STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

1. Saguisag vs, et.al., Petitioners, vs. Ochoa, et.al., Respondents

TITLE Saguisag vs, et.al., vs. Ochoa, et.al.,

GR NUMBER G.R. No. 212426

DATE January 12, 2016

PONENTE SERENO, J.

NATURE/KEYWORDS
FACTS  The petitions1 before this Court question the
constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United
States of America (U.S.). Petitioners allege that
respondents committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when
they entered into EDCA with the U.S. claiming
that the instrument violated multiple
constitutional provisions.

 In reply, respondents argue that petitioners lack

standing to bring the suit. To support the legality
of their actions, respondents invoke the 1987
Constitution, treaties, and judicial precedents.

 A proper analysis of the issues requires this

Court to lay down at the outset the basic
parameters of the constitutional powers and roles
of the President and the Senate in respect of the
above issues. A more detailed discussion of
these powers and roles will be made in the latter
portions.
ISSUE(S) 1. Whether the essential requisites for judicial review are
present
2. Whether the President may enter into an executive
agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 3. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with
the Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties

RULING(S) Guided by these pillars, it may invoke the power only when the
following four stringent requirements are satisfied: (a) there is an
actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners possess locus standi;
(c) the question of constitutionality is raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality is the lis mota
of the case.Of these four, the first two conditions will be the
focus of our discussion.

1. YES. Notwithstanding the lack of legal standing of the

petitioners, the court finds it that there is basis for review
for there’s an actual controversy and that petitoners raise
issues involving matters of transcendental importance.

2. YES. The President may generally enter into executive

agreements subject to limitations defined by the
Constitution and may be in furtherance of a treaty
already concurred in by the Senate. One of the
distinguishing features of executive agreements is that
their validity and effectivity are not affected by a lack of
Senate concurrence. This distinctive feature was
recognized as early as in Eastern Sea Trading (1961),
viz: Treaties are formal documents which require
ratification with the approval of two-thirds of the
Senate. Executive agreements become binding through
executive action without the need of a vote by the
Senate or by Congress. The right of the Executive to
enter into binding agreements without the necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed
by long usage.

3. YES. The case discussed in great lengths to illustrate the

source of EDCA’s validity, that as an executive
agreement it fell within the parameters of the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA) of 1999 and Mutual Defense
Treaty (MDT)of 1951.

In order to keep the peace in its archipelago in this region of the

world, and to sustain itself at the same time against the
destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 Who they are, and what form the friendships will take, are for
the President to decide. The only restriction is what the
Constitution itself expressly prohibits. It appears that this
overarching concern for balancing constitutional requirements
against the dictates of necessity was what led to EDCA.

As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive

agreement, it remains consistent with existing laws and treaties
that it purports to implement.

WHEREFORE, we hereby DISMISS the petitions.

DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLES Verba Legis; Under the principles of constitutional construction,

of paramount consideration is the plain meaning of the language
expressed in the Constitution, or the verba legis rule.—Under the
principles of constitutional construction, of paramount
consideration is the plain meaning of the language expressed in
the Constitution, or the verba legis rule. It is presumed that the
provisions have been carefully crafted in order to express the
objective it seeks to attain. It is incumbent upon the Court to
refrain from going beyond the plain meaning of the words used
in the Constitution. It is presumed that the framers and the people
meant what they said when they said it, and that this
understanding was reflected in the Constitution and understood
by the people in the way it was meant to be understood when the
fundamental law was ordained and promulgated. Saguisag vs.
Ochoa, Jr., 779 SCRA 241, G.R. No. 212426, G.R. No. 212444
January 12, 2016

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.