LIM v.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Facts:
Beginning January of year 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United States of
America started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in
Balikatan 02-1. They are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual
Defense Treaty a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United
States in 1951. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed
forces through joint training with its American counterparts; the Balikatan is the largest such
training exercise directly supporting the MDTs objectives. It is this treaty to which the VFA
adverts and the obligations thereunder which it seeks to reaffirm.
On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for
certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.

Issue: Whether Balikatan 02-1 activities covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement?
Ruling:
To resolve this, it is necessary to refer to the VFA itself. The VFA permits United States
personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in activities, the exact meaning of which was
left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that
United States personnel must abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this
agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing
interpretations of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of
interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the
parties intentions. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the
meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as other elements may be
taken into account alongside the aforesaid context.
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word .activities arose
from accident. It was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in
negotiation. In this manner, visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes
other than military. As conceived, the joint exercises may include training on new techniques of
patrol and surveillance to protect the nations marine resources, sea search-and-rescue operations
to assist vessels in distress, disaster relief operations, civic action projects such as the building of
school houses, medical and humanitarian missions, and the like.
Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only
logical to assume that .Balikatan 02-1, a mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training
exercise, falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the
agreement.

KILOSBAYAN vs. MANUEL L. MORATO
G.R. No. 118910. November 16, 1995.


FACTS:
In Jan. 25, 1995, PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) wherein
PGMC leased online lottery equipment and accessories to PCSO. (Rental of 4.3% of the gross
amount of ticket or at least P35,000 per terminal annually). 30% of the net receipts is allotted to
charity. Term of lease is for 8 years. PCSO is to employ its own personnel and responsible for
the facilities. Upon the expiration of lease, PCSO may purchase the equipment for P25 million.
Feb. 21, 1995. A petition was filed to declare ELA invalid because it is the same as the Contract
of Lease Petitioner's Contention: ELA was same to the Contract of Lease.. It is still violative of
PCSO's charter. It is violative of the law regarding public bidding. It violates Sec. 2(2) of Art. 9-
D of the 1987 Constitution. Standing can no longer be questioned because it has become the law
of the case Respondent's reply: ELA is different from the Contract of Lease. There is no bidding
required. The power to determine if ELA is advantageous is vested in the Board of Directors of
PCSO. PCSO does not have funds. Petitioners seek to further their moral crusade. Petitioners do
not have a legal standing because they were not parties to the contract

ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioners have standing?

HELD:
NO. STARE DECISIS cannot apply. The previous ruling sustaining the standing of the
constitutional issues were actually involved. LAW OF THE CASE cannot also apply. Since the
present case is not the same one litigated by theparties before in Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr.,
the ruling cannot be in any sense be regarded as the law of this case. The parties are the same but
the cases are not. RULE ON CONCLUSIVENESS cannot still apply. An issue actually and
directly passed upon and determine in a former suit cannot again be drawn in question in any
future action between the same parties involving a different cause of action. But the rule does not
apply to issues of law at least when substantially unrelated claims are involved. When the second
proceeding involves an instrument or transaction identical with, but in a form separable from the
one dealt with in the first proceeding, the Court is free in the second proceeding to make an
independent examination of the legal matters at issue. Since ELA is a different contract, the
previous decision does not preclude determination of the petitioner's standing. STANDING is a
concept in constitutional law and here no constitutional question is actually involved. The more
appropriate issue is whether the petitioners are REAL PARTIES in INTEREST.