SCOTUS ruled in favor of the the Filipino employees ruling that the Congress meant to include such executive agreements under the term “treaty” in the anti discrimination law.

Here is the synopsis of Weinberger v. Rossi at Justia:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/456/25/

While Smith still enjoys the “presumption of innocence” until the finality of the judgment, for all practical purposes his goose is cooked. The CA will not reverse the RTC in a case as controversial as this unless there has been a blatant miscarriage of justice.

On appeal, the defense still has the burden of proving the innocence of the accused, although automatic review is mandated in capital offenses, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Simple rape is punishable with reclusion perpetua as provided in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. So, at least in theory, a convicted rapist can just keep silent and his guilt or innocence will still be subject to proper judicial proceedings, i.e. automatic review.

He is technically a convicted criminal now, although not a “convict” in the sense that he has actually served time in a Philippine jail. He is under detention, and if he is exonerated he is not what we would consider an “ex-con”.

And yes, it would be interesting to see how the lynch mob would react if, by some twist, Smith is allowed to serve his sentence in the U.S. The rape case is of course an obvious (and tired) metaphor for U.S.- Philippine relations (the rape of the motherland by the Ugly American and so forth). So many groups are invested politically, psychologically and even emotionally in seeing Smith’s nuts (figuratively) cut off that they’ll go crazy if he manages to evade serving time in Muntinlupa.

Is it technically correct to call Daniel Smith a rape “convict” now?

Is he already formally serving his sentence? I know if he is convicted by the SCoRP that time in detention is credited to sentence served, but if he is exonerated on appeal, we do not call him an “ex-convict” do we?

In other words, is it not true that a convict is one who has been to prison to serve his sentence, not merely be in detention while his case is being tried?

Has Daniel Smith “lost the presumption of innocence” after having been found guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt by the single judge of the RTC?

By this I mean, has the “burden of proof” shifted from prosecution to defense in the appellate stage? Is it now the job of the Defense to prove his innocence beyond reasonable doubt? Or may the accused remain completely silent, not mount a defense, and merely demand that the Prosecution convince this time 3 out of 5 CA judges of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as defend every step of the prosecution thus far?

But his “valedictory” motif itself, that the Romulo Kenney Agreements violate the VFA, hangs on a mighty thin thread — the construed meaning of the single phrase “by Philippine authorities.” Yet there they are as explicitly required by the VFA–duly signed undenied agreements between the two governments.

But I’ve been meaning to ask someone this, because it seems to be the crux of the custody battle:

The VFA states:
“The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings.”

Have all judicial proceedings been completed?