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