Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of collective
privilege and one that is of grave concern to all of
us. The alleged rape of a 22-year old woman by six US
marines on a pit stop at the Subic facilities last
week highlights once again the strenuous relations
between our country and the United States. A
relationship often resolved with our country bending
backwards to accommodate an interest that has time and
again disadvantaged our people and our sovereignty.

On the evening of November 1, the victim was
supposedly enjoying a night out on the town with her
stepsister and her boyfriend. Going out by herself at
some point, the unimaginable happened. Or is it
really unimaginable?

A cursory look over history would show that while the
incident is particular to the victim and the victim
alone, the crime is not. The behavior underpinning
its commission has been documented and established
elsewhere.

In our own country there have been reports of US
military;[/p personnel who raped and physically abused
women and children in areas near the former US bases,
but none ever resulted in a conviction. Women’s groups
put that figure at 82 at the very least, excluding 15
committed against children before the former US bases
were shut down in 1991. In 1987, for example, a
12-year old girl in Olongapo was allegedly raped by a
US serviceman who was whisked away before an
investigation could even be conducted. The victim
later died from a cervical wound from a mechanical
device that was used to violate her.

Elsewhere, back in 1995, three US service men pleaded
guilty to raping a 12-year old girl in Okinawa, Japan,
where the US also maintains a military base. Another
incident of rape in Okinawa was also reported in 2001.
In other places, US military personnel have been
embroiled in other controversies such as prisoner
abuse (including sexual) in Iraq, sexual harassment
and assault in Korea, etc.

Sexual crimes form part and parcel of a longer list of
abuses and human rights violations committed by US
personnel anywhere in the world they are either
stationed or in transit. Human rights groups and
civil libertarians, feminists and civil society
organizations have all at one point raised the specter
of exploitation and have taken the US government to
task for the behavior of its military personnel.

In the early days of the US military occupation of
Iraq, tales abound of Iraqi women being raped by
soldiers. There is even an allegation that US
soldiers were supplied with amphetamines and
pornographic materials to "incite their thorough
ravaging of Baghdad."

At the infamous Abu Ghraib prison, a minority of women
prisoners were subjected to rape, not once not twice
but many times over, and other incidents may have been
in fact underreported for fear of honor killings.
Some women are kept in detention not because of what
they have done. They are treated as "security
detainees", a euphemism for inmates kept in indefinite
incarceration, because they are the wives and
relatives of Saddam Hussein’s men.

Additionally, on May 22, 2003, a 9-year-old girl was
abducted and raped by US soldiers in Iraq. When the
girl was found she was bleeding, for up until about
two weeks. Doctors found severe damages to her
private parts. On the same month, a mother was also
abducted form her home and was taken to an empty house
by US soldiers who took turns in raping her. She was
also tortured. They poured hot water on her head, put
out cigarettes on her legs, hit her on the head with
their guns and bit her on her arms and shoulders.

One naturally has to ask: what has the US government
done to rein in its troops? The fact is, even among
female American troops, rape and abuse had been
documented before. In 2002 an army private in the
name of Susan Upchurch, was raped by another
serviceman in Germany. When she reported the incident
she was told to "be a soldier and pretend it never
happened."

There have been reports disclosed by private
foundations before that in places where the US was
actively engaged in combat in the past decade (Iraq,
Afghanistan, Bahrain and Kuwait) 200 cases of assault
on female US troops were recorded. Within the US
Army, a jump of 25% in cases of rape and assault form
1999-2002 was reported to the Army Criminal
Investigation Division, as reported by the Washington
Post. Calls for preventive strategies have so far
gone unnoticed by the Defense Department. So if
female American troops themselves fall prey to abuse,
how can we expect US troops to respect our people, our
women?

As a case in point, in Korea, Thailand, Bosnia and
elsewhere, booming sex industries follow where US
troops set up bases. In these enclaves, how many
trafficked women are being exploited? How many are
stuck helpless and prostituted for a few dollars? One
can only guess.

And what about the other cases perpetrated by US
military personnel against Filipinos? What about the
shooting of Buyongbuyong Isnijal in Basilan who was
shot by a US soldier during Balikatan exercises? What
about the entire communities displaced by these joint
exercises?

As for the Subic rape case, it must be reiterated that
under the VFA Article V (Criminal Jurisdiction) par.
3(a), the Philippine government has authority to
exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by
US personnel except 1) on offenses against the
property or security of the US government and 2) on
offenses arising out of any act or commission done in
performance of official duty. The crime we have
before us now was committed at a time when the US
troops were off-duty.

Rape falls under RA 8353 Article 266-A that provides
that rape is committed by a man who has carnal
knowledge of a woman a) through force, threat or
intimidation, b) when the offended party is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious and c) by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority.

Considered a heinous crime under international law, RA
8353 has amended the Revised Penal Code and has
defined rape as a crime against persons. Article 266-B
of the law provides a penalty of reclusion perpetua
when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines or para-military units thereof or the
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement
agency or penal institution when the offender took
advantage of his position to facilitate the commission
of the crime.

As we have provided the harshest penalty for the
commission of rape by our military personnel, so too
should this apply, and more so for foreign military
personnel precisely because of how in the past
American soldiers have enjoyed impunity and escaped
the enforcement of Philippine law despite crimes
committed on our soil.

We have opposed the VFA from the very beginning
because it makes a virtual US base out of the entire
country. Whereas the Bases Treaty designated Subic as
the military base, the VFA defines any point in the
country as one huge pit stop for among other things,
“rest and recreation”. This wholesale sell-out of
territorial integrity and national sovereignty only
means that in the future, more instances like this
will happen, not only in Subic, but in other areas
where US vessels ever go. Government should be
pro-active and tear up this agreement pronto.

With the knowledge that a pattern of abuse exists and
the US government unable to infuse reforms in its
defense establishment to discipline and keep its boys
in line, the Arroyo administration is best advised to
prevent a repeat of this incident by rescinding the
VFA and the Mutual Defense Treaty. No amount of
military aid is worth this damage.

John Vincent S. Cruz
Media Officer
Office of Rep. Loretta Ann “ETTA” Rosales
AKBAYAN Citizens’ Action Party
Room 511, South Wing, House of Representatives
Batasan Hills, Quezon City
Telefax: (63-2) 9316288
Tel.: (63-2) 9315001 loc 7289
http://www.akbayan.org
http://peregrineconfessions.blogspot.com