Visiting Forces Agreement In The Philippines

The U.S. has used the deal at least twice to keep accused military personnel under U.S. jurisdiction. [5] [6] On January 18, 2006, the U.S. military arrested four soldiers accused of rape while on their way to Subic Bay during their trial in a Philippine court. [6] They were detained by U.S. officials at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. This has sparked protests from those who believe the agreement is unilateral, damaging and contrary to the sovereignty of the Philippines. [Citation required] The agreement was characterized to grant immunity to U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against Filipinos[7] and to treat Filipinos as second-class citizens in their own country. [8] [9] Because of these problems, some members of the Philippine Congress considered ending VFA in 2006. [10] [11] However, the agreement has not been amended.

The U.S.-Philippines Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), signed in 2014 by President Obama and Duterte`s predecessor Benigno Aquino Jr., allows for an increased presence of U.S. forces, ships, and aircraft in the Philippines and better U.S. access to Philippine military bases. The agreement helped achieve an important strategic goal for the Defense Ministry, which attempted to expand the U.S. presence beyond major bases in Japan and South Korea. It would be difficult to continue its implementation without the VFA. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), signed in April 2014 under benigno Aquino III, then president, is used to operationalize the VFA. Military activities authorized by the Philippines also fall within the context of the VFA. The executive agreement provides for an increased military presence of U.S. troops, aircraft and ships in the Philippines and gives them wider access to military bases in the country. “It is entirely within the right of the Philippine government to do so if it finds that the agreement is no longer in our national interest,” Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana said on January 24.

“This agreement will remain in effect until the expiration of 180 days from the date on which a party of the other party has written that it wishes to terminate the contract.” The second challenge, Suzette Nicolas y Sombilon Vs. . . .

Comments are closed.