Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. G.R. No. 212444 January 12, 2016 Facts: -EDCA or Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement is an
Held: Petition DISMISSED. 1. EDCA is constitutional in its arrangement as an executive agreement. 2. It remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement.
agreement between the Philippines and America wherein it authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain "Agreed Locations" in the country. -After eight rounds of negotiations for two years, the Secretary of National Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines signed the agreement on 28 April 2014. President Benigno S. Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6 June 2014. It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive's understanding that to do so was no longer necessary. -Senators file Senate Resolution No. (SR) 105.91. The resolution expresses the "strong sense" of the Senators that for EDCA to become valid and effective, it must first be transmitted to the Senate for deliberation and concurrence
Rationale -The manner of the President's execution of the law, even if not expressly granted by the law, is justified by necessity and limited only by law, since the President must "take necessary and proper steps to carry into execution the law”. It is the President's prerogative to do whatever is legal and necessary for Philippine defense interests (commander-in-chief powers). -EDCA is considered an executive agreement, therefore may be bound through the President without the need of senatorial votes for its execution. -The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. TREATIES
Issues: 1. Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. 2. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties.
Formal
EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS Become binding through
documents which require
executive action without the
ratification with the
need of a vote by the
approval of two-thirds of
Senate or by Congress
the Senate International
International
agreements
agreements
involving political issues or
embodying adjustments
changes of national policy
detail,
carrying
out
of well
and
those involving
established national policies and
character
involving arrangements of a
Leonardo-De Castro: Agrees with the issues raised. Believes
more
temporary
that the EDCA is an international agreement that allows the
nature Must remain traceable to an
presence in the Philippines of foreign military bases, troops
executive agreements and is
express
under Section 25, Article XVIII be complied with. The EDCA
regarded as being on the
authorization
under
same level as a statute as
Constitution,
statutes,
they are products of the acts
treaties
Considered
superior
to
traditions and
(Semi) Concurring Opinion
agreements of a permanent
or
less
or
those
implied the or
and facilities, and thus requires that the three requisites must be submitted to the Senate for concurrence. Furthermore, EDCA is without any clear limitation as to the duration of their stay.
of the Executive and the Senate If there is an irreconcilable
Cannot
conflict, a later law or treaty
international
takes precedence over one
that
that is prior
allowed
create
are
implied
obligations not
or in
new expressly
reasonably
the
law
they
purport to implement. Once inconsistent with either a law
or
a
treaty
are
considered ineffective -The term "international agreements" does not include the
Dissenting Opinions Brion: EDCA is constitutionally deficient and, hence, cannot be enforced in our country. EDCA should be in the form of a treaty.
Believes
interpretation
are
that
the
ponencia's
incorrect
because
approach
they
are
and overly
simplistic. EDCA reiterates the purposes of the 1951 MDT and the
1998
VFA
but
also
contains an
entirety
new
agreement pertaining to Agreed Locations Leonen: EDCA needs to be submitted to the Senate for
term "executive agreements.
concurrence.
-EDCA increases the likelihood that, in an event requiring a
substantially alters or reshapes our national and foreign
defensive
prepared
policy. He votes to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petitions and
alongside the U.S. to defend its islands and insure its
to DECLARE the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
territorial integrity pursuant to a relationship built on
(EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the
previous treaties, particularly the Mutual Defense Treaty of
United States of America as a formal and official memorial of
1951 (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement of 1999 (VFA).
the results of the negotiations concerning the allowance of
response,
the
Philippines
will
be
It
involves
a
key
political
issue
that
United States military bases, troops, or facilities in the
entered into by the executive department with the US and
Philippines, which is NOT EFFECTIVE until it complies with the
ratified on June 6, 2014. Under the EDCA, the PH shall
requisites of Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Philippine
provide the US forces the access and use of portions of PH
Constitution, namely: (1) that the agreement must be in the
territory, which are called Agreed Locations. Aside from the
form of a treaty; (2) that the treaty must be duly concurred in
right to access and to use the Agreed Locations, the US may
by the Philippine Senate and, when so required by Congress,
undertake the following types of activities within the Agreed
ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national
Locations: security cooperation exercises; joint and combined
referendum; and (3) that the agreement is either (a)
training activities; humanitarian and disaster relief activities;
recognized as a treaty or (b) accepted or acknowledged as a
and such other activities that as may be agreed upon by the
treaty by the United States before it becomes valid, binding,
parties.
