. -
·USC­

Depart1nent _of Siate 
TEUEGa 
&EEF.H!T 092 
49 
O~l§IN EA 15 

INF9 L 031GPM 041H 02,NSC 10,~IAE 00,INR "i71NsAE 00,Rsc 01,ooQE 00, 
SS 251RSR 011/068 R 
DRAFTED BY•EA/PHL:CHPRlCE/RAMCLENOON 
APPROVED BYaTHE SECRETARY ~A~AMB0 BROWN 
L/E~·MR~ ALDRICH IDRAFTl 
S/SQMR • BROW~l 
OODeSECRETAR~ CLIFFORD (SUB~! 

P 241726Z AUG 68 
FM SECSTATE WASHDC 
TO AMEMBASSY l"lA1'1LA PRIORI!Y 
INFO JCS 

.CIN~PAC . CIN~PACFLT CINCPACAF 
CIN~PACREPPHJL/COMNAVPHIL 
13TH·AF 
COM~AVBASE SUBIC 
COMNAVSTA SANGLEY 

• Depart1nent of State 
Sof CR EI
-. ­
~· THF. FOLLn~ ING COMr::IW·:q THREE 0 PART PACKAGE IS AUTHORIZED FOR USE BY AMBASSADOR WILLIAMS AS A T~LKIN~ PAPER IN HIS: INITIAL DISCUSSION wjTH PRESlDEt~T. MARCOS AS TO WHAT THE U§· GOVERNMENT IS PREPARED TO no~ ALL THREE ~LEMENT~ ARE NECESSARY IF. wE ARE TO MINIMIZE THE REPERC0SsIONS OF A D~CISION ro CLAIM JJRISDJCTIONl 
A• EXPLANAT!CiN To MARCOS OF us JURISDICTION .. wE HAVE; STUDIED 
THE SMITH CASE VE~Y CAREFULLY BQfH BEC~USE WE ARE-G~NGiNELY. 
cbNCERNED TH~T JUSTICE BE DoNE TO THE INDiVIDUALS o~ BOTH SibES, 

• 
. AND-BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE T~AT THE E~sE CAN BE AN IM 0 0RtANT ­PRECEDENT IN I~TERPRETING THE DEFINITION oF OFFICIAL! DUTY UNBER THE 1965 CRI~INAL JURISDICfION A~REEMENT~ PRESIDiNT M~RCOS, AS A.MILITARY MA1' AND AN OFFICER1 MAY BE EXPECTED TO U~DERSTAND THE ·ouTIES OF A SENTRY AND-THE IMPORTANCE OF HI~ POST. AFTE~ 
CAREFULLY co 1 SiornING THE CIRCUMSTANCES QF· THE "sMiTH. CASE1 WE µAVE COME To THE cONCLUSlON THAT SMITH WAS CARRYING our WHAT HE SINCERELY AND REASONABLY BELIEVED TO BE HIS OFF1lcIAL' DUTY ~~ THE DIRECT!n~s OF HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS1 AND ~~s NOT ACTI~G. 
MALiCIOUSLY nR FRIVbLoUsLY• ALTHOUaH THE USE OF FORCE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUM~TANCES CAN CoNSiITUTE A "SUBSTANTIAL qEPARTURF" FROM DUTIES TH~ SENTRY IS AUTHORIZED OR REQUIRED TO PERFORM, ~E DO NOT BE~IEVE IT DID IN THIS CASE. WE CONCLU6E TH~T THI~ CASE IS ONE OF A POSSIBLE OFFENSE ARISING OUT OF ACTS DONE IN THE PERFORMA~·c~ OF OFFlCIA~ DUTY1 WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AGREEM~NTo . 
WE BEL..! EVE 
· PAG~ 03 STAtE · 
IN THIS CASE wE BELIEVE THAT THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACTION FOR-WHICH SMiTH SHOULD BE HEL6 ACCOUNT~B~E TO HJS-MI~lTARY SUPERIORS UN~ER US MILITARY LAW• -THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS-A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT• WE RECOGNIZE AND VERY "MUCH REGRET THE INJURY THAT HAS 9EEN DONE H~RE1 ANO THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE FAMILY OF GONZALEZ• WE HAVE AUaHORIZED PAYMENT IN FULL OF THE EX GRAT[A COMPENSATION REQUESfEO BY HiS MOTHER· -­
Departnient of State
• TE cG 

