„It is indeed the right of the Philippine government to do so if it finds that the agreement is no longer in our national interest,“ Defence Minister Delfin Lorenzana said on 24 January. At a Senate hearing on the revision of the VFA, Locsin, amid President Rodrigo Duterte`s threat to terminate the treaty, said: „It is valuable to go back to the VFA to address sovereignty issues such as jurisdiction and custody of children.“ The United States has used the agreement at least twice to keep the accused military under U.S. jurisdiction. [5] On January 18, 2006, the U.S. Military retained custody of four soldiers accused of rape while they were visiting Subic Bay during their trial in a Philippine court. [6] They were detained by U.S. officials at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. This has led to protests from those who believe that the agreement is unilateral, harmful and contrary to the sovereignty of the Philippines. [Citation required] The agreement has been characterized as immunity from criminal prosecution for U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against Filipinos[7] and treatment of Filipinos as second-class citizens in their own country. [8] [9] As a result of these problems, some members of the Philippine Congress considered ending the VFA in 2006. [10] [11] However, the agreement has not been amended.
If the Philippine government decided to impose an end to the VFA, it would only have to inform the United States in writing of its intention to end the treaty. The agreement will remain in effect 180 days after this notification is sent. The VFA must clarify the conditions under which foreign military personnel can operate. In general, a VFA deals primarily with legal issues relating to military individuals and property. This may include issues such as entry and departure, tax obligations, postal services or the conditions of employment of nationals of the host country, but the most controversial issues are the civil and criminal competences of visiting staff. In civil matters, the VFA provides for the identification and payment of civilian damage caused by the armed forces. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in the VFA is that U.S. military courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a serving member against another serving member or by a serving member as part of his or her military duty, but the host country retains jurisdiction for other crimes.