Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, South and Southeast Asia, Volume XV

455. Briefing Paper Prepared by the Officer in Charge of Philippine Affairs (McFarland)¹

Washington, September 16, 1960.

CURRENT STATUS OF U.S.-PHILIPPINE NEGOTIATIONS ON CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Upon the departure of Ambassador Bohlen from Manila in 1959, negotiations for amendment of the 1947 U.S.-Philippine Military Bases Agreement lapsed. At that time Philippine Foreign Secretary Serrano was still insisting upon arrangements giving the Philippines terms more favorable in the matter of criminal jurisdiction than those enjoyed by any of our NATO allies or Japan.

Talks were resumed July 15, 1960 between Serrano and Ambassador Hickerson, upon Philippine initiative, apparently in the hope that the aura of good will developed during the visit of President Eisenhower could be turned to Philippine advantage.

In the current talks, Serrano has continued to refuse to consider the NATO-Japanese formula despite past public statements by President Garcia that the Philippines expect nothing more than “equal treatment” with our other allies. Therefore, Ambassador Hickerson sought and was granted authority to begin discussions with Serrano based upon the U.S. reformulation of the 1956 Philippine panel formula. Ambassador Hickerson is seeking to reach agreement on jurisdiction over the determination of duty status since until such agreement is reached, he is convinced, discussion of other aspects will prove futile.

Although somewhat more moderate in language than on the occasion of their first meeting, Serrano on August 30 continued to insist that he had reached a number of agreements favorable to the Philippine position in talks with Ambassador Bohlen which required no further discussion. Serrano has so far avoided answering direct questions as to why the Philippines cannot accept the NATO-Japanese formula.

However, after lengthy discussion, Ambassador Hickerson concluded that in the light of Serrano’s obscurantist tactics there was no use going into substantive discussion and terminated the August 30 meeting with the statement that he did not think all ideas and possibilities leading to agreement on jurisdiction had been exhausted.

Meantime, although having agreed that the talks should be confidential, Serrano has continued his tactics of press briefings and one-sided leaks reflecting his distorted view of the issues involved to the extent that the Department expressed concern and Ambassador Hickerson simultaneously felt it necessary to set the record straight in a public speech.

Another meeting was scheduled for September 15, 1960² at which time Ambassador Hickerson planned to renew his attempt to get Serrano to concentrate exclusively on the question of duty determination.

1. Source: Department of State, SPA Files: Lot 64 D 391, B–1, Policy and Briefing Papers. Confidential. Prepared for Parsons’ use at the U.N. General Assembly.
2. During the September 15 meeting, Serrano insisted on the 1956 Philippine Panel position, so no progress was made. (Telegram 337 from Manila, September 16; ibid., 796.56311/9–1660) The criminal jurisdiction issue was not resolved in 1960.