PAGE 04 STATE 227177 
GOVERNMENTS• 
FINALLY1 THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Is 0NDERTAKING· A cbMPREHENSIVE REVIEW oF UNITED-STATES GUARD-AND SENTRY PROtEoURES wciRLDWIDE1 WITH THE 0BJ~ct1VE oF CLARIE~ING AND IMPROVING TH~M. -. 
PRESIDENT MARCOS MAY1 OF COURSE, DRAW UPON THE FOREGOING 
A~ ~E DEEMS ~~PROPR~ATE IN ANX PU8LIC STATEMENT• -. 
• 
C• READiNESS TO DISCUSS INTERPRETATION OF THE CRIMINAL' JURISDICTION AGREEMENT-IN EXPLAINING T~E u§ P6~iTION iN THE s~~TH tASE wiTH ­PHILIPPINE OFF1CiAL~ wE HU§T ~E p~~PARED to oxscu~s fHE' .. ­INTERPRETATION OF THE AGRE~D OFFICIAL MINUTE NO• 2. ANO THE BLAIR LETTER 
OF l0 ~UGUST 1965 IN AN EFFORT TO REACH A MUTUAL UNDERSTANDI~G AND'TO WARD nFF POSSIBLE DEMA~Ds FOR RENEGOTIATIO~~ THE AMBASSADOR WILL BE AUTHnRTZEO TO DISCUSS 'oRACLY WITH PREsioEN[ MARCOS CERTAIN CASES PROVIDFO 8Y SERVICE ~UDGE ADVOCATES GENERAL1.-IL~USTRATING . INSTANCES WHFkE WE WOULD cO SIDER A SENTRY WAS NOT ACTING IN PERFORMANCE rF OFFICIAL DuTy. THE FIRST i)IscussI5Ns: OF INTtRp?ETATIOh ~ILL -PROBABLY BE NEC~SSARY IN THE AMBASSADOR•s T~L~ WITH PRFSIDEt T MARCOS .. AND IN THE TALKS WITH §EcRETARY OF Jusr1cE TEEHANKEE. FURTHER oiscussioN couLD sE CONTINUED sv THE c~IMINAL JURTSDICTION IMPLEMENTATION COMMiTTEE1 WHrrcH IS ­PROVIDF.D FOR IN PARAGRAPH ~ OF-THE AGREED IMPLEMEN[JNG ARRANGEHEN!S 'OF THE 1965 AGREEMENT. WE HAVE ALREADY PROPOSED TO THE PHILiPPINE 
GOVERNMENT INFORMALLY THAT THE CRIMINAL JuRisorcrioN lMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE BE SET UP IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AND WE ARE OW PREPARED TO MAKE SPECIFIC pROPQSALS FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP, ORGA IlATION, ­
AND LEVEL OF OPERATION IN AccORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE AGREED IMPLEMENTING ARRANGEMENTS OF THE 1965 AGREEME~T• THE COMPETENCE o~ THE COMMITTEE WOULD EXTEND TO MUTUAL! cONSULTAT]ON IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL JURISDICXlON ARR~ BEMENTS1 INCLUDING DISCUSSIONS OF cERTIPf~ £ OF oFFlCIAL ourv DESCRIBED IN THE SECONn PARAG A H OF AGREeo MINuie NO• ~IT R~SFECT TO CASES REFERRED '.('.(I li:H ~NO tt;tcu<'·"'"'"--'''''"· APPROPRIATE PHILIP