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
Facts:
that it purports to implement.
-EDCA or Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement is an
agreement between the Philippines and America wherein it
Rationale
authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and
-The manner of the President's execution of the law, even if
conduct activities within certain "Agreed Locations" in the
not expressly granted by the law, is justified by necessity and
country.
limited only by law, since the President must "take necessary
-After eight rounds of negotiations for two years, the
and proper steps to carry into execution the law”. It is the
Secretary of National Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to
President's prerogative to do whatever is legal and necessary
the Philippines signed the agreement on 28 April 2014.
for Philippine defense interests (commander-in-chief powers).
President Benigno S. Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6 June 2014.
-EDCA is considered an executive agreement, therefore may
It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive's
be bound through the President without the need of
understanding that to do so was no longer necessary.
senatorial votes for its execution.
-Senators file Senate Resolution No. (SR) 105.91. The
-The right of the Executive to enter into binding
resolution expresses the "strong sense" of the Senators that
agreements without the necessity of subsequent
for EDCA to become valid and effective, it must first be
Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage.
transmitted to the Senate for deliberation and concurrence
TREATIES EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
Formal Become binding through
Issues:
documents which require executive action without the
1. Whether the President may enter into an executive
ratification with the need of a vote by the
agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or
approval of two-thirds of Senate or by Congress
facilities.
2. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent the Senate
International agreements International agreements
with the Constitution, as well as with existing laws and
involving political issues or embodying adjustments of
treaties.
changes of national policy 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
more or less temporary that the EDCA is an international agreement that allows the
nature presence in the Philippines of foreign military bases, troops
Considered superior to Must remain traceable to an and facilities, and thus requires that the three requisites
executive agreements and is express or implied under Section 25, Article XVIII be complied with. The EDCA
regarded as being on the authorization under the must be submitted to the Senate for concurrence.
same level as a statute as Constitution, statutes, or Furthermore, EDCA is without any clear limitation as to the
they are products of the acts treaties duration of their stay.
of the Executive and the
Senate Dissenting Opinions
If there is an irreconcilable Cannot create new
Brion: EDCA is constitutionally deficient and, hence, cannot
conflict, a later law or treaty international obligations
be enforced in our country. EDCA should be in the form of a
takes precedence over one that are not expressly
treaty. Believes that the ponencia's approach and
that is prior allowed or reasonably
interpretation are incorrect because they are overly
implied in the law they
simplistic. EDCA reiterates the purposes of the 1951 MDT and
purport to implement. Once
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 Leonen: EDCA needs to be submitted to the Senate for
term "executive agreements. concurrence. It involves a key political issue that
-EDCA increases the likelihood that, in an event requiring a substantially alters or reshapes our national and foreign
defensive response, the Philippines will be prepared policy. He votes to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petitions and
alongside the U.S. to defend its islands and insure its to DECLARE the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
territorial integrity pursuant to a relationship built on (EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the
previous treaties, particularly the Mutual Defense Treaty of United States of America as a formal and official memorial of
1951 (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement of 1999 (VFA). the 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.