13 Arthur Lim et al v.

Executive Secretary AUTHOR: PARAS

GR No. 131445, April 11, 2002 NOTES:
TOPIC: Executive Department
PONENTE:
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: Article VII, Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate.
Emergency Recit:
FACTS: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Balikatan 021 exercises and pray for the prohibition of the
deployment of US troops in Basilan and Mindanao. Petitioners allege that the Balikatan is not covered by the Mutual
Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the US. They claim that the MDT only provides for mutual military
assistance in case of armed attack by an external aggressor against the Philippines or the US. Also, they claim that the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does not authorize American Soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine
Territory.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Balikatan 021 is constitutional
HELD: YES
RATIO: The VFA itself permits US personnel to engage on an impermanent basis, in activities, the exact meaning of
which is left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is that the US personnel must abstain from any
activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity. Under this guidance,
the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that Balikatan 021 a mutual
anti-terrorism advising assisting and training exercise falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the
context of the agreement. Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion
that combat related activities as opposed to combat itself such as the one subject of the instant petition are indeed
authorized.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):