The Subic Rape Case

UNLIKE many of our people, I was not disturbed by the acquittal of Lance Corporal Daniel Smith of the crime of rape for which he had been convicted by the lower court. It was to me a foregone conclusion, considering the doubtful details of the testimony of the complainant Nicole. She had become an instant celebrity, a symbol of outraged Filipino maidenhood. But now she had been reduced to just another victim, if you can call her that, of American brutality.

Top government officials, especially from the Senate, joined voices with Gabriela and other organizations to denounce the decision of the Court of Appeals. A scandalous offense against a chaste Filipina had been dismissed as a mere “romantic episode” when it should have been condemned as a beastly attack upon a defenseless woman of our race by a foreign soldier. Some even demanded the abrogation of the Visiting Forces Agreement to which Smith belonged.

Who was Nicole, the supposedly helpless prey of the soldier’s lust?

One would not describe her as an all-too-innocent Pollyanna. On the night of her supposed violation, she went to the Subic Bay Freeport Zone on the invitation of two American friends for some nocturnal enjoyment with free hotel accommodations, drinks and dancing, and what else besides. As she narrated later, Nicole had a happy time with some servicemen she had just met, including Daniel Smith, whom she subsequently accused of raping her.

At the trial, she categorically testified that Smith had forced his attentions upon her that she could not resist because of her intoxication. She related this tearfully and under oath, with all the pathos of a woman betrayed. The trial judge was convinced and gave her testimony full credence as coming from a helpless woman who had to submit to Smith for lack of the strength or will to protect her virtue. The nation applauded the decision for vindicating Nicole’s shattered innocence.

But this was not all about this exciting telenovela. For while the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, Nicole made an interesting revelation. Out of the blue, she announced in writing and under oath that she had not been completely truthful at the trial. Where she had resolutely testified before that Smith had succeeded in raping her because she was drunk, she now declared that it was not what had exactly happened. She now absolved Smith and voluntarily withdrew her appeal. She was rejecting her past sworn testimony at the trial in her affidavit that, oddly, had been prepared in the law office of Smith’s counsel.

The Court of Appeals took slight notice of Nicole’s recantation as having little value in judicial proceedings. The decision confined itself to the disputed facts and law and held in favor of Smith and against Nicole. The 11th division of the Court of Appeals was composed entirely of female justices familiar with the wails and woes of women, including the fickle assertions under oath of the inconstant Nicole.

Quickly and quietly, Smith was released and was soon flying back to the United States, where Nicole herself and an American boy friend had earlier been welcomed.

This closes another chapter in Philippine-American relations, with the policeman of the world on top again, as usual, with its little brown brothers in passive agreement.

The other matter I wanted to deplore on this otherwise special day is the adoption by the Supreme Court of a new formula increasing the number of partylist representatives from only 22 to as many as 55, reduced later to 54. This is on top of the bill increasing the maximum membership of the House of Representatives to 300. Both reports will increase the number of useless solons in what I call the lower House (the “l” intentionally in lower case), with their unearned financial advantages and political privileges.

Moreover, there is the maximum limit prescribed by the Constitution that “the partylist representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list.” Fifty-four partylist representatives among the total membership of 250? Or only the original total of 238?

About one-half of the present membership of the House of Representatives, including the partylist legislators, is like Senator Lito Lapid, who stays in the nearby lounge while his colleagues deliberate and debate in the session hall. Each representative, however dormant, is entitled to the same extravagant entitlements as his more useful colleagues.

With a population of some 90 million, we are recklessly providing for a chamber consisting of 300 members, at the rate of some 300,000 constituents per congressman. The US House of Representatives has a total membership of 533 for a national population of more than 300 million, according to the latest 2009 figures. While each state has its own separate legislature, our own local government units have their own legislative boards down to the barangay (village).

My own impertinent view is that we should decrease rather than enlarge the House of Representatives or, better still, abolish it altogether.

The reason I called this a special day, for me anyway, is because it is the 57th anniversary of my wedding with my wife Sally. Thank you very much for your greetings, and we hope you will enjoy a similar blessing in your own time.