and effective
Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as medium of agreement with US violated the constitutional requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves foreign military bases, troops and facilities whose entry into the country should be covered by a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The Senate, through Senate Resolution 105, also expressed its position that EDCA needs congressional ratification. Issue 1: W/N the petitions as “citizen’s suit” satisfy the requirements of legal standing in assailing the constitutionality of EDCA
Saguisag vs Executive Secretary
No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act,
Case Digest: GR 212426 Jan 12, 2016
petitioners suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of
Facts:
having to establish a direct and personal interest if they show
Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators,
that the act affects a public right. But here, aside from
questioned before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA
general statements that the petitions involve the protection
(Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement), an agreement
of a public right, and that their constitutional rights as
citizens would be violated, the petitioners failed to make
Constitution to the Senate. In a legislator’s suit, the injured
any specific assertion of a particular public right that would
party would be the Senate as an institution or any of its
be violated by the enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to
incumbent members, as it is the Senate’s constitutional
do so, the present petitions cannot be considered by the
function that is allegedly being violated. Here, none of the
Court as citizens’ suits that would justify a disregard of the
petitioners, who are former senators, have the legal standing
aforementioned requirements.
to maintain the suit.
Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as
Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial
“taxpayers”
Review over the case
No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise
neither meant to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the
matters of transcendental importance which justify setting
disbursement of public funds.
aside the rule on procedural technicalities. The
A taxpayer’s suit concerns a case in which the official act
challenge raised here is rooted in the very Constitution itself,
complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of
particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which provides for a
public funds derived from taxation. Here, those challenging
stricter mechanism required before any foreign military
the act must specifically show that they have sufficient
bases, troops or facilities may be allowed in the country.
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of public money,
Such is of paramount public interest that the Court is
and that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of the
behooved to determine whether there was grave abuse of
enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle to
discretion on the part of the Executive Department.
this case, they must establish that EDCA involves the
Brion Dissent
exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers. A
Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners
reading of the EDCA, however, would show that there has
satisfied the requirement of legal standing in asserting that a
been neither an appropriation nor an authorization of
public right has been violated through the commission of an
disbursement.
act with grave abuse of discretion. The court may exercise its power of judicial review over the act of the Executive
Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as “legislator’s suit”
Department in not submitting the EDCA agreement for
No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international
Senate concurrence not because of the transcendental
agreement is an institutional prerogative granted by the
importance of the issue, but because the petitioners satisfy
the requirements in invoking the court’s expanded
treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. that have
jurisdiction.
already been concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have
Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA agreement for
thereby met the requirements of the Constitution under Art
concurrence by the Senate violates the Constitution
XVIII, Sec 25. Because of the status of these prior
No. The EDCA need not be submitted to the Senate for
agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to the Senate.
concurrence because it is in the form of a mere executive
De Castro Dissent
agreement, not a treaty. Under the Constitution, the
No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct
President is empowered to enter into executive agreements
from the VFA and the MDT. Whether the stay of the foreign
on foreign military bases, troops or facilities if (1) such
troops in the country is permanent or temporary is
agreement is not the instrument that allows the entry of such
immaterial because the Constitution does not distinguish.
and (2) if it merely aims to implement an existing law or
The EDCA clearly involves the entry of foreign military
treaty.
bases, troops or facilities in the country. Hence, the absence
EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it
of Senate concurrence to the agreement makes it an invalid
merely involves “adjustments in detail” in the
treaty.
implementation of the MTD and the VFA. These are existing
