Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr.

G.R. No. 212444 Held: Petition DISMISSED.

January 12, 2016 1. EDCA is constitutional in its arrangement as an
executive agreement.
2. It remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it
Facts:
-EDCA or Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement is an purports to implement.

agreement between the Philippines and America wherein it

Rationale
authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct
-The manner of the President's execution of the law, even if not
activities within certain "Agreed Locations" in the country.
expressly granted by the law, is justified by necessity and limited only

-After eight rounds of negotiations for two years, the Secretary of by law, since the President must "take necessary and proper steps to

National Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines carry into execution the law”. It is the President's prerogative to do

signed the agreement on 28 April 2014. President Benigno S. whatever is legal and necessary for Philippine defense interests

Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6 June 2014. It was not transmitted to (commander-in-chief powers). -EDCA is considered an executive

the Senate on the executive's understanding that to do so was no agreement, therefore may be bound through the President without the

longer necessary. -Senators file Senate Resolution No. (SR) 105.91. need of senatorial votes for its execution.

The resolution expresses the "strong sense" of the Senators that for
-The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements
EDCA to become valid and effective, it must first be transmitted to
without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has
the Senate for deliberation and concurrence
been confirmed by long usage.
TREATIES EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
Formal
Issues:
documents which require
1. Whether the President may enter into an executive
ratification with the approval
agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. of two-thirds of

2. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the the Senate
International agreements
Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties. involving political issues or
changes of national policy
Become binding through executive action without the need of a
vote by the Senate or by Congress
International agreements
embodying adjustments of detail,
carrying out well
and those involving established national policies
agreements of a permanent and traditions and those (Semi) Concurring Opinion
character involving arrangements of a Leonardo-De Castro: Agrees with the issues raised. Believes that
more or less temporary the EDCA is an international agreement that allows the presence in
Considered superior to nature the Philippines of foreign military bases, troops and facilities, and
Must remain traceable to an
thus requires that the three requisites under Section 25, Article XVIII
executive agreements and is express or implied
be complied with. The EDCA must be submitted to the Senate for
regarded as being on the authorization under the
concurrence. Furthermore, EDCA is without any clear limitation as
same level as a statute as Constitution, statutes, or
to the duration of their stay.
they are products of the acts treaties
of the Executive and the
Senate Cannot create new
Dissenting Opinions
If there is an irreconcilable
Brion: EDCA is constitutionally deficient and, hence, cannot be
conflict, a later law or treaty international obligations
enforced in our country. EDCA should be in the form of a treaty.
takes precedence over one that are not expressly
that is prior allowed or reasonably Believes that the ponencia's approach and interpretation are incorrect

implied in the law they because they are overly simplistic. EDCA reiterates the purposes of

purport to implement. Once the 1951 MDT and the 1998 VFA but also contains an entirety new

inconsistent with either a agreement pertaining to Agreed Locations

law or a treaty are
considered ineffective
-The term "international agreements" does not include the term Leonen: EDCA needs to be submitted to the Senate for concurrence.

"executive agreements. It involves a key political issue that substantially alters or reshapes our

-EDCA increases the likelihood that, in an event requiring a defensive national and foreign policy. He votes to PARTIALLY GRANT the

response, the Philippines will be prepared alongside the U.S. to Petitions and to DECLARE the Enhanced Defense Cooperation

defend its islands and insure its territorial integrity pursuant to a Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the

relationship built on previous treaties, particularly the Mutual Defense United States of America as a formal and official memorial of the

