Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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: