philippine government try to make an arrest by going to their commander or the US embassy?

The VFA states that the US can have immediate custody of their men ‘if they so request,” but the Philippines can make known its refusal or position in “extraordinary cases.” The US has no obligation to agree, but how the case will play out depends on how much the US values its relations with the Philippines. If the Americans think our government is a pushover, they will refuse to hand over their men. That is, unless a nationwide protest haunts them and the case becomes an international issue in the US press.

Under our law, a no-warrant arrest could have been done within a reasonable time after the woman filed the complaint. If the US Marines could have been arrested, they would have stayed in the Olongapo jail until their government made a formal request for custody. Then the people would have been satisfied that our officials are protecting our sovereignty and the dignity of Filipinos.

But as you can see, our officials were stymied by the might of a superpower and an ally against terrorism. The “little brown brother” psyche is very hard to shake off, indeed.

Erratum: In my last column I cited People vs. Baygar as the case in which a Caucasian woman was raped and the accused was acquitted. The correct case is People vs. Salarza (1997), in which Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. dissented.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 24th, 2005 at 11:27 pm and is filed under VFA & Subic Rape, INQ7 Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.