Treaty of 1951 (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement of 1999 (VFA). results of the negotiations concerning the allowance of
United States military bases, troops, or facilities in the Philippines,
which is NOT EFFECTIVE until it complies with the requisites of
Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, namely:
(1) that the agreement must be in the form of a treaty; (2) that the
treaty must be duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and, when
so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the
people in a national referendum; and (3) that the agreement is either
(a) recognized as a treaty or (b) accepted or acknowledged as a
treaty by the United States before it becomes valid, binding, and
effective
Saguisag vs Executive Secretary
Case Digest: GR 212426 Jan 12, 2016
Facts:
Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators,
questioned before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA (Enhanced
Defense Cooperation Agreement), an agreement
entered into by the executive department with the US and ratified on
June 6, 2014. Under the EDCA, the PH shall provide the US forces
the access and use of portions of PH territory, which are called
Agreed Locations. Aside from the right to access and to use the
Agreed Locations, the US may undertake the following types of
activities within the Agreed Locations: security cooperation exercises;
joint and combined training activities; humanitarian and disaster relief
activities; and such other activities that as may be agreed upon by the
parties.
Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as
medium of agreement with US violated the constitutional requirement
of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves foreign military bases,
troops and facilities whose entry into the country should be covered
by
a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The Senate, through Senate
Resolution 105, also expressed its position that EDCA needs
congressional ratification.
Issue 1: W/N the petitions as “citizen’s suit” satisfy the
requirements of legal standing in assailing the constitutionality
of EDCA
No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act, petitioners
suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of having to establish a
direct and personal interest if they show that the act affects a public
right. But here, aside from general statements that the petitions
involve the protection of a public right, and that their constitutional
rights as
citizens would be violated, the petitioners failed to make any
specific assertion of a particular public right that would be violated
by the enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to do so, the present
petitions cannot be considered by the Court as citizens’ suits that
would justify a disregard of the aforementioned requirements.
Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as
“taxpayers”
No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is neither
meant to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the disbursement
of public funds.
A taxpayer’s suit concerns a case in which the official act complained
of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived
from taxation. Here, those challenging the act must specifically show
that they have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure
of public money, and that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of
the enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle to this
case, they must establish that EDCA involves the exercise by
Congress of its taxing or spending powers. A reading of the EDCA,
however, would show that there has been neither an appropriation nor
an authorization of disbursement.
Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as “legislator’s suit” No. The
power to concur in a treaty or an international agreement is an
institutional prerogative granted by the
Constitution to the Senate. In a legislator’s suit, the injured party
would be the Senate as an institution or any of its incumbent
members, as it is the Senate’s constitutional function that is allegedly
being violated. Here, none of the petitioners, who are former
senators, have the legal standing to maintain the suit.
Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial
Review over the case
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise
matters of transcendental importance which justify setting
aside the rule on procedural technicalities. The
challenge raised here is rooted in the very Constitution itself,
particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which provides for a
stricter mechanism required before any foreign military
bases, troops or facilities may be allowed in the country.
Such is of paramount public interest that the Court is
behooved to determine whether there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Executive Department.
Brion Dissent
Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners satisfied the
requirement of legal standing in asserting that a public right has been
violated through the commission of an act with grave abuse of
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 the transcendental
importance of the issue, but because the petitioners satisfy
the requirements in invoking the court’s expanded
jurisdiction.
Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA agreement for
concurrence by the Senate violates the Constitution
No. The EDCA need not be submitted to the Senate for concurrence
because it is in the form of a mere executive agreement, not a treaty.
Under the Constitution, the President is empowered to enter into
executive agreements on foreign military bases, troops or facilities if
(1) such agreement is not the instrument that allows the entry of such
and (2) if it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty.
EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it merely
involves “adjustments in detail” in the implementation of the MTD
and the VFA. These are existing
treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. that have already been
concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have thereby met the
requirements of the Constitution under Art XVIII, Sec 25. Because of
the status of these prior agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted
to the Senate.
De Castro Dissent
No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct from
the VFA and the MDT. Whether the stay of the foreign troops in the
country is permanent or temporary is immaterial because the
Constitution does not distinguish. The EDCA clearly involves the
entry of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the country.
Hence, the absence of Senate concurrence to the agreement
makes it an invalid treaty.