Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06MANILA1219
2006-03-17 09:01:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Manila
Cable title:
LIKELY POSTPONEMENT OF ARRAIGNMENT OF MARINES IN
how-toVZCZCXYZ0001 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHML #1219 0760901 ZNR UUUUU ZZH O 170901Z MAR 06 FM AMEMBASSY MANILA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0038 INFO RHHMUNA/CDRUSPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
UNCLAS MANILA 001219
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, L/EAP, EAP/PD
PACOM FOR HUSO
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL MARR KCRM CASC RP
SUBJECT: LIKELY POSTPONEMENT OF ARRAIGNMENT OF MARINES IN
ALLEGED RAPE CASE
REF: A. MANILA 1189
B. MANILA 635
C. MANILA 607 AND PREVIOUS
UNCLAS MANILA 001219
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, L/EAP, EAP/PD
PACOM FOR HUSO
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL MARR KCRM CASC RP
SUBJECT: LIKELY POSTPONEMENT OF ARRAIGNMENT OF MARINES IN
ALLEGED RAPE CASE
REF: A. MANILA 1189
B. MANILA 635
C. MANILA 607 AND PREVIOUS
1. (U) On March 17, the alleged victim in the case of four
U.S. Marines charged with rape filed an omnibus motion with
the Olongapo City Regional Trial Court. The motion requests
four actions:
-- that the Court declare unconstitutional Article V,
paragraph 6 of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) -- the
section detailing custody arrangements under the VFA;
-- that the court issue an "alias warrant" of arrest -- a
second, substitute warrant -- for each of the four Marines;
-- that the Executive Department, through the Department of
Foreign Affairs, immediately serve these arrest warrants;
and,
-- that the Court defer the arraignment pending the
resolution of all questions of custody and jurisdiction in
the case.
2. (SBU) The Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for
Wednesday, 22 March. At that time, the Marines' attorneys
intend to request additional time to respond to the motion.
The court will likely grant the continuance request. As a
result, the arraignment of the Marines, originally scheduled
for March 24 (ref A),almost certainly will be postponed.
3. (U) The Secretary of Justice has not yet issued a ruling
on the motions from the three Marines, with the end fast
approaching to the 60 day deadline.
4. (SBU) Comment: It is not clear what the alleged victim's
true motives are in filing this motion. The Court already
denied, on February 27, a prosecution motion to issue alias
arrest warrants for the four Marines. Moreover, the
Philippine Supreme Court already ruled, in 2002, on the
constitutionality of the VFA (in Lim vs the Executive
Secretary). According to an attorney for one of the Marines,
SIPDIS
the motion is "untenable" and perhaps even a sign of the
inexperience of the alleged victim's attorneys. He
speculated that the alleged victim's attorneys may be trying
to buy time in order to negotiate a settlement.
Jones
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, L/EAP, EAP/PD
PACOM FOR HUSO
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL MARR KCRM CASC RP
SUBJECT: LIKELY POSTPONEMENT OF ARRAIGNMENT OF MARINES IN
ALLEGED RAPE CASE
REF: A. MANILA 1189
B. MANILA 635
C. MANILA 607 AND PREVIOUS
1. (U) On March 17, the alleged victim in the case of four
U.S. Marines charged with rape filed an omnibus motion with
the Olongapo City Regional Trial Court. The motion requests
four actions:
-- that the Court declare unconstitutional Article V,
paragraph 6 of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) -- the
section detailing custody arrangements under the VFA;
-- that the court issue an "alias warrant" of arrest -- a
second, substitute warrant -- for each of the four Marines;
-- that the Executive Department, through the Department of
Foreign Affairs, immediately serve these arrest warrants;
and,
-- that the Court defer the arraignment pending the
resolution of all questions of custody and jurisdiction in
the case.
2. (SBU) The Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for
Wednesday, 22 March. At that time, the Marines' attorneys
intend to request additional time to respond to the motion.
The court will likely grant the continuance request. As a
result, the arraignment of the Marines, originally scheduled
for March 24 (ref A),almost certainly will be postponed.
3. (U) The Secretary of Justice has not yet issued a ruling
on the motions from the three Marines, with the end fast
approaching to the 60 day deadline.
4. (SBU) Comment: It is not clear what the alleged victim's
true motives are in filing this motion. The Court already
denied, on February 27, a prosecution motion to issue alias
arrest warrants for the four Marines. Moreover, the
Philippine Supreme Court already ruled, in 2002, on the
constitutionality of the VFA (in Lim vs the Executive
Secretary). According to an attorney for one of the Marines,
SIPDIS
the motion is "untenable" and perhaps even a sign of the
inexperience of the alleged victim's attorneys. He
speculated that the alleged victim's attorneys may be trying
to buy time in order to negotiate a settlement.
Jones