Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Delm
    The Supreme Court dismissed petitions assailing the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and United States. The Court ruled that the VFA was properly ratified by President Estrada and approved by the Senate as required by the Constitution. While the US considers the VFA an executive agreement domestically, the US Ambassador confirmed the US recognizes its obligations under international law to adhere to the terms of the VFA, making it equivalent to a treaty. Therefore, the constitutional requirement of the other state recognizing it as a treaty was satisfied. The Court also noted states must abide by agreements in good faith under principles of international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Delm
    23 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed petitions assailing the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and United States. The Court ruled that the VFA was properly ratified by President Estrada and approved by the Senate as required by the Constitution. While the US considers the VFA an executive agreement domestically, the US Ambassador confirmed the US recognizes its obligations under international law to adhere to the terms of the VFA, making it equivalent to a treaty. Therefore, the constitutional requirement of the other state recognizing it as a treaty was satisfied. The Court also noted states must abide by agreements in good faith under principles of international law.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed petitions assailing the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and United States. The Court ruled that the VFA was properly ratified by President Estrada and approved by the Senate as required by the Constitution. While the US considers the VFA an executive agreement domestically, the US Ambassador confirmed the US recognizes its obligations under international law to adhere to the terms of the VFA, making it equivalent to a treaty. Therefore, the constitutional requirement of the other state recognizing it as a treaty was satisfied. The Court also noted states must abide by agreements in good faith under principles of international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views2 pages

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Jessa Delm
    The Supreme Court dismissed petitions assailing the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and United States. The Court ruled that the VFA was properly ratified by President Estrada and approved by the Senate as required by the Constitution. While the US considers the VFA an executive agreement domestically, the US Ambassador confirmed the US recognizes its obligations under international law to adhere to the terms of the VFA, making it equivalent to a treaty. Therefore, the constitutional requirement of the other state recognizing it as a treaty was satisfied. The Court also noted states must abide by agreements in good faith under principles of international law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    JESSA DELM P.

    CASTAÑEDA
    JD – 1B
    CASE DIGEST
    TOPIC: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

    GR NO. 18670 OCTOBER 10, 2000

    BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan), a JUNK VFA MOVEMENT, BISHOP TOMAS MILLAMENA (Iglesia
    Filipina Independiente), BISHOP ELMER BOLOCAN (United Church of Christ of the Phil.), DR. REYNALDO
    LEGASCA, MD, KILUSANG MAMBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, GABRIELA, PROLABOR,
    and the PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER, petitioners,
    vs.
    EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECRETARY DOMINGO SIAZON, DEFENSE
    SECRETARY ORLANDO MERCADO, BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, SENATE PRESIDENT MARCELO
    FERNAN, SENATOR FRANKLIN DRILON, SENATOR BLAS OPLE, SENATOR RODOLFO BIAZON, and SENATOR
    FRANCISCO TATAD, respondents.

    Petitions for certiorari and prohibition assailed the agreement forged between the Republic of the
    Philippines and the United Stated of America – the Visiting Forces Agreement of the VFA. The VFA
    formalized the installations in the Philippines territory by the US Military personnel to strengthen the
    defense and security relationship of both nations.

    IMPORTANT DETAILS/FACTS:

    President Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5, 1998 and a letter of ratification was transmitted
    to the Senate for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. It was then
    approved by the Senate by two-third (2/3) of the votes of its members.

    ISSUE:

    The issue, with regard to political and international law, was about the ratification of the VFA and its
    concurrence and whether or not the US recognize or acknowledge the agreement as a treaty in
    compliance with the constitutional requirement that it be "recognized as a treaty by the other
    contracting state”.

    RULING/DECISION:

    The petitions were dismissed because under the fundamental law, the concurrence of the Senate is
    mandatory in approving the VFA. The ratification of the VFA also is an equivalent to final acceptance and
    the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as a clear expression of the nation’s consent to be bound
    by the terms of the agreement.
    The US Ambassador submitted a letter to the Philippines stating that the US government is committed to
    living to the terms of the agreement. It was also legally binding to the US government in both US and
    international laws. Such agreement is considered as a treaty in international legal terms however, in US
    domestic law, it is considered as an “executive agreement” because it doesn’t require the consent of the
    Senate under their constitution. The US President’s power to conclude the VFA to the Philippines was
    derived from the President’s responsibilities for the conduct of foreign relations and his constitutional
    power as a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Senate’s advice or consent is not needed because
    the VFA will not affect the US domestic laws and doesn’t require congressional appropriation of funds.

    In terms of the US government’s obligations to adhere to the terms of the VFA, there is NO difference
    between a treaty and an executive agreement under the Foreign Relations Law of the USA. This means
    that the USA acknowledges the VFA as a treaty.

    The Philippines also agrees to be bound by generally accepted rules for the conduct of foreign relations
    to carry out its international obligations. Article 26 of the Convention provides that, “Every treaty in
    force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” This is under one
    of the general principles in international law, the PACTA SUNT SERVANDA which means AGREEMENTS
    MUST BE KEPT or AGREEMENTS ARE BINDING. The rights accorded to international laws imply
    responsibilities and states are liable for breaches of their obligations and are responsible for direct
    violations of international law.

    You might also like