Bayan vs Zamora (Exec Secretary)

Oct 10, 2000 | Buena, J.

Law on Treaties
SUMMARY: The Visiting Forces Agreement between the PH and the US was negotiated and subsequently approved by the President. He
ratified it and transmitted it to Senate for concurrence. The Senate concurred by 2/3 of its members. When the VFA entered into force,
the petitioners filed the cases alleging that the VFA was unconstitutional and that the president and the senate committed grave abuse of
discretion. The Court upheld the VFA since the process for its validity set out in the constitution was followed and also, following the
constitution such ratification and concurrence by the President and the Senate respectively was within their powers.

FACTS:
• March 14, 1947: PH and US entered into the Military Bases Agreement
o Formalized the use of installations in the PH territory by US military
• Aug 30, 1951: PH and US entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty
o Agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft
• Since the Military Bases Agreement was set to expire in 1999, the PH and US negotiated for its extension but the PH senate
subsequently rejected the RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Security
• Since it was rejected by the senate and the military bases agreement expired, the military exercises conducted were held in
abeyance BUT the defense and security relationship continued due to the Mutual Defense Treaty
• 1997: exchange of notes on “the complementing strategic interests of the US and the PH in the Asia-Pacific Region” between
the countries → included negotiations regarding the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
• Jan 1998: President Ramos approved the VFA; VFA was signed by PH and US reps
• Oct 1998: President Estrada ratified the VFA and it was transmitted to the Senate for ratification
• May 1999: Senate Resolution 18 was issued giving concurrence by 2/3 of the members of Senate to VFA
• June 1999: VFA entered into force
o Provided for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which the US armed forces and
defense personnel may be present in the PH
• Petitioners (legislators, NGOs, citizens, taxpayers) assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute GAD on respondents in
ratifying it

ISSUE: w/n the VFA is constitutional → YES; no GAD on the part of the President and the Senate; complied with the process laid
out in the constitution for its validity and effectivity

COURT RULING: PETITIONS DISMISSED

A. w/n petitioners have standing → NO but due to paramount importance and constitutional significance of the issues, the Court
takes cognizance of the petitions.
• Petitioners failed to show that they are in danger of sustaining direct injury as a result of enforcement of the VFA
o Taxpayers → no showing that VFA involves taxing or spending powers and no public funds are involved
o Tanada, Aquino, Arroyo as legislators → no showing of direct injury to their person or institution to which they
belong; failure to show direct injury
o IBP → no board resolution authorizing the commencement of the action
B. Which constitutional provision applies → Sec 25, Art 18
• Petitioners: Sec 15, Art 18 is applicable since VFA has for its subject the presence of foreign military troops
o "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 cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State."
• Respondents: Sec 21, Art 7 is applicable since VFA is not a basig arrangement but involves mere temporary visits of US
personnel for joint military exercises
o "No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of
all the Members of the Senate."
o General rule on treaties and international agreements and applied to any form of treaty
• Court: Sec 25, Art 18 applies
o Regardless though of which applies, it is clear that the concurrence of Senate is required
o Sec 25 specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops, or facilities and should therefore
apply ITCAB
o The constitution makes no distinction between transient or permanent and the prohibition is not limited to just
military bases but also entry of troops and facilities. A military base need not be established for the provision to
apply
C. w/n Sec 25, Art 18 was complied with → YES
• Foreign military bases, troops, facilities in the country are not allowed UNLESS:
1. Under a treaty
 2. Duly concurred in by Senate and when required by Congress, ratified by a majority of votes in a national
referendum
→ Acc to the court this should be read in conjunction with Sec 21, Art 7 to mean that 2/3 of all members of
Senate should concur
3. Recognized as a treaty by the contracting state
• No question as to the presence of the first 2 requisites
o Senate Reso 18 which was issued with 2/3 senate concurrence is in accordance with the constitution
D. w/n the US recognizes the VFA as a treaty (3rd requisite) → YES
• Petitioners: the US Senate should also give advice and consent; without such, that means that the US merely considers
it an executive agreement and not a treaty; hence 3rd requisite not met
• Respondent: the letter from the US Ambassador stating that the VFA is binding on the US Govt is conclusive that the
VFA is recognized as a treaty
• Court: the US has recognized the VFA as a treaty and as long as it binds itself to such, there is compliance with the
provision in the constitution
o “recognized as treaty” → the other party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty
o This phrase must be given an ordinary meaning
o To construe it as requiring the US to submit the VFA to its own senate for concurrence would accord strict
meaning to the phrase which should not be done
o ALSO it doesn’t matter if the US treats it as a mere executive agreement since under international law, an
executive agreement is as binding as a treaty
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
o Treaty: "an international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international
law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and whatever its
particular designation."
o "the provisions of paragraph 1 regarding the use of terms in the present Convention are without prejudice to
the use of those terms, or to the meanings which may be given to them in the internal law of the State."
• In intl law, there is no difference as to treaties and executive agreements as to their binding effect upon states

E. Other notes on the discussion on treaties

• RATIFICATION
o Consent to be bound by the treaty expressed through ratification when:
1. Treaty provides for such ratification, or
2. Negotiating states agreed that ratification is required, or
3. State representative has signed the treaty subject to ratification
4. Intention of the State to sign subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative or
was expressed during negotiations
o IN THE PH, power to ratify → PRESIDENT
▪ Senate is limited to only withholding or giving its consent through concurrence
• Since the PH ratified the VFA, it now has an obligation under international law to be bound by the terms of the
agreement
o Cited the incorporation clause of the constitution
o As an integral part of the community of nations, we are responsible to assure that our government,
Constitution and laws will carry out our international obligation. Hence, we cannot readily plead the
Constitution as a convenient excuse for non-compliance with our obligations, duties and responsibilities under
international law
o Declaration of Rights and Duties of States provides:
▪ Every state has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other
sources of intl law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for
failure to perform its duty
▪ Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith
→ principle of pacta sunt servanda → preserves the sanctity of treaties
F. w/n there was GAD on the part of the President and the Senate in ratifying and concurring on the VFA → NO
• PRESIDENT
o Chief architect of the nation’s foreign policy
o He has the power to enter into treaties/ intl agreements subject only to concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the
members of senate
o ITCAB, negotiation and ratification of VFA are exclusive act pertaining solely to the president in the exercise
of his powers
• SENATE
o Power to concur with treaties is given to the senate by the constitution
• Lacking GAD on the co-equal branches of govt, the judiciary cannot invalidate their acts without violating the
separation of powers