Saguisag vs Executive Secretary the petitions involve the protection of a public right, and that their

Case Digest: GR 212426 Jan 12, 2016 constitutional rights as citizens would be violated, the petitioners
failed to make any specific assertion of a particular public right that
Facts:
would be violated by the enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to
Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators, questioned do so, the present petitions cannot be considered by the Court as
before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA (Enhanced Defense citizens suits that would justify a disregard of the aforementioned
Cooperation Agreement), an agreement entered into by the requirements.
executive department with the US and ratified on June 6,
Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers
2014. Under the EDCA, the PH shall provide the US forces the
access and use of portions of PH territory, which are called Agreed No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is neither
Locations. Aside from the right to access and to use the Agreed meant to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the disbursement of
Locations, the US may undertake the following types of activities public funds.
within the Agreed Locations: security cooperation exercises; joint
and combined training activities; humanitarian and disaster relief A taxpayers suit concerns a case in which the official act
activities; and such other activities that as may be agreed upon by complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public
the parties. funds derived from taxation. Here, those challenging the act must
specifically show that they have sufficient interest in preventing the
Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as illegal expenditure of public money, and that they will sustain a
medium of agreement with US violated the constitutional direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the assailed
requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves act. Applying that principle to this case, they must establish that
foreign military bases, troops and facilities whose entry into the EDCA involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending
country should be covered by a treaty concurred in by the Senate. powers. A reading of the EDCA, however, would show that there
The Senate, through Senate Resolution 105, also expressed its has been neither an appropriation nor an authorization of
position that EDCA needs congressional ratification. disbursement.
Issue 1: W/N the petitions as citizens suit satisfy the Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as legislators suit
requirements of legal standing in assailing the constitutionality of
EDCA No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international agreement
is an institutional prerogative granted by the Constitution to the
No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act, Senate. In a legislators suit, the injured party would be the Senate
petitioners suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of having as an institution or any of its incumbent members, as it is the
to establish a direct and personal interest if they show that the act Senates constitutional function that is allegedly being
affects a public right. But here, aside from general statements that
violated. Here, none of the petitioners, who are former senators, facilities if (1) such agreement is not the instrument that allows the
have the legal standing to maintain the suit. entry of such and (2) if it merely aims to implement an existing law
or treaty.
Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial Review over
the case EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it merely
involves adjustments in detail in the implementation of the MTD
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise matters
and the VFA. These are existing treaties between the Philippines
of transcendental importance which justify setting aside the rule on
and the U.S. that have already been concurred in by the Philippine
procedural technicalities. The challenge raised here is rooted in the
Senate and have thereby met the requirements of the Constitution
very Constitution itself, particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which
under Art XVIII, Sec 25. Because of the status of these prior
provides for a stricter mechanism required before any foreign
agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to the Senate.
military bases, troops or facilities may be allowed in the
country. Such is of paramount public interest that the Court is De Castro Dissent
behooved to determine whether there was grave abuse of
No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct from
discretion on the part of the Executive Department.
the VFA and the MDT. Whether the stay of the foreign troops in the
Brion Dissent country is permanent or temporary is immaterial because the
Constitution does not distinguish. The EDCA clearly involves the
Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners satisfied
entry of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the country.
the requirement of legal standing in asserting that a public right has
Hence, the absence of Senate concurrence to the agreement makes
been violated through the commission of an act with grave abuse of
it an invalid treaty. Read more
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
Lim v. Executive Secretary
the transcendental importance of the issue, but because the
petitioners satisfy the requirements in invoking the courts
FACTS:
expanded jurisdiction. Read more

Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA agreement for Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) signed in
concurrence by the Senate violates the Constitution 1999, personnel from the armed forces of the United States of
America started arriving in Mindanao to take partin "Balikatan
No. The EDCA need not be submitted to the Senate for concurrence 02-1 on January 2002. The Balikatan 02-1 exercises involves
because it is in the form of a mere executive agreement, not a the simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the
treaty. Under the Constitution, the President is empowered to Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement entered
enter into executive agreements on foreign military bases, troops or into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951. The
exercise is rooted from the international anti-terrorism the government have kept themselves within the limits of the
campaign declared by President George W. Bush in reaction Constitution and the laws that they have not abused the
to the 3 commercial aircrafts hijacking that smashed into twin discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside
towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of this
Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. allegedly by the al- petition.
Qaeda headed by the Osama bin Laden that occurred on
September 11, 2001. Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando Although courts generally avoid having to decide a
as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers filed a petition for certiorari constitutional question based on the doctrine of separation of
and prohibition attacking the constitutionality of the joint powers, which enjoins upon the department of the government
exercise. Partylists Sanlakas and Partido Ng Manggagawa a becoming respect for each other's act, this Court
as residents of Zamboanga and Sulu directly affected by the nevertheless resolves to take cognizance of the instant
operations filed a petition-in-intervention. petition.
Interpretation of Treaty
The Solicitor General commented the prematurity of the The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an
action as it is based only on a fear of future violation of the impermanent basis, in "activities," the exact meaning of which
Terms of Reference and impropriety of availing of certiorari to was left undefined. The expression is ambiguous, permitting a
ascertain a question of fact specifically interpretation of the wide scope of undertakings subject only to the approval of the
VFA whether it is covers "Balikatan 02-1 and no question of Philippine government. The sole encumbrance placed on its
constitutionality is involved. Moreover, there is lack of locus definition is couched in the negative, in that United States
standi since it does not involve tax spending and there is no personnel must "abstain from any activity inconsistent with the
proof of direct personal injury. spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political
activity." All other activities, in other words, are fair game.
ISSUE: W/N the petition and the petition-in-intervention should
prosper.
To aid in this, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Article 31 SECTION 3 and Article 32 contains provisos
HELD: NO. Petition and the petition-in-intervention are hereby
governing interpretations of international agreements. It is
DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new petition
clear from the foregoing that the cardinal rule of interpretation
sufficient in form and substance in the proper Regional Trial
must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to
Court - Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
verbalize the parties' intentions. The Convention likewise
dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of
Doctrine of Importance to the Public
terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as
Considering however the importance to the public of the case
other elements may be taken into account alongside the
at bar, and in keeping with the Court's duty, under the 1987
aforesaid context. According to Professor Briggs, writer on the
Constitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of
Convention, the distinction between the general rule of or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
interpretation and the supplementary means of interpretation is concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the
intended rather to ensure that the supplementary means do Senate." Even more pointedly Sec. 25 on Transitory
not constitute an alternative, autonomous method of Provisions which shows antipathy towards foreign military
interpretation divorced from the general rule. presence in the country, or of foreign influence in
The meaning of the word activities" was deliberately made general. Hence, foreign troops are allowed entry into the
that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. Philippines only by way of direct exception.
Thus, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan
exercises. Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense
International Law vs. Fundamental Law and Municipal Laws
Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion that combat-
Conflict arises then between the fundamental law and our
related activities -as opposed to combat itself -such as the one
obligations arising from international agreements.
subject of the instant petition, are indeed authorized.

Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: Withal, the fact that

The Terms of Reference are explicit enough. Paragraph 8 of
international law has been made part of the law of the land
section I stipulates that US exercise participants may not
does not by any means imply the primacy of international law
engage in combat "except in self-defense." ." The indirect
over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine
violation is actually petitioners' worry, that in reality, "Balikatan
of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of
02-1" is actually a war principally conducted by the United
international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to
States government, and that the provision on self-defense
national legislation.
serves only as camouflage to conceal the true nature of the
From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is
exercise. A clear pronouncement on this matter thereby
favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta
becomes crucial. In our considered opinion, neither the MDT
sunt servanda. Hence, "[e]very treaty in force is binding upon
nor the VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an offensive war
the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith."
on Philippine territory. Under the salutary proscription stated
Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to "invoke the
in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.
provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to
perform a treaty."
Both the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Our Constitution espouses the opposing view as stated in
Agreement, as in all other treaties and international section 5 of Article VIII: The Supreme Court shall have the
agreements to which the Philippines is a party, must be read in following powers: xxx
the context of the 1987 Constitution especially Sec. 2, 7 and 8 (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
of Article 2: Declaration of Principles and State Policies in this certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
case. The Constitution also regulates the foreign relations judgments and order of lower courts in:
powers of the Chief Executive when it provides that "[n]o treaty (A) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any
treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to that of
decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or permanent resident. Petitioner was issued an alien certificate of
regulation is in question. registration. Banez eldest son, Leonardo, filed a letter complaint
Ichong v. Hernandez: provisions of a treaty are always subsequently referred to CID. Petitioner was detained at the CID
subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, or detention cell. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the deportation
that it is subject to the police power of the State case on the ground that she was validly married to a Filipino citizen.
Gonzales v. Hechanova: our Constitution authorizes the CID disposed that the second marriage of Bernardo Banes to
nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the
respondent Djumantan irregular and not in accordance with the
fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of
laws of the Philippines. They revoked the visa previously granted to
Congress.
her.
The foregoing premises leave us no doubt that US forces are
prohibited / from engaging in an offensive war on Philippine Issue
territory.
Whether or not the Djumantans admission and change of
immigration status from temporary to permanent resident legal.
Djumantan v. Domingo Ruling
Facts
There was a blatant abuse of our immigration laws in effecting
Bernard Banez, husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as a petitioners entry into the country and the change of her
contract worker. Hethen embraced and was converted to Islam. immigration status from temporary visitor to permanent resident.
All such privileges were obtained through misinterpretation.
He then, married petitioner in accordance with Islamic rites. Banez
then returned to the Philippines. Petitioner and her two children Never was the marriage of petitioner to Banez disclosed to the
with Banez arrived in Manila as the guests of Banez. The latter immigration authorities in her applications for temporary visitors
made it appear that he was just a friend of the family of petitioner visa and for permanent residency.
and was merely repaying the hospitability extended to him during Generally, the right of the President to expel or deport aliens whose
his stay in Indonesia. Banez executed an Affidavit of Guaranty and presence is deemed inimical to the public interest is as absolute and
Support, for his guests. As guests, petitioner and her two unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entry into the
children lived in the house of Banez. Petitioner and her children country. This right is based on the fact that since the aliens are not
were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors. Marina part of the nation, their admission into the territory is a matter of
Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and pure permission and simple tolerance which creates no obligation
petitioner. She filed a complaint for concubinage, however, on the part of the government to permit them to stay.
subsequently dismissed for lack of merit. Immigration status of
There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino citizens the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise
right to be admitted, much less to be given permanent residency, in its discretion with respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover,
the Philippines. The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen does petitioners submit that the Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify
not withdraw her from the operation of the immigration laws the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law.
governing the admission and exclusion of aliens. Marriage of an Petitioners invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
alien woman to a Filipino husband does not ipso facto make her a enjoining the states to refrain from acts which would defeat the
Filipino citizen and does not excuse her from her failure to depart object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior
from the country upon the expiration of her extended stay here as to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not to
an alien. It is not mandatory for the CID to admit any alien who become parties to the treaty.[5]
applies for a visitors visa. Once admitted into the country, the alien The Office of the Solicitor General, commenting for the respondents,
has no right to an indefinite stay. an alien allowed to stay questioned the standing of the petitioners to file the instant suit. It
temporarily may apply for a change of status and may be also contended that the petition at bar violates the rule on hierarchy
admitted as a permanent resident. Among those considered of courts. On the substantive issue raised by petitioners, respondents
qualified to apply for permanent residency if the wife or husband of argue that the executive department has no duty to transmit the
a Philippine citizen. The entry of aliens into the country and their Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
admission as immigrants is not a matter of right, even if they are
legally married to Filipino citizens. Issue:
Whether or not the executive department has a ministerial duty to
PIMENTEL v. EXECUTIVE transmit the Rome Statute (or any treaty) to the Senate for

