Rene Saguisag, et. al.

vs Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa,

G.R. No. 212426, 12 January 2016
EDCA authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct activities
within certain "Agreed Locations" in the country. It was not transmitted to the Senate on
the executive's understanding that to do so was no longer necessary. Accordingly, in
June 2014, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the U.S. Embassy exchanged
diplomatic notes confirming the completion of all necessary internal requirements for the
agreement to enter into force in the two countries.
Two petitions for certiorari were thereafter filed before us assailing the
constitutionality of EDCA. They primarily argue that it should have been in the form of a
treaty concurred in by the Senate, not an executive agreement.
The import of this characteristic is that 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
In light of this constitutional duty, it is the President's prerogative to do whatever
is legal and necessary for Philippine defense interests. It is no coincidence that the
constitutional provision on the faithful execution clause was followed by that on the
President's commander-in-chief powers, 164 which are specifically granted during
extraordinary events of lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. And this duty of
defending the country is unceasing, even in times when there is no state of lawless
violence, invasion, or rebellion. At such times, the President has full powers to ensure
the faithful execution of the laws.
The President, however, may enter into an executive agreement on foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not the instrument that allows the presence
of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities; or (b) it merely aims to implement an
existing law or treaty.