DUAL ALLEGIANCE 1. Pursuant to Omnibus Election Code, Sec.
78, a petition to disqualify a
ARTICLE IV - CITIZENSHIP
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship,
unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced
it.
 in Sec. 253 is only applicable for petitions after the election. Thus, it cannot be
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.
 Filipino citizen & disqualified from running. Filipino citizenship is lost by
R.A. 7160 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SEC. 40 DISQUALIFIED FROM
RUNNING ELECTIVE LOCAL POST:
 sentenced by final judgment for offense involving moral turpitude or punishable
by 1 yr. Or more, w/in 2 yrs of serving sentence
 removed from office due to an administrative case
 convicted by final judgment violated oath of allegiance to RP
 those w/dual citizenship
 fugitives from justice in crim’l / nonpolitical cases RP or abroad
 permanent residents in foreign country or acquired rt to reside abroad &
continue to avail of such
 insane or feeble-minded
AZNAR vs. COMELEC [May 25, 1990]
Petition for Certiorari to review COMELEC resolution
 Nov. 19, 1987 – Emilio Osmena filed certificate of candidacy (COC) for pos of
Prov’l Gov. of Cebu for Jan. 18, 1988 elections
 Jan. 22, 1988 – Cebu PDP-Laban thru provincial chairman Jose Aznar filed
w/COMELEC petition to disqualify Osmena on ground that he’s an American &
not a Filipino citizen.
 Jan. 27, 1988 – Aznar submitted following to COMELEC:
1. Immigration certificate stating Osmena is an American & a holder of an
Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigration Certificate of
Residence (ICR)
2. Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to issue TRO enjoining Cebu Provincial Board of
Canvassers from tabulating/canvassing Osmena’s votes and proclaiming
him until final resolution has been issued
 Jan. 28, 1988 – COMELEC resolution: continue canvassing, suspend
proclamation
 Additional evidence presented by Aznar during hearing: Osmena’s Application
for Alien Registration, ACR, permit to re-enter Philippines
 Osmena: maintained he’s a Filipino citizen w/ Philippine passport & continuously
residing in RP. He claims he has not gone out of RP for more than 6 mos. & he’s
a registered voter.
 March 3, 1988 – COMELEC directed canvassers to proclaim winner, Osmena
won.
 June 11, 1988 – petition dismissed by COMELEC
ISSUE: WON Osmena should be disqualified
HELD: No.
RATIO:
registered candidate before the election may be filed by any person exclusively
on the ground that any material representation of requirements under Sec. 74
is false. It should be filed not later than 25 days from time of filing COC &
should be decided not later than 15 days before election. Petition was filed
more than 2 mos after Osmena filed his COC. A petition for quo warranto stated
invoked for such is premature considering that Osmena was proclaimed only on
March 3, 1988.
2. No substantial & convincing evidence presented to prove Osmena is no longer a
naturalization in a foreign country or by express renunciation of citizenship or
by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support another country’s consti or
laws (CA No. 63). No proof that Osmena did any of those. Aznar assumed that
the ACR & permit to re-enter were proof of such. However, only RP courts are
allowed to determine whether one is a Filipino citizen or not, regardless of
whether that person is considered an American under US laws. His father is
Filipino thus, without proof of contrary, the presumption that he is a Filipino
remains.
3. Frivaldo & Labo cases not applicable because they have both admitted that they
are foreign citizens whereas Osmena vehemently denies his American
citizenship.
4. He has a Philippine passport & he has continuously participated in electoral
process in RP both as a voter & as a candidate.
5. Certificate stating that he’s American is just a certificate. It doesn’t say that
he’s not a Filipino nor is there any express or implied renunciation of his Filipino
citizenship.
6. Art. 4, Sec. 5 ’87 Consti: dual allegiance will be dealt w/by law. (they raised
this because Osmena is both Filipino & American) However, no implementing
rules have been enacted yet.
Melencio-Herrera, dissenting: If Osmena had dual citizenship, he had the chance
to elect his citizenship upon majority. He did elect such when he was 24 & 45 by
obtaining an ACR w/c is a clear & unambiguous proof that he’s no longer a citizen.
He claims he was compelled by past regime to change his citizenship but he could
have asked for its cancellation before he ran for office. We need not wait for the
implementing guidelines of the dual allegiance law to consider giving up legal
convenience of dual citizenship.
Cruz, Dissenting: When one voluntarily registers as a citizen, he in effect affirms
that he’s not a citizen. There was express renunciation on his part when he took his
oath as a naturalized US citizen. Even if naturalization is revoked, his renunciation
still lies (Labo vs. COMELEC). There was an express renunciation of citizenship as
defined in CA No. 63 w/c is an unequivocal & deliberate act w/full awareness of its
significance & consequences (Yu vs. CID). Osmena was not required to register as
an alien but he chose to do so despite having a land willing to consider him as its
own. Philippine citizenship is lost as long as repudiation is categorical enough &
preference for foreign state in unmistakable, such as in this case. His efforts in
improving Cebu and the fact that majority of the people voted for him are
immaterial owing to the fact that it is unlawful to keep him, a non-Filipino citizen, in
office.
