Rene Saguisag et al. v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa (MR) Sereno, C.J.
July 26, 2016
G.R. No. 21246
Doctr Doctrin ine e
The The Consti Constitut tutio ion n canno cannott be viewe viewe solel solely y as a list o! "roh "rohib ibiti ition ons s an li#it li#itati ation ons s on $over $overn# n#en enta tall "ower "ower,, but rathe ratherr as an instru#ent "roviin$ the "rocess o! structurin$ $overn#ent in orer that it #ay e!!ectively serve the "eo"le. % &t is not si#"ly a set o! rules, but an entire le$al !ra#ewor' !or (hili""ine society. &n this "articular case, we !in that )DC* i not $o beyon the !ra#ewor'. &N &N THIS !SE" The entry o! + troo"s has lon$ been authori-e uner a vali an subsistin$ treaty, which is the isitin$ /orces *$ree#ent /* Reain$ the /* alon$ with the lon$stanin$ utual De!ense Treaty DT le this Court to the conclusion that an e3ecutive a$ree#ent such as the )DC* was well within the bouns o! the obli$ations i#"ose by both treaties.
u##ar u##ary y
(etiti (etitione oners rs a$ui a$uisa$ sa$ et al. al. !ile !ile an R R to the ori$ ori$ina inall case, case, contest contestin$ in$ the the const constitu itutio tional nality ity o! o! the )3ecu )3ecutive tive )3e )3ec. c. ec. ec. choa, choa, (res. *5uino et al. rati!yin$ )DC* in 2014. a$uisa$ et al. conten that !or the )DC* to be vali an e!!ective, it shoul !irst be trans#itte to the enate !or eliberation an concurrence. C rule that no, the )3ecutive *$ree#ent by (res. *5uino rati!yin$ )DC* is vali, because because uner the conce"t o! verba verba le$is, what ec. 2, *rt. 7&&& o! the Consti conte#"lates as a treaty re5uirin$ the concurrence o! the enate is the &N&T&*8 )NTR9 o! !orei$n #ilitary etc. in the (:, an NT the *8R)*D9 )7&T&NG !orei$n #ilitary bases etc. in the (:. it was the latter which the (res. rati!ie.
/acts
For us to know the value of the MR of the Saguisag decision, we should go back to the main decision first haha. Feel ko talaga nandun yung relevant points re !"he Supremacy of the Constitution! under our course outline. So sorry if mahaba yung facts, eto kasi yung full conte#t nung inemphasi$e ni Sir sa notes niya as to the Saguisag MR decision. Pertinent #ac$groun% as ta$en &ro' the st 'ain %ecision (Saguisag v. Exec. Sec.)" (etitioners a$uisa$ et al. are 5uestinon$ t he constitutionality o! the )DC* between the (: an the +, alle$in$ that )3ec. Res"onents ec. choa et al. co##itte $rave abuse o! iscretion a#ountin$ to lac' or e3cess o! ;urisiction when they entere into the a$ree#ent with the +. a$uisa$ et al. are contenin$ that the )D* shoul *!ter the e3"iration in 1??1 o! the *$ree#ent between the Re"ublic o! the (hili""ines an the +nite tates o! *#erica concernin$ ilitary @ases, &oreign 'ilitary #ases, troo-s, or &acilities shall not #e alloe% in the PhiliPhi li--in -ines es exce-t un%er a treaty %uly concurre% in #y the Senate an, Senate an, when the Con$ress so re5uires, rati!ie by a #a;ority o! the votes cast by the "eo"le in a national re!erenu# hel !or that "ur"ose, an reco$ni-e as a treaty by the other contractin$ tate. . The C ac'nowle$e that the "lain #eanin$ o! the Constitution "rohibits the entry o! !orei$n #ilitary bases, troo"s, or !acilities, e3ce"t by way o! a treaty concurre in by the enate A a clear li#itation on the (resient (a) it is NT the instru#ent that allows the "resence o! !orei$n #ilitary bases, troo"s, or !acilities or (#) it (#) it #erely ai#s to i#"le#ent an alrea%y E2ISTIN3 law E2ISTIN3 law or treaty. 4. C notes that as "er ec. 2, the worin$ si$ni!ies that the (resient is NT authori-e by law to allow !orei$n #ilitary bases etc. to enter the (:, e3ce"t uner a treaty concurre in by the enate. :B))R, the Constitution only restricts the authority as "er the ENTR EN TR5 5 o! the bases, troo"s, or !acilities, an NOT to the activities to #e %one !+TER the entry. 6. C invo'e verba legis> legis> ! "ara#ount consieration is the (8*&N )*N&NG o! the lan$ua$e e3"resse in the Consti. &t is "resu#e that the "rovisions have been care!ully cra!te in orer to e3"ress the ob;ective it see's to attain. &t is incu#bent u"on the Court to re!rain !ro# $oin$ beyon the "lain #eanin$ o! the wors use in the Consti. &t is incu#bent u"on the Court to re!rain !ro# $oin$ beyon the "lain #eanin$ o! the wors use in the Consti> %e look to the language of the document itself in our search for its meaning. %e do not of course stop there, but that is where we begin. &t is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched e#press the ob'ective sought to be attained. "hey are to be given their ordinary meaning e#cept where technical terms are employed in which case the significance thus attached to them prevails. (s the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer)s document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the people)s consciousness, its language as much as possible should be understood in the sense they have in common use. %hat it says according to the te#t of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people mean what they say. "hus, these are the cases where the need for construction is reduced to a minimum. 7. It is only in those instances in hich the constitutional -rovision is unclear, a'#iguous, or silent that &urther construction 'ust #e %one to elicit its 'eaning.
Ang Bagong BayaniOFW v. Commission on Elections" Elections" &t is sa!er to construe the Constitution !ro# what a""ears u"on its !ace. The "ro"er inter"retation there!ore e"ens #ore on how it was unerstoo by the "eo"le ao"tin$ it than in the !ra#ers< unerstanin$ thereo!.
S" The S" The e!!ect o! this s tate#ent is sur"risin$ly "ro!oun, !or, i! ta'en literally, literally, the phrase "shall not be allowed in the Philippines" plainly refers to the entry of bases troops or facilities in the co!ntry. The co!ntry. The 3!or )n$lish Dictionary e!ines the wor =allow= as a transitive verb that #eans =to "er#it, enable=E =to $ive consent to the occurrence o! or rela3 restraint on an action, event, or activity=E =to consent to the "resence or attenance o! a "erson=E an, when with an averbial o! "lace, =to "er#it a "erson or ani#al to $o, co#e, or be in, out, near, etc.=@lac'
The verb =allow= is !ollowe by the wor =in,= which is a "re"osition use to inicate ="lace or "osition in s"ace or anythin$ havin$ #aterial e3tension> Bithin the li#its or bouns o!, within any "lace or thin$.=
That so#ethin$ is the (hili""ines, which is the noun that !ollows. !ollows. It is evi%ent that the constitutional
(re"are by> *le3 *.
