Saguisag v Exec Sec Digest

Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. G.R. No. 212444 January 12, 2016 Facts: -EDCA or Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement is an

Held: Petition DISMISSED. 1. EDCA is constitutional in its arrangement as an executive agreement. 2. It remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement.

agreement between the Philippines and America wherein it authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain "Agreed Locations" in the country. -After eight rounds of negotiations for two years, the Secretary of National Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines signed the agreement on 28 April 2014. President Benigno S. Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6 June 2014. It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive's understanding that to do so was no longer necessary. -Senators file Senate Resolution No. (SR) 105.91. The resolution expresses the "strong sense" of the Senators that for EDCA to become valid and effective, it must first be transmitted to the Senate for deliberation and concurrence

Rationale -The manner of the President's execution of the law, even if not expressly granted by the law, is justified by necessity and limited only by law, since the President must "take necessary and proper steps to carry into execution the law”. It is the President's prerogative to do whatever is legal and necessary for Philippine defense interests (commander-in-chief powers). -EDCA is considered an executive agreement, therefore may be bound through the President without the need of senatorial votes for its execution. -The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. TREATIES

Issues: 1. Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. 2. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties.

Formal

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS Become binding through

documents which require

executive action without the

ratification with the

need of a vote by the

approval of two-thirds of

Senate or by Congress

the Senate International

International

agreements

agreements

involving political issues or

embodying adjustments

changes of national policy

detail,

carrying

out

of well

and

those involving

established national policies and

character

involving arrangements of a

Leonardo-De Castro: Agrees with the issues raised. Believes

more

temporary

that the EDCA is an international agreement that allows the

nature Must remain traceable to an

presence in the Philippines of foreign military bases, troops

executive agreements and is

express

under Section 25, Article XVIII be complied with. The EDCA

regarded as being on the

authorization

under

same level as a statute as

Constitution,

statutes,

they are products of the acts

treaties

Considered

superior

to

traditions and

(Semi) Concurring Opinion

agreements of a permanent

or

less

or

those

implied the or

and facilities, and thus requires that the three requisites must be submitted to the Senate for concurrence. Furthermore, EDCA is without any clear limitation as to the duration of their stay.

of the Executive and the Senate If there is an irreconcilable

Cannot

conflict, a later law or treaty

international

takes precedence over one

that

that is prior

allowed

create

are

implied

obligations not

or in

new expressly

reasonably

the

law

they

purport to implement. Once inconsistent with either a law

or

a

treaty

are

considered ineffective -The term "international agreements" does not include the

Dissenting Opinions Brion: EDCA is constitutionally deficient and, hence, cannot be enforced in our country. EDCA should be in the form of a treaty.

Believes

interpretation

are

that

the

ponencia's

incorrect

because

approach

they

are

and overly

simplistic. EDCA reiterates the purposes of the 1951 MDT and the

1998

VFA

but

also

contains an

entirety

new

agreement pertaining to Agreed Locations Leonen: EDCA needs to be submitted to the Senate for

term "executive agreements.

concurrence.

-EDCA increases the likelihood that, in an event requiring a

substantially alters or reshapes our national and foreign

defensive

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

response,

the

Philippines

will

be

It

involves

a

key

political

issue

that

United States military bases, troops, or facilities in the

entered into by the executive department with the US and

Philippines, which is NOT EFFECTIVE until it complies with the

ratified on June 6, 2014. Under the EDCA, the PH shall

requisites of Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Philippine

provide the US forces the access and use of portions of PH

Constitution, namely: (1) that the agreement must be in the

territory, which are called Agreed Locations. Aside from the

form of a treaty; (2) that the treaty must be duly concurred in

right to access and to use the Agreed Locations, the US may

by the Philippine Senate and, when so required by Congress,

undertake the following types of activities within the Agreed

ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national

Locations: security cooperation exercises; joint and combined

referendum; and (3) that the agreement is either (a)

training activities; humanitarian and disaster relief activities;

recognized as a treaty or (b) accepted or acknowledged as a

and such other activities that as may be agreed upon by the

treaty by the United States before it becomes valid, binding,

parties.

and effective

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

Saguisag vs Executive Secretary

No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act,

Case Digest: GR 212426 Jan 12, 2016

petitioners suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of

Facts:

having to establish a direct and personal interest if they show

Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators,

that the act affects a public right. But here, aside from

questioned before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA

general statements that the petitions involve the protection

(Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement), an agreement

of a public right, and that their constitutional rights as

citizens would be violated, the petitioners failed to make

Constitution to the Senate. In a legislator’s suit, the injured

any specific assertion of a particular public right that would

party would be the Senate as an institution or any of its

be violated by the enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to

incumbent members, as it is the Senate’s constitutional

do so, the present petitions cannot be considered by the

function that is allegedly being violated. Here, none of the

Court as citizens’ suits that would justify a disregard of the

petitioners, who are former senators, have the legal standing

aforementioned requirements.

to maintain the suit.

Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as

Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial

“taxpayers”

Review over the case

No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is

Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise

neither meant to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the

matters of transcendental importance which justify setting

disbursement of public funds.

aside the rule on procedural technicalities. The

A taxpayer’s suit concerns a case in which the official act

challenge raised here is rooted in the very Constitution itself,

complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of

particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which provides for a

public funds derived from taxation. Here, those challenging

stricter mechanism required before any foreign military

the act must specifically show that they have sufficient

bases, troops or facilities may be allowed in the country.

interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of public money,

Such is of paramount public interest that the Court is

and that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of the

behooved to determine whether there was grave abuse of

enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle to

discretion on the part of the Executive Department.

this case, they must establish that EDCA involves the

Brion Dissent

exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending powers. A

Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners

reading of the EDCA, however, would show that there has

satisfied the requirement of legal standing in asserting that a

been neither an appropriation nor an authorization of

public right has been violated through the commission of an

disbursement.

act with grave abuse of discretion. The court may exercise its power of judicial review over the act of the Executive

Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as “legislator’s suit”

Department in not submitting the EDCA agreement for

No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international

Senate concurrence not because of the transcendental

agreement is an institutional prerogative granted by the

importance of the issue, but because the petitioners satisfy

the requirements in invoking the court’s expanded

treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. that have

jurisdiction.

already been concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have

Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA agreement for

thereby met the requirements of the Constitution under Art

concurrence by the Senate violates the Constitution

XVIII, Sec 25. Because of the status of these prior

No. The EDCA need not be submitted to the Senate for

agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to the Senate.

concurrence because it is in the form of a mere executive

De Castro Dissent

agreement, not a treaty. Under the Constitution, the

No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct

President is empowered to enter into executive agreements

from the VFA and the MDT. Whether the stay of the foreign

on foreign military bases, troops or facilities if (1) such

troops in the country is permanent or temporary is

agreement is not the instrument that allows the entry of such

immaterial because the Constitution does not distinguish.

and (2) if it merely aims to implement an existing law or

The EDCA clearly involves the entry of foreign military

treaty.

bases, troops or facilities in the country. Hence, the absence

EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it

of Senate concurrence to the agreement makes it an invalid

merely involves “adjustments in detail” in the

treaty.

implementation of the MTD and the VFA. These are existing