02 BAYAN vs. Zamora G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

BAYAN vs. Zamora G.R. No.
138570 October 10, 2000
FACTS :
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a military bases agreement which
formalized, among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by the US military personnel. To further
strengthen their defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the US entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty
on August 30, 1951. Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory,
armed forces, public vessels and aircraft.
In 1991, with the expiration of RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the periodic military exercises between the two
countries were held in abeyance. However, the defence and security relationship continued pursuant to the Mutual
Defense Treaty. On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the possible
elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Negotiations by both panels on VFA led to a consolitdated draft
text and a series of conferences. Eventually, President Fidel V. Ramos approved the VFA.
On October 5, 1998 President Joseph E. Estrada ratified the VFA thru respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs. On
October 6, 1998, the President, acting thru Executive Secretary Zamora officially transmitted to the Senate, the
Instrument of Ratification, letter of the President and the VFA for approval. It was approved by the Senate by a 2/3
vote of its members. On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an exchange of notes between
Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard.
On May 3, 1999, the Committees submitted Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 recommending the concurrence of
8
the Senate to the VFA and the creation of a Legislative Oversight Committee to oversee its implementation. Debates
then ensued.
On May 27, 1999, Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 was approved by the Senate, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of its 9
members. Senate Resolution No. 443 was then re-numbered as Senate Resolution No. 18. 10
On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes between respondent Secretary
Siazon and United States Ambassador Hubbard.
The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which US Armed Forces
and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines. Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition, assailing
the constitutionality of the VFA and imputing grave abuse of discretion to respondents in ratifying the agreement.
ISSUE : Whether or not the VFA is unconstitutional.
RULING :
Petition is dismissed.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or
international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII
provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases,
foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred
in and when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held
for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senateby the other contracting state”.
The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with a wide variety of
subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter,
coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.
In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases, troops and
facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President
referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the same
provision is immaterial.
Undoubtedly, Sec. 25 Art. XVIII which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases and troops
should apply in the instant case. Hence, for VFA to be constitutional it must sufficiently meet the following requisites :
a) it must be under a treaty
b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate, and when so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of
votes cast by the people in a national referendum
c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State
There is no dispute in the presence of the first two requisites. The third requisite implies that the other contracting
party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the US treats the
VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a
treaty. They are equally binding obligations upon nations. Therefore, there is indeed marked compliance with the
mandate of the constitution.
The court also finds that there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the executive department as to their
power to ratify the VFA.

02 BAYAN vs. Zamora G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 BAYAN vs. Zamora G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 BAYAN vs. Zamora G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYAN vs. Zamora G.R. No.

138570 October 10, 2000

ISSUE : Whether or not the VFA is unconstitutional.

a) it must be under a treaty

c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State

You might also like