Nicolas vs.

Romulo
February 11, 2009 | Azcuna, J.:

Nature of the Case: Constitutional Law – Ratification of a Treaty – Validity of the Visiting Forces
Agreement
Digest Maker: Stena Arapoc
Summary: American member of the US armed forces was found guilty of the crime of rape.
Although we have a VFA with the US, the SC voted against Smith’s transfer to the US embassy.

FACTS
Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, member of the US Armed Forces, was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in the RTC of Makati. The court ordered Smith detained at
the Makati City Jail until further orders. On December 19 and 22, 2006, Philippine Foreign
Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and US Ambassador Kristie Kenney executed agreements that
pursuant to the VFA, Smith be returned to the US military custody and be detained at the first
floor, Rowe Building, US Embassy Compound. Petitioner Jovito Salonga, et al. challenged the
validity of the said agreements contending that the Philippines should have custody of Smith
because, first of all, the VFA is void and unconstitutional since it violates Art. XVlll, Sec. 25 of
the constitution.

ISSUE
WON VFA is constitutional. Granting that it is constitutional, Are the Romulo-Kenney
Agreements in accordance with the provisions of the VFA itself?

HELD

The SC ruled The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and
the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney
Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the VFA. The
SC ruled that “the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized
as a treaty by the United States,” and “the fact that (it) was not submitted for advice and consent
of the United States does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty
recognized by the said State.” Romulo-Kenney Agreements not in accord with the VFA itself.
The Court however ruled that “the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006,
which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in
accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not “by Philippine authorities.” Article V,
Section 10 of the VFA provides that “the confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of
the United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines
and United States authorities.

*Note: I did not make this digest (31 pages and we have Persons!!! ) but I read the case and
this is more or less the important details we need to know.