SECRETARY concurrence.

Ruling:
Facts: The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the the
This is a petition of Senator Aquilino Pimentel and the other parties President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and
to ask the Supreme Court to require the Executive Department to authority in external relations and is the countrys sole representative
transmit the Rome Statute which established the International with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the
Criminal Court for the Senates concurrence in accordance with Sec President acts as the countrys mouthpiece with respect to
21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution. international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority

It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold

both domestic law and international law, is a function of the Senate. recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and

Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to transmit the otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of
treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does
other states. not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where ratification
of the treaty is required. The document is ordinarily signed in
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate
accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the several negotiators
and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his
is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his
power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the
own state.
Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that no treaty or Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state
international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its
in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the
contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to give
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the
them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it
treaty-making process in this wise:
inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are
The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation,
made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the
signature, ratification, and exchange of the instruments of
government other than that which negotiated them.
ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and
publication under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the
to the validity of the agreement as between the parties. instruments of ratification, which usually also signifies the effectivity
of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the
Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he
parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause
now usually assigns this task to his authorized representatives. These
is embodied in the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its
representatives are provided with credentials known as full powers,
signature.
which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal
discussions. It is standard practice for one of the parties to submit a Petitioners arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the
draft of the proposed treaty which, together with the counter- Philippine representative with ratification. It should be underscored
proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two separate and
negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the
involved, and may even collapse in case the parties are unable to signature is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the
come to an agreement on the points under consideration. instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of the parties. It is
usually performed by the states authorized representative in the
If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty,
diplomatic mission. Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act
the same is opened for signature. This step is primarily intended as a
means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of
by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty The VFA defines the treatment of U.S. troops and personnel
concluded by its representative. visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern
such visits, and further defines the rights of the U.S. and the
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to Philippine governments in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation
Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or of equipment, materials and supplies.
withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it
Petitioners argued, inter alia, that the VFA violates 25, Article
is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that foreign
the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the
been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken Senate . . . and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
lightly, such decision is within the competence of the President alone, State.
which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus.
II. THE ISSUE
This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the
President in the performance of his official duties. Was the VFA unconstitutional?
III. THE RULING
Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October
10, 2000 [The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that
the petitioners did not commit grave abuse of discretion, and
DECISION sustained the constitutionality of the VFA.]
NO, the VFA is not unconstitutional.
(En Banc)
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases,
BUENA, J.:
troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following
I. THE FACTS conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under
a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the
The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by a
America entered into an agreement called the Visiting Forces majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a treaty by referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other
the Philippine government and was ratified by then-President contracting state.
Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 of the total
membership of the Philippine Senate. There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two
requisites in the case of the VFA. The concurrence handed by
the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with binds itself further to comply with its obligations under the
the provisions of the Constitution . . . the provision in [in 25, treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of
Article XVIII] requiring ratification by a majority of the votes the Constitution.
cast in a national referendum being unnecessary since
Congress has not required it.
xxx xxx xxx
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. To require the
other contracting state, the United States of America in this
case, to submit the VFA to the United States Senate for
concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict
meaning to the phrase.
Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the
Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed, in which case the
significance thus attached to them prevails. Its language
should be understood in the sense they have in common use.
Moreover, 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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