SAGUISAG VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

GR 212426 Jan 12, 2016

FACTS:
The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an executive
agreement that gives U.S. troops, planes and ships increased rotational presence in
Philippine military bases and allows the U.S. to build facilities to store fuel and
equipment there. It was signed against the backdrop of the Philippines' maritime
dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea.
The US embassy and DFA exchanged diplomatic notes confirming all necessary
requirements for the agreement to take force. The agreement was signed on April
2014. President Benigno Aquino III ratified the same on June 2014. It was not
submitted to Congress on the understanding that to do so was no longer
necessary.
Petitions for Certiorari were filed before the Supreme Court assailing the
constitutionality of the agreement. Petitioners now contend that it should have been
concurred by the senate as it is not an executive agreement. 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 citizens 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 taxpayers 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 legislators 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 legislators suit, the
injured party would be the Senate as an institution or any of its incumbent
members, as it is the Senates 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.
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.
Although the provision of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that:
SECTION 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning
Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed
in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the
Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of
the votes by cast the people in a national referendum held for that
purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

The effect of this statement is surprisingly profound, for, if taken literally,

the phrase "shall not be allowed in the Philippines" plainly refers to the
entry of bases, troops, or facilities in the country.
It is evident that the constitutional restriction refers solely to the
initial entry of the foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. Once
entry is authorized, the subsequent acts are thereafter subject only to the
limitations provided by the rest of the Constitution and Philippine law, and not
to the Section 25 requirement of validity through a treaty.
The VFA has already allowed the entry of troops in the Philippines. This
Court stated in Lim v. Executive Secretary: Thus, EDCA can be in the form
of an executive agreement, since it merely involves "adjustments in
detail" in the implementation of the MDT and the VFA. It points out
that there 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 Section 25. Because of the
status of these prior agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to the Senate.
In order to keep the peace in its archipelago and to sustain itself at the same time
against the destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends. 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. EDCA is not
constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it remains consistent with
existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement.
xxxOTHERSxxx
EXEC AGREEMENTS v TREATIES
First, executive agreements must remain traceable to an express or implied
authorization under the Constitution, statutes, or treaties. The absence of
these precedents puts the validity and effectivity of executive agreements
under serious question for the main function of the Executive is to enforce
the Constitution and the laws enacted by the Legislature, not to defeat or
interfere in the performance of these rules.
In sum, executive agreements cannot create new international obligations that
are not expressly allowed or reasonably implied in the law they purport to
implement.
Second, treaties are, by their very nature, considered superior to executive
agreements. Treaties are products of the acts of the Executive and the Senate
unlike executive agreements, which are solely executive actions. Because of
legislative participation through the Senate, a treaty is regarded as being on
the same level as a statute. If there is an irreconcilable conflict, a later law or

treaty takes precedence over one that is prior. An executive agreement is treated
differently. Executive agreements that are inconsistent with either a law or a
treaty are considered ineffective. Both types of international agreement are
nevertheless subject To the supremacy of the Constitution.
This rule does not imply, though, that the President is given carte blanche
to exercise this discretion. Although the Chief Executive wields the exclusive
authority to conduct our foreign relations, this power must still be exercised
within the context and the parameters set by the Constitution, as well as by
existing domestic and international laws. There are constitutional provisions that
restrict or limit the
President's
prerogative
in
concluding
international
agreements, such as those that involve the following:

1. The policy of freedom from nuclear weapons within Philippine

territory
2. The fixing of tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts, which must be
pursuant to the authority granted by Congress
3. The grant of any tax exemption, which must be pursuant to a
law concurred in by a majority of all the Members of Congress. The
contracting or guaranteeing, on behalf of the Philippines, of
foreign
loans that must be previously concurred in by the Monetary Board.
xxx
Therefore, 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.
The duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land is inherent in executive power
and is intimately related to the other executive functions. These functions
include the faithful execution of the law in autonomous regions the right to
prosecute crimes the implementation of transportation projects the duty to
ensure compliance with treaties, executive agreements and executive
orders the authority to deport undesirable aliens the conferment of national
awards under the President's jurisdiction and the overall administration and control
of the executive department. These obligations are as broad as they sound, for
a President cannot function with crippled hands, but must be capable of securing
the rule of law.