Digest

Author: Rea Irish Michelle Pintor

Bayan v Zamora
GR NO. 138570
Petition: Petition for Certiorari and prohibition
Petitioner: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, et. Al.
Respondent: Ronaldo Zamora, et. Al.
Ponente: Buena
Date: October 10, 2000
Facts:
The Philippines signed Military Bases Agreement (MBA for brevity) and Mutual Defense Treaty
(MDT) to strengthen and enhance the defense of the country. When the MBA was about to
expire, an extension was negotiated but was rejected. However, the US Panel (Deputy Asst. Sec.
Kurt Campbell) and the Phil. Panel (Rodolfo Severino, Jr.) drafted the VFA, which, after a series
of negotiations, was finalized on January 12-13, 1998. On October 5, 1998, Joseph Estrada
ratified VFA, then gave it to the senate the next day for concurrence. A proposed resolution was
given by the committees and recommending concurrence to VFA as well as forming a
Legislative Oversight Committee. On May 27, 1999, Proposed Senate Resolution 448 was
approved by 2/3 votes and VFA entered into force in June 1, 1999.
On the whole, the VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and
personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military
personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in
the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation
of equipment, materials and supplies.
Petitioners argue that Section 25, Article XVIII is applicable considering that the VFA has for its
subject the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines. Respondents, on the contrary,
maintain that Section 21, Article VII should apply inasmuch as the VFA is not a basing
arrangement but an agreement which involves merely the temporary visits of United States
personnel engaged in joint military exercises.
Issue:
WON the VFA is governed by the provisions of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution
Held:
Yes. However, it also finds applicability in Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution.
Section 21, Article VII deals with treatise or international agreements in general, in which case,
the concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the Senate is required to make
the subject treaty, or international agreement, valid and binding on the part of the Philippines. In
contrast, Section 25, Article XVIII is a special provision that applies to treaties which involve the
presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines. Section 25, Article
XVIII further requires that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities may be allowed in the
Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, ratified by a majority of
the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by Congress, and

Digest Author: Rea Irish Michelle Pintor

recognized as such by the other contracting state. Undoubtedly, Section 25, Article XVIII, which
specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, should apply
in the instant case. To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, the provisions of section
21, Article VII will find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of
determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the Senate, as will
be further discussed hereunder.
Moreover, it is specious to argue that Section 25, Article XVIII is inapplicable to mere transient
agreements for the reason that there is no permanent placing of structure for the establishment of
a military base. On this score, the Constitution makes no distinction between transient and
permanent. Certainly, we find nothing in Section 25, Article XVIII that requires foreign troops or
facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in the Philippines.
As to the issue of whether or not the requirements of Section 25 were complied with when the
Senate gave its concurrence to the VFA, there is no dispute as to the presence of the first two
requisites in the case of the VFA (a) it must be under a treaty and (b) the treaty must be duly
concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of the votes
cast by the people in a national referendum;
As for the third requisite, (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state, the court is of
the firm view that it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an
executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a
treaty. To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under
international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty.