Saguisag vs.

Ochoa

FACTS:

These consolidated petitions before the Court question the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation
Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and US. Petitioners alleged that respondents committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they entered into EDCA with the U.S., claiming that EDCA
violated multiple constitutional provisions. While, Respondents argued that petitioners lack standing to bring the suit. To
support the legality of their actions, respondents invoke the 1987 Constitution, treaties, and judicial precedents.

HISTORICA HISTORICAL FACTS OF EDCA

1. The defeat of the Spanish fleet at the hands of the US naval forces at the Battle of Manila on May 1, 1898, cleared the
day for the US occupation in Manila and the transfer of the Phil. To US from Spain.

2. Philippine independence was declared on June 12, 1898;

3. Treaty of Paris was signed by US and Spain on Dec. 10, 1898, whereby Spain ceding several islands to US;

4. In 1901, President Roosevelt issued an executive order establishing the Subic Bay Naval Reservation;

5. In 1902, Roosevelt signed another EO establishing Fort Stotsenburg which was later occupied by Clark Airbase.

6. It was ensued between Phil. And US. The military victory enabled the US to establish control over the Philippines
politically and economically. Successive military governors exercising military, executive and civilian functions were
appointed;

7. On March 14, 1947, Agreement between US and Philippines concerning military bases was signed. (President Roxas and
US)

8. MBA gave the US the control of at least 16 bases including Clark and Subic base as well as the access to use of Philippine
facilities such as Mactan Island Army and Florida Blanca in Pampanga

9. RP-US Military Assistance Agreement was signed provided for the creation of JUSMAG (Joint US Advisory Group and
permanent stationing of US military forces in Manila);

10. Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in Washington. MDT lasted for 25 years. Over the years, US military bases in the
country served as launching sites for US involvement in various wars such as Vietnam war.

11. In 1987 the Phil constitution was ratified, which explicitly prohibits foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the
country beyond the year 1991, except under a treaty concurred by Senate. Thereafter, Phil. Senate voted not to renew
the MDT.

12. However, on May 27, 1999, the Phil Senate ratified the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

13. Petitioner Bayan challenged the Constitutionality of VFA but the agreement was upheld as valid.

14. In 2002, Balikatan was launched to send US troops to Mindanao to assist Phil forces in the war on terror against Abu
Sayaff.

15. On Sep. 23, 2009, in the light of the Subic rape case and after hearings regarding VFA , Senate passed a resolution
calling on the Executive to renegotiate the VFA and if the US refused, issue a notice of termination of the agreement

16. In 2012, Pres. Obama announced its strategic pivot towards Asia as laid down in Sustaining US global leadership,
priorities for 21st century defense seeking to deploy 60% of its warship to Asia
Thereafter, dialogues were made in Washington. The dialogue ended with the Phil. Delegation clearly upon the instruction
of Pres. Aquino, agreeing to adopt a policy of increased of rotational presence of US troops, increased military exercises
and more frequent port calls by the US ships.

17. In 2013, US-Phil began negotiations for the Framework Agreement for increased rotational presence and enhanced
defense cooperation which sought to give US military access to the Phil facilities. The framework was in the form of
EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT NOT NEEDING THE SENATE’S CONCURRENCE. The negotiators the changed the name of the
framework agreement to EDCA (enhanced defense cooperation Agreement)

18 April 28, 2014 DFA Sec. Gazmin and US Ambassador to Ph. Philip Goldberg signed the EDCA.

19. It was only on April 29, 2014, the text of EDCA was made publicly available via government websites.

20. Finding EDCA grossly one-sided and greatly disadvantageous to the Philippines, petitioners then filed petitions before
the SC questioning the constitutionality and or legality of EDCA.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. A. Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities? (YES)

B. Is EDCA a treaty or an international agreement that requires Senate concurrence? (No)

HELD:

1. A. YES. The President may enter into an executive agreement pertaining to foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.
The role of the President as the executor of the law includes the duty to defend the State, for which purpose he may use
that power in the conduct of foreign relations. SC has interpreted the faithful execution clause as an obligation imposed
on the President, and not a separate grant of power.

The President may enter into an executive agreement on The President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign
military bases, troops, military bases, troops, or facilities, if or facilities, if (a) it is not is not the instrument the instrument
that allows that allows the presence the presence of foreign of foreign military bases, bases, troops, troops, or facilities;
facilities; or (b) it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty. implement an existing law or treaty.

The President had the choice to enter into EDCA by way The President had the choice to enter into EDCA by way of an
executive agreement or a treaty. treaty. No court can tell the President to desist from choosing an executive agreement
President to desist from choosing an executive agreement over a treaty to embody an international agreement, unless
over a treaty to embody an international agreement, unless the case falls squarely within Article VIII, Section 25. Executive
agreements may cover the matter of foreign Executive agreements may cover the matter of foreign military forces if it
merely involves detail adjustments. military forces if it merely involves detail adjustments.

The executive agreement must not go beyond the parameters, limitations, parameters, limitations, and standards set and
standards set by the by the law and/or law and/or treaty that the treaty that the former purports to former purports to
implement; and must not implement; and must not unduly expand the international obligation expressly mentioned or
necessarily implied in the law or mentioned or necessarily implied in the law or treaty.

The executive agreement must be consistent with the Constitution as well as with existing with existing laws and treaties.

In light of the President's choice to enter into EDCA in the form of an executive an executive agreement, respondents carry
the burden of proving that proving that it is a mere a mere implementation of existing laws and treaties concurred in by
the Senate. EDCA must thus must thus be carefully dissected to dissected to ascertain if it remains within the legal
parameters of a valid executive agreement. EDCA is consistent with the content, purpose, and framework of the MDT and
the VFA.
The starting point of our analysis is the rule that “an executive agreement xxx may not be not be used to amend a treaty.
Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion that combat related activities
as opposed to combat itself such as the one subject of the instant petition, are indeed authorized.

Another difference is that EDCA supposedly introduces a new concept not contemplated in the VFA or the MDT: the MDT:
Agreed Locations, Contractors, Pre- positioning, and Operational Control. As previously mentioned, these points shall be
addressed fully and individually in the latter analysis of EDCA's provisions. However, it must already be a clarified that the
terms and details used by an implementing agreement need not be found in the mother treaty. They must be source from
the authority derived from the treaty, but are but are not necessarily expressed word-for-word in the mother treaty.

B. Meanwhile, the power of the President to enter into binding executive agreements without Senate concurrence is
already well-established in this jurisdiction. 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 cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State.

The effect of this statement is surprisingly profound, for, if taken literally, the phrase "shall not be allowed in the
Philippines" plainly refers to the entry of bases, troops, or facilities in the country.

It is evident that the constitutional restriction refers solely to the initial entry the initial entry of the foreign the foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities. Once entry is authorized, the subsequent acts are thereafter subject only to the
limitations provided by the rest of the Constitution and Philippine law, and not to the Section 25 requirement of validity
through a treaty.

The VFA has already allowed the entry of troops in the Philippines. This Court stated in Lim v. Executive Secretary: Thus,
EDCA can be in the form of an executive agreement, since it merely involves "adjustments in detail" in the implementation
of MDT and the VFA. It points out that there are existing treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. that have already
been concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have thereby met the requirements of the Constitution under Section 25.
Because of the status of these prior agreements, respondent emphasizes that EDCA need not be transmitted to the Senate.

Therefore, the President may generally enter into executive agreements subject to limitations defined by the Constitution
and may be in furtherance of a treaty already concurred in by the Senate.

The duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land is inherent in executive power and is intimately related to the other
executive functions. These functions include the faithful execution of the law in autonomous regions; the right to
prosecute crimes; the implementation of transportation projects; the duty to ensure compliance with treaties, executive
agreements and executive orders; the authority to deport undesirable aliens; the conferment of national awards under
the President's jurisdiction; and the overall administration and control of the executive department. These obligations are
as broad as they sound, for a President cannot function with crippled hands, but must be capable of securing the rule of
law.

Executive agreements may dispense with the requirement of Senate concurrence because of the legal mandate with which
they are concluded. As culled from the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, past Supreme Court decisions, and
works of noted, executive agreements merely involve arrangements on the implementation of existing policies, rules,
laws, or agreements. They are concluded (1) to adjust the details of a treaty; (2) pursuant to or upon confirmation by an
act of the Legislature; (3) in the exercise of the President's independent power.

First, executive agreements must remain traceable to an express or implied authorization under authorization under the
Constitution, statutes, or treaties. The absence of these precedents puts the validity and effectivity of executive
agreements under serious question for the main function of the Executive is to enforce the Constitution and the laws
enacted by the Legislature, not to defeat or interfere in the performance of these rules.

In sum, executive agreements cannot create new international obligations that are not are not expressly or reasonably
implied in the law they purport to implement.

Second, treaties are, by their very nature, considered superior to executive agreements. Treaties are products of the acts
of the Executive and the Senate unlike executive agreements, which are solely executive actions. Because of legislative
participation through the Senate, a treaty is regarded as being on the same level as a statute. If there is an irreconcilable
conflict, a later law or 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 exercise this discretion. Although
the Chief Executive wields 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:

1. The policy of freedom from nuclear weapons within Philippine territory

2. The fixing of tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts, which
must be pursuant to the authority granted by Congress

3. The grant of any tax exemption, which must be pursuant to a law concurred in by a majority of all the Members of
Congress. The contracting or guaranteeing, on behalf of the Philippines, of foreign loans that must be previously concurred
in by the Monetary Board.