Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago has called on her ally in Malacañang to either renegotiate the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States or terminate it. The timing of Santiago's shepherding of the recommendations of the Legislative Oversight Committee on the VFA through the Senate maze is not entirely innocent of speculation; it comes after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's ultimately unsuccessful call on the White House. Unsuccessful, it has become clear and it is necessary to belabor, because Ms Arroyo's meeting with US President Barack Obama did not result in American support for any electoral postponement scenario she may have entertained. Indeed, in a twist of history students of post-colonial relations will examine closely, Ms Arroyo in that White House meeting gave Obama a more categorical promise about stepping down from office next year than she did the nation she is mandated to address at least once a year.

A Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial

Whether the motivation is to spite the Americans or not, the administration stalwart's new-found skepticism of the VFA, which led to the adoption on second reading of Senate Resolution 1356, calling on the President to serve notice on the Americans that the VFA must be renegotiated or terminated, is most welcome.

"The fatal flaw of the VFA is the failure to specify the period of stay of visiting forces, and the failure to define what are the 'activities' that they can engage in while in Philippine national territory," Santiago said in her sponsorship speech. Actually, the fatal flaw of the VFA is that it reflects an unequal relationship. The Philippines considers it a treaty; the United States looks at it as a mere executive agreement. All the other defects, which Santiago now sees, flow from this imbalance.

Santiago has also belatedly discovered the existence of a VFA 2, which is apparently even more lopsided in favor of the United States. "We hardly know anything about VFA 2, and as a result, we do not know what supplementary agreements have been negotiated with the US," she said. "VFA 2 is even worse [than the original], because it grants certain privileges to the US which are not granted to the Philippines."

None of this is news, exactly, especially to readers of this newspaper, except for the fact that it involves Santiago, a close ally of the President's and a prominent lawyer in her own right. Many of those who opposed the VFA back in 1999, when it came up for ratification by the Senate, can truthfully say, "I told you so." Just the same, it is important that the Senate has voted to convey its sense of the issue to the President.

This week's vote was rich in irony. Santiago herself was one of the senators who voted for the VFA in 1999. One of its main sponsors then, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, has also belatedly learned to sound the warning about the agreement's fundamental inequality. (To be sure, Biazon's is a muted warning: "Apparently, this treaty is one-sided," he told his colleagues.) The VFA also became law of the land when Joseph Estrada, one of the more prominent advocates for the removal of US military bases in the Philippines, was president. Could he have foreseen that the VFA would allow American soldiers to stay in the country indefinitely?

In her speech, Santiago enumerated several inequalities (the diplomatic phrase she used was "non-reciprocal" provisions) in the agreements. The first item on her list is familiar to anyone who followed the Subic Bay rape case: An American soldier who broke the law in the Philippines can be detained at the US Embassy, not in a Philippine prison. This is a courtesy that, in its exaggerated kindness to a certain kind of stranger, mocks the courteous and insults their hospitality.

Santiago also raised an argument against the VFA built on the revelations pieced together from various news reports filed over several years. Today, she said, American soldiers "are now embedded [among] RP combat troops, wearing uniforms and carrying firearms. The RP Constitution prohibits foreigners from engaging in combat operations, either in traditional warfare, or in unconventional warfare." This has always been one of the arguments against the VFA: that it opened the door to American military participation in AFP operations. Ten years later (10 years late), the Senate is ready to tell the President that it's time to shut the door.