LIM vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

GR. 151445; APRIL 11, 2002

FACTS:

Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) signed in 1999, personnel from the
armed forces of the United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take partin
"Balikatan 02-1” on January 2002. The Balikatan 02-1 exercises involves the simulation of
joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement
entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951. The exercise is rooted from the
international anti-terrorism campaign declared by President George W. Bush in reaction to the
3 commercial aircrafts hijacking that smashed into twin towers of the World Trade Center in
New York City and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. allegedly by the al-Qaeda
headed by the Osama bin Laden that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise. Partylists
Sanlakas and Partido Ng Manggagawa as  residents of Zamboanga and Sulu directly affected
by the operations filed a petition-in-intervention.

The Solicitor General commented the pre-maturity of the action as it is based only on a
fear of future violation of the Terms of Reference and impropriety of availing of certiorari to
ascertain a question of fact specifically interpretation of the VFA whether it is covers
"Balikatan 02-1” and no question of constitutionality is involved. Moreover, there is lack of
locus standi since it does not involve tax spending and there is no proof of direct personal
injury.

ISSUE:

• W/N the petition and the petition-in-intervention should prosper?

RULING:

• No. The Court held that the Petition and the petition-in-intervention are hereby
Dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new petition sufficient in form and
substance in the proper Regional Trial Court - Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
◦ Doctrine of Importance to the Public - Considering however the importance to the
public of the case at bar, and in keeping with the Court's duty, under the 1987
Constitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of the government
have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws that they
have not abused the discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside
technicalities of procedure and has taken cognizance of this petition .