The Subic Rape Case

TOWARD the end of the US military bases’ presence in Subic and Clark, as many as 3,000 cases of rape had been filed against US servicemen, but all were dismissed, says Emmi de Jesus, secretary general of the women’s party-list group Gabriela.

Thus, when “Nicole,” a college student from Zamboanga, filed rape charges against a group of US Marines she met in a club in Subic, many were skeptical of her chances in court. When Nicole won a conviction of rape against one of the Marines, Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, it was considered an unprecedented victory, even if the euphoria was muted somewhat by Smith’s hurried, clandestine transfer from the Makati City Jail to the grounds of the US Embassy. A few months ago, after the Supreme Court ordered Smith’s transfer to a facility under Philippine jurisdiction, Nicole pulled a surprise: she fired her private lawyer and issued a statement casting doubt on her own version of the events on the night the rape supposedly took place. It was no surprise, therefore, when soon after, the Court of Appeals acquitted Smith, chiding Nicole for, in essence, “asking for it.”

A few days ago, another young woman, who chooses to be known as “Vanessa,” approached Gabriela and told the group a story similar to Nicole’s: that she had gone with another American serviceman to a Makati hotel thinking she was joining a party, only to find out that there was no one else around. The American then raped her.

Unlike Nicole, though, who braved public censure and weathered the scrutiny of the media and the bamboozling of the defense lawyers in court, Vanessa has yet to make up her mind about filing a formal complaint. And the reason she cites is: Nicole. She knows the extent of the probing done on Nicole’s personal and sexual history by the media, the defense lawyers and the judgmental public. She is aware of the judgment that many, including three women justices of the Court of Appeals, made on Nicole’s person simply because Nicole had been out partying and drinking. And Vanessa is most of all acutely conscious that any Filipino woman who’d dare accuse a US serviceman of rape would not only face an indifferent Philippine government, but an actively hostile one. Nicole has certainly taught Filipino women some painful lessons.

* * *

Vanessa’s surfacing coincides with the upcoming review of the Visiting Forces Agreement. Gabriela, with the National Council of Churches of the Philippines, sponsored a forum on “Rape and US Militarism” last Friday. The continuing military presence of the Americans in the country, speakers like De Jesus and Bayan secretary general Renato Reyes asserted, not only left Filipino women vulnerable to violence and exploitation, but also threatened Philippine sovereignty and laws.

Evalyn Ursua, Nicole’s lawyer who is now advising Vanessa, also rued how in the course of the judicial process involving Nicole’s case, “the rules of criminal procedure were twisted and considered mere collateral damage.”

Ursua also pointed out how the Maggie dela Riva case, which caused a media sensation in the late 1960s and resulted in the execution of her four rapists, has unfortunately created a “prototype of a rape victim” that has proven difficult to overcome. Dela Riva was an actress known for her “wholesome image,” and the horror of her abduction and gang rape was magnified by the unspeakable acts done to her. Thus, the “model” of what a believable rape consisted of was created in our consciousness: unassailable virtue on the part of the victim, the use of physical violence and threats, and heroic struggle.

* * *

Thus, in the wake of Vanessa’s surfacing, a newspaper editorial chided the young woman and her supporters, saying that empowering women means “enabling them to anticipate the consequences of their actions and to refrain from putting themselves in compromising situations.”

In other words, she asked for it. Though the editorial failed to mention what an empowered young man, like the accused serviceman, is supposed to do. I would think he should have thought of the consequences of his own behavior, too, though perhaps he knew that, as in thousands of cases involving American servicemen around the world, his government would protect him from the legal consequences of his actions. This, even if on home ground and if he were a civilian, the rape would have resulted in his conviction, imprisonment and maybe even execution.

This reminds me of a recent column by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times, where he pointed out that in the United States, many rape kits containing evidence gathered from women survivors aren’t tested at all “because it’s not deemed a priority.” If the kit is tested, he adds, “this happens at such a lackadaisical pace that it may be a year before there are results.”

I was stunned by this because I thought this happened only in a Third World country like ours, where hundreds of rape kits sit in unrefrigerated file cabinets (as DNA evidence degrades) because the police aren’t interested in testing such evidence.

* * *

I had to agree with Kristof’s conclusion, that rape kits aren’t handled with requisite care and urgency because of “an underlying doubt about the seriousness of some rape cases. In short, this isn’t justice, it’s indifference.”

Years before the re-classification of rape as a crime against a person and not against chastity, women complained of “being raped a second time” when they reported their violation to the police and as they went through the judicial process. It took years of work by women’s groups to re-orient law enforcers, prosecutors and judges about the nature of rape, and yet we still see verdicts such as that on the Nicole case.

And you wonder why Vanessa hesitates to file a formal complaint?