TAM-ABON, EDREA G.
Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, Octobr 10, !000
"A#T
%$The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951, To further strengthen their defense and security relationship Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any e!ternal ar"ed attac# on their territory territory,, ar"ed forces, pu$lic %essels, and aircraft &n Septe"$er 1', 1991, the Philippine Senate re(ected the proposed )P*US Treaty of +riendship, ooperation and Security -hich, in effect, -ould ha%e e!tended the presence of US "ilitary $ases in the Philippines &n .uly 1/, 199 )P and US e!changed notes and discussed, a"ong other things, the possi$le ele"ents of the i isiting siting +orces Agree"ent 2+A 2+AThis This resulted to a series of confer con ferenc ences es and nego negoti tiati ations ons -hi -hich ch cul cul"in "inate ated d on .an .anuary uary 14 and 13, 199 199/ / The Therea reafte fter, r, President +idel )a"os appro%ed the +A, -hich -as respecti%ely signed $y Secretary Siaon and United States A"$assador Tho"as 6u$$ard &n &ct &cto$e o$err 5, 199/ 199/,, Pre Presid sident ent .os .oseph eph 7 7st 7strad rada, a, thr throug ough h res respon pondent dent Sec Secret retary ary of +oreign Affairs, ratified the +A &n &cto$er ', 199/, the President, acting through respondent 7!ecuti%e Secretary )onaldo 8a"ora, officially trans"itted to the Senate of the Philippines,the nstru"ent of )atification, the letter of the President and the +A, for concurrence pursuant to Section 41, Article of the 19/ onstitution Petitions for certiorari and prohi$ition, petitioners : as legislators, non*go%ern"ental organiations, citiens and ta!payers : assail the constitutionality of the +A and i"pute to herein respondents gra%e a$use of discretion in ratifying the agree"ent Petitioner contends, under they pro%ision cited, the ;foreign "ilitary $ases, troops, or facilities< "ay $e allo-ed in the Philippines unless the follo-ing conditions are sufficiently "et= a it "ust $e a treaty,$ it "ust $e duly concurred in $y the senate, ratified $y a "a(ority of the %otes cast in a national referendu" held for that purpose if so re>uired $y congress, and c recognied as such $y the other contracting state )espondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 41 Article is applica$le so that, -hat is re>uires for such treaty to $e %alid and effecti%e is the concurrence in $y at least t-o* thirds of all the "e"$ers of the senate
&$$'E$ AND R'(&NG%
1 ssue 1= Do the Petitioners ha%e legal standing as concerned citiens, ta!payers, or legislators to >uestion the constitutionality of the +A? @& Petitioners ayan Muna, etc ha%e no standing A party $ringing a suit challenging the onstitutionality of a la- "ust sho- not only that the la- is in%alid, $ut that he has sustained or is in i""ediate danger of sustaining so"e direct in(ury as a result of its enforce"ent, and not "erely that he suffers there$y in so"e indefinite -ay Petitioners ha%e failed to sho- that they are in any danger of direct in(ury as a result of the +A As ta!payers, they ha%e failed to esta$lish that the +A in%ol%es the e!ercise $y ongress of its ta!ing or spending po-ers A ta!payerBs suit refers to a case -here the act co"plained of directly in%ol%es the illegal dis$urse"ent of pu$lic funds deri%ed fro" ta!ation efore he can in%o#e the po-er of (udicial re%ie-, he "ust specifically pro%e that he has sufficient interest in pre%enting the illegal e!penditure of "oney raised $y ta!ation and that he -ill sustain a direct in(ury as a result of the enforce"ent of the >uestioned statute or contract t is not sufficient that he has "erely a general interest co""on to all "e"$ers of the pu$lic learly, inas"uch as no pu$lic funds raised $y ta!ation are in%ol%ed in this case, and in the a$sence of any allegation $y petitioners that pu$lic funds are $eing "isspent or illegally e!pended, petitioners, as ta!payers, ha%e no legal standing to assail the legality of the +A Si"ilarly, the petitioner*legislators 2Tanada, Arroyo, etc do not possess the re>uisite locus standi to sue n the a$sence of a clear sho-ing of any direct in(ury to their person or to the institution to -hich they $elong, they cannot sue The ntegrated ar of the Philippines 2P is also stripped of standing in these cases The P lac#s the legal capacity to $ring this suit in the a$sence of a $oard resolution fro" its oard of Co%ernors authoriing its @ational President to co""ence the present action @ot-ithstanding, in %ie- of the para"ount i"portance and the constitutional significance of the issues raised, the ourt "ay $rush aside the procedural $arrier and ta#es cogniance of the petitions 4 ssue 4= s the +A go%erned $y section 41, Art , or section 45, Art of the onstitution? Section 45, Art , not section 41, Art , applies, as the +A in%ol%es the presence of foreign "ilitary troops in the Philippines The onstitution contains t-o pro%isions re>uiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agree"ents Section 41, Article reads= ;EnFo treaty or international agree"ent shall $e %alid and effecti%e unless concurred in $y at least t-o*thirds of all the Me"$ers of the Senate<
