The Subic Rape Case

Philippine Daily Inquirer’s April 27 editorial mentioned how tempting it is to mock the three lady justices who acquitted US Marine Daniel Smith of rape, to emphasize the “ludicrousness” that virtually makes their decision a “denial of reality.” These justices may have labored to deny reality in the face of dazzling rewards and grave threats from more powerful self-serving entities. They may not really believe that Smith is not guilty of rape. So the ludicrousness that practically discredits their decision may be the result of their half-hearted effort to justify an erroneous verdict predetermined by clout. One can even say they did a good job at not making a wrong verdict look right. Although a Filipina rape victim we call “Nicole” was raped all over again and more intensely in our own courts of law, the absurdity of it makes redress inevitable.

The conduct and outcome of Nicole’s case have degraded our national dignity and sovereignty. Yet some of us gloat over the outcome of this case. In his April 25 column, Ramon Tulfo wrote “Why should you side with Nicole who wanted a ‘quickie’ with a handsome stranger and then complained of being raped?” Tulfo added, “When one gets drunk, inhibitions fly out the window. It was probably the first time for the American and definitely not for Nicole as many Zamboangueños who know her will tell you.”

But Tulfo has not really asked any Zamboangueño who do know her, has he? So spare her the libel, Mon. She’s been disgraced enough already.

Now, let’s say she wanted sex with Smith. What she objected to was sex with Smith in full view of other drooling soldiers in the van. Even some seasoned prostitutes would object to this. It wasn’t passion for romance but lust emboldened by nonexistent regard for the dignity of a Filipina that spurred the overly privileged American soldier to force himself upon the overly intoxicated Pinay, which made this utterly unromantic episode a consummated rape.

Incidentally, Tulfo had earlier suggested a way to prevent a rape accusation. In his April 7 column, he wrote “So long as the American GIs pay for the ‘fix’ and don’t rape our women, what’s wrong with that?” Was he implying that Filipinas who want to flirt with GIs become prostitutes, so there would be nothing wrong at all with GIs debasing our women? One thing is clear, Tulfo is openly and shamelessly endorsing, via the Philippines’ most read newspaper, the prostitution of the Filipina. We rile at a Chinese columnist calling us a “nation of servants” while right here a Filipino columnist is conditioning us to become a nation of sex-servants.

Prostitution is the insidious and more fiendish form of rape because it pushes its victims to voluntarily partake in the desecration of their own bodies and souls. But prostitutes are still well within the reach of redemption, unlike the self-assured (self-misled) endorsers and avid patrons of prostitution who declare “What’s wrong with that?” and go on raping.

Last April 19, another Filipina was allegedly raped by another US Marine. How many other rapes go unnoticed, covered-up, or unjustly justified? When will we, as a people, cry rape?

—REYNALDO ORDOÑA,
El Reposo, Tacloban, Leyte