Foreign Affairs Secretary Blas F. Ople today said that the views expressed by Vice-President Teofisto T. Guingona that the non-surrender executive agreement between the Philippines and the United States is unconstitutional is baseless.

“The Vice-President has favored us with his views on this matter.  But he has made several assumptions that are not based on fact or on law.  Thus his conclusions are seriously flawed,” Secretary Ople said.

The Secretary added that he understood the motivation of the Vice-President in resorting to empty arguments to assail the non-surrender agreement, but that perhaps the Vice-President’s legendary legal prowess and thinking have been clouded by his misunderstanding of the intentions of the governments of the Philippines and the United States.

Secretary Ople said that he had responded to the letter of the Vice-President on this issue.

“I told him why we entered into this agreement.  I told him that we owe it to our allies to protect them from harassment suits filed by parties that seek to unjustly exploit the law for partisan political purposes and to the detriment of our national interests,” the Secretary said.

“Perhaps the Vice-President is upset that such harassment suits can now be pursued only with much difficulty,” the Secretary added.

“This agreement is also an important development in our strategic relations with the United States.  I suppose that it is this relationship that the Vice-President is unhappy about,” the Secretary added.

“The Vice-President said that this agreement is a way for the Americans to escape justice.  I have to disagree.  The agreement does not prohibit us from prosecuting the acts of genocide, war crimes of crimes against humanity that might be committed by Americans. We will apply the full force of Philippine law,” the Secretary said.

On the claim that the agreement is unfair as the Philippines would be forced to surrender its own citizens to an international tribunal while the Philippines can only surrender Americans with the consent of the US, the Secretary said that “there is simply no basis to say that the Philippines, by law or by treaty, is compelled to surrender its own citizens to an international tribunal.”

The Vice-President also claimed that the Philippines entered into this agreement to comply with the Patriot Act of the United States. “This is not the case. The provisions of the Patriot Act quoted by the Vice-President are applicable only to states which are parties to the Statute of the ICC.  Since we are not a state party to the Stature of the ICC, the Patriot Act has no relevance to our decision to enter into the non-surrender agreement,” the Secretary said.

According to the Secretary, in form, nature and substance, the agreement is an executive agreement and is not a treaty. “There is no fundamental change in policy, nor will there be need for legislation to fund this agreement.  It does not impinge on any existing international legal obligation. There exists no obligation in international law for the surrender of such persons to an international tribunal and the disposition of such a person is up to the will of the sovereign state where such person is found,” the Secretary said.

The Secretary also said that the non-surrender to third parties is a right that is even recognized by the Statute of the ICC. Article 98 of the Statue allows States which are parties to the ICC Statue to enter into separate agreements on the non-surrender of their nationals to the ICC.  “One would think that a Statute that would set up an international criminal court would restrict the sovereign rights of a state with regard to its treatment of nationals within their territories who are being sought by such courts.  But the ICC Statute itself does not proscribe this sovereign right,” Secretary Ople said. END.