Padilla, Dissenting: He was a dual citizen at one point. His ACR application is
tantamount to an express renunciation of his Filipino citizenship & proof that he’s an
alien under RP laws. If he were truly a Filipino citizen, he should have not applied
for a re-entry permit since it’s every Filipino citizen’s rt to return to his country. He
has been a registered alien since 1958 and another registration took place in 1979.
The first registration is an express renunciation because this is under the provision
requiring aliens 14 yrs or above to elect their citizenship and if they choose to
remain an alien, they must register personally & acquire an ACR. Osmena was
about 20 during the time of the first registration. Dual citizenship should be
prohibited because it is a necessary complement of dual allegiance. It results in
questionable loyalties & leads to international conflicts. Citizens can choose their
nationality but limited to one choice only. If Labo was declared an alien, how come
Osmena’s not? SC is inconsistent in its rulings.
Sarmiento, Concurring: Impt to know how he obtained US citizenship. If by
naturalization, then he has lost his Filipino citizenship. If by jus soli, it’s by force of
circumstances & not by choice, then he doesn’t lose RP citizenship if he were born of
Filipino parents. Without any evidence re this, presumption of his Filipino citizenship
remains. ACR is not equal to an express renunciation.
Gutierrez: Stand in Labo & Yu cases remain. He can’t participate coz he’s related to
one of the counsels w/in 4th civ degree.
Mercado vs. Manzano [May 26, 1999]
Special Civil Actio in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
Facts:
 Eduardo Manzano and Ernesto Mercado were candidates for vice-mayor of the
City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. Manzano received by the highest
number of votes.
 The proclamation of Manzano was suspended in view of a pending petition for
disqualification filed by Ernesto Mamaril who alleged that Manzano was not a
citizen of the Philippines but of the United States.
 May 7, 1998 the Second Division of Comelec granted the petition on the ground
that Manzano is a dual citizen and, under section 40 (d) of the Local
Government Code, persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running
for any elective position. A motion for reconsideration was filed but it remained
pending until the May 11, 1998 elections.
 May 19, 1998 – Mercado sought to intervene in the case for disqualification this
motion for intervention was opposed by Manzano.
 August 31, 1998 – the Comelec en banc reversed the ruling of the second
division on the grounds that when Manzano registered himself as a voter and
voted in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998 he effectively renounced his US
citizenship under the American Law. Under Philippine law, he no longer had US
citizenship.
 August 31, 1998 Manzano was proclaimed as the vice mayor of the City of
Makati.
 Mercado file a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the resolution of the
Comelec en banc.
Issues:
1. WON Mercado has the right to bring the suit. YES
 When can a person intervene? If he has legal interest in the matter of litigation,
or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by such action or
proceeding
 When Mercado sought to intervene in the proceedings before the Comelec there
had been no proclamation of the results of the election for the vice mayoralty
contest for Makati City. Mercado had an interest in ousting private respondent
from the race at the time he sought to intervene.
 Under RA 6646 section 6 intervention may be allowed in proceedings for
disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgement
rendered.
2. WON dual citizenship is a ground for disqualification. NO
 Section 40 of the local government code declares as disqualified from running
for any elective position those with dual citizenship. Petitioner contends that
through section 40(d) command in explicit terms the ineligibility of persons
possessing dual allegiance to hold elective official.
Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship.
 Dual Citizenship – result of the concurrent application of the different laws of
two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the
said states.
o Born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the
principle of jus soli
o Born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by law of
their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country
o Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to
have renounced Philippine citizenship.
 Dual Allegiance – when a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. Result of an individual’s volition
 Article IV (5) of the constitution provides: “Dual Allegiance of citizens is inimical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by the law”. The concern of the
constitutional commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized
citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
their naturalization. Therefore, dual citizenship im RA 7160 section 40 (d)
refers to dual allegiance.
 Dual citizenship is just a reality on us because we have no control of the laws
on citizenship of other countries. We recognize a child of a Filipino mother. But
whether or not she is considered as a citizen of another country is something
completely beyond our control.
3. WON Manzano has effectively elected Philippine citizenship. YES
 By voting in the Philippine elections Manzano renounced his American
citizenship. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post,
private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounce his
American citizenship.
 Frivaldo vs. Comelec: Frivaldo lost his American citizenship when he took his
oath of allegiance to the Philippine government when he ran for Governor in
1988, 1992 and 1995. Every certificate of candidacy contains an oath of
allegiance to the Philippine Government.
 Aznar vs. Comelec: The mere fact that he has a certificate stating that he is an
American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. The certification that he
 is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is,
of both nationalities or citizenship.
 By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is
not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend
and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and
allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private
respondent has, as far as the laws of this country is concerned, effectively
repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said
before as a dual citizen.
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) vs. Zamora [Oct. 10, 2000]
Special Civil Actions in the SC. Certiorari & Prohibition
Nature