Section 45, Article , pro%ides=uires, ratified $y a "a(ority of the %otes cast $y the people in a national referendu" held for that purpose, and recognied as a treaty $y the other contracting State< Section 41, Article deals -ith treaties or international agree"ents in general, in -hich case, the concurrence of at least t-o*thirds 24G3 of all the Me"$ers of the Senate is re>uired to "a#e the treaty %alid and $inding to the Philippines This pro%ision lays do-n the general rule on treaties All treaties, regardless of su$(ect "atter, co%erage, or particular designation or appellation, re>uires the concurrence of the Senate to $e %alid and effecti%e n contrast, Section 45, Article is a special pro%ision that applies to treaties -hich in%ol%e the presence of foreign "ilitary $ases, troops or facilities in the Philippines Under this pro%ision, the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the re>uisites to render co"pliance -ith the constitutional re>uire"ents and to consider the agree"ent $inding on the Philippines Sec 45 further re>uires that ;foreign "ilitary $ases, troops, or facilities< "ay $e allo-ed in the Philippines only $y %irtue of a treaty duly concurred in $y the Senate, ratified $y a "a(ority of the %otes cast in a national referendu" held for that purpose if so re>uired $y ongress, and recognied as such $y the other contracting state &n the -hole, the +A is an agree"ent -hich defines the treat"ent of US troops %isiting the Philippines t pro%ides for the guidelines to go%ern such %isits of "ilitary personnel, and further defines the rights of the US and )P go%ern"ent in the "atter of cri"inal (urisdiction, "o%e"ent of %essel and aircraft, i"port and e!port of e>uip"ent, "aterials and supplies Undou$tedly, Section 45, Article , -hich specifically deals -ith treaties in%ol%ing foreign "ilitary $ases, troops, or facilities, should apply in the instant case To a certain e!tent, ho-e%er, the pro%isions of Section 41, Article -ill find applica$ility -ith regard to deter"ining the nu"$er of %otes re>uired to o$tain the %alid concurrence of the Senate t is specious to argue that Section 45, Article is inapplica$le to "ere transient agree"ents for the reason that there is no per"anent placing of structure for the esta$lish"ent of a "ilitary $ase The onstitution "a#es no distinction $et-een ;transient< and ;per"anent< He find nothing in Section 45, Article that re>uires foreign troops or facilities to $e stationed or placed per"anently in the Philippines Hhen no distinction is "ade $y la-I the ourt should not distinguish He do not su$scri$e to the argu"ent that Section 45, Article is not controlling since no foreign "ilitary $ases, $ut "erely foreign troops and facilities, are in%ol%ed in the +A The proscription co%ers ;foreign "ilitary $ases, troops, or facilities< Stated differently, this prohi$ition is not li"ited to the entry of troops and facilities -ithout any foreign $ases $eing esta$lished The clause does not refer to ;foreign "ilitary $ases, troops, or facilities< collecti%ely $ut treats the" as separate and independent su$(ects, such that three different situations are conte"plated J a "ilitary treaty the su$(ect of -hich could $e either 2a foreign $ases, 2$ foreign troops, or 2c foreign facilities J any of the three standing alone places it under the co%erage of Section 45, Article 3 ssue 3= Has Sec 45 Art Bs re>uisites satisfied to "a#e the +A effecti%e?
K7S Section 45, Article disallo-s foreign "ilitary $ases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the follo-ing conditions are sufficiently "et= 2a it "ust $e under a treatyI 2$ the treaty "ust $e duly concurred in $y the Senate and, -hen so re>uired $y ongress, ratified $y a "a(ority of the %otes cast $ y the people in a national referendu"I and 2c recognied as a treaty $y the other contracting state There is no dispute as to the presence of the first t-o re>uisites in the case of the +A The concurrence handed $y the Senate through )esolution @o 1/ is in accordance -ith the onstitution, as there -ere at least 1' Senators that concurred As to condition 2c, the ourt held that the phrase ;recognied as a treaty< "eans that the other contracting party accepts or ac#no-ledges the agree"ent as a treaty To re>uire the US to su$"it the +A to the US Senate for concurrence pursuant to its onstitution, is to accord strict "eaning to the phrase Hell*entrenched is the principle that the -ords used in the onstitution are to $e gi%en their ordinary "eaning e!cept -here technical ter"s are e"ployed, in -hich case the significance thus attached to the" pre%ails ts language should $e understood in the sense they ha%e in co""on use The records re%eal that the US Co%ern"ent, through A"$assador 6u$$ard, has stated that the US has fully co""itted to li%ing up to the ter"s of the +A +or as long as the US accepts or ac#no-ledges the +A as a treaty, and $inds itself further to co"ply -ith its treaty o$ligations, there is indeed co"pliance -ith the "anda te of the onstitution Horth stressing too, is that the ratification $y the President of the +A, and the concurrence of the Senate, should $e ta#en as a clear and une>ui%ocal e!pression of our nationBs consent to $e $ound $y said treaty, -ith the conco"itant duty to uphold the o$ligations and responsi$ilities e"$odied thereunder )atification is generally held to $e an e!ecuti%e act, underta#en $y the head of the state, through -hich the for"al acceptance of the treaty is proclai"ed A State "ay pro%ide in its do"estic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty n our (urisdiction, the po-er to ratify is %ested in the President and not, as co""only $elie%ed, in the legislature The role of the Senate is li"ited only to gi%ing or -ithholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification Hith the ratification of the +A it no- $eco"es o$ligatory and incu"$ent on our part, under principles of international la- 2pacta sunt ser%anda, to $e $ound $y the ter"s of the agree"ent Thus, no less than Section 4, Article declares that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international la- as part of the la- of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, e>uality, (ustice, freedo", cooperation and a"ity -ith all nations
