BAYAN vs.

ZAMORA
FACTS:
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines (RP) and the United States of America (US)
forged a Military Bases Agreement which formalized the use of installations in the
Philippine territory by United States military personnel.
The RP-US Military Bases Agreement expired in 1991 without having been
renewed. Notwithstanding, the defense and security relationship between the Philippines
and the US continued pursuant to a Mutual Defense Treaty entered into on August 30,
1951.
In 1997, negotiations began between the RP and US for a Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA). President Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed
by Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard on February
10, 1998.
Subsequently, President Estrada ratified the VFA and officially transmitted to the
Senate of the Philippines the Instrument of Ratification for concurrence pursuant to
Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The Senate, in turn, referred the VFA to
its Committee on Foreign Relations and Committee on National Defense and Security for
joint hearing.
Thereafter, Senate Resolution No. 443 was approved by the Senate by a twothirds (2/3) vote of its members. It became re-numbered as Senate Resolution No. 18.
On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes
between Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard.

ISSUES:
Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Article VII or of
Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?
HELD:

Petitions were DISMISSED.

Applicable Constitutional Provision
Petitioners argument:
Section 25, Article XVIII is applicable considering that the VFA has for
its subject the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines
o

"After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines
and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority
of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State."
SPECIAL PROVISION that applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign
military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines

Respondents argument:
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
o
o

"No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in
by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."
Refers to international agreements IN GENERAL

Ruling of the court:

Both constitutional provisions share the same ground. In both
instances, the concurrence of the senate is needed to comply with the
constitutional requirements.
Section 25 should apply because it specifically deals with treaties
involving military bases
Lex specialis derogat generali; special provisions or laws prevail
over general ones
Military bases need not be permanent, no distinction is made on
permanent and transient
May cover only one: foreign bases, foreign troops or foreign facilities

Whether or not the requirements of Section 25 were complied with

when the Senate gave its concurrence to the VFA
Requisites:
o (a) it must be under a treaty;
o (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; and
o (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.
A and B are present
With regard to C:
o This Court is of the firm view that the phrase "recognized as a
treaty" means that the other contracting party accepts or
acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.
o 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.
o The records reveal that the United States Government, through
Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard, has stated that the United
States government has fully committed to living up to the terms
of the VFA. For as long as the United States of America accepts
or acknowledges the VFA as a treaty, and binds itself further to
comply with its obligations under the treaty, there is indeed
marked compliance with the mandate of the Constitution.
With the ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to final acceptance,
and with the exchange of notes between the Philippines and the United States of
America, it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the
principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement. (Article
II Section 2)

As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines agrees to be bound

by generally accepted rules for the conduct of its international relations. The state
is responsible for assuring compliance with this international law by every branch
and subdivision; we cannot invoke that the Constitution as a convenient excuse
for non-compliance with our duties and responsibilities under international law.

SAGUISAG vs. EXEC. SEC

The petitions before this Court question the constitutionality of the
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America.
FACTS:
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.
According to the Philippine government, the conclusion of EDCA was the result of
intensive and comprehensive negotiations in the course of almost two years. After eight rounds of
negotiations, 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. The OSG clarified during the oral arguments[90] that the Philippine and the U.S.
governments had yet to agree formally on the specific sites of the Agreed Locations mentioned in
the agreement.
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.

ISSUES:

Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities
Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, as well as with
existing laws and treaties

HELD:
The role of the President as the executor of the law includes the duty
to defend the State, for which purpose he may use that power in the
conduct of foreign relations
Statutory construction: verba legis ordinary meaning of the
terms

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.
It is evident that the constitutional restriction refers solely to the initial entry of the
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. Once entry is authorized, the subsequent
acts are thereafter subject only to the limitations provided by the rest of the
Constitution and Philippine law, and not to the Section 25 requirement of validity
through a treaty.
The OSG emphasizes that EDCA can be in the form of an executive agreement,
since it merely involves "adjustments in detail" in the implementation of the MDT and
the VFA.

The President may generally enter into executive agreements subject

to limitations defined by the Constitution and may be in furtherance of a
treaty already concurred in by the Senate.

Executive agreements They are concluded (1) to adjust the details of

a treaty; (2) pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of the
Legislature; or (3) in the exercise of the President's independent
powers under the Constitution.

There remain two very important features that distinguish treaties

from executive agreements and translate them into terms of art in
the domestic setting.
o First, executive agreements must remain traceable to an
express or implied authorization under the Constitution,
statutes, or treaties.
o Second, treaties are, by their very nature, considered
superior to executive agreements.

EDCA is consistent with the content, purpose, and framework of the MDT
and the VFA

After a thorough examination of the content, purpose, and framework of

the MDT and the VFA, we find that EDCA has remained within the parameters set
in these two treaties. Just like the Terms of Reference mentioned in Lim, mere
adjustments in detail to implement the MDT and the VFA can be in the form of
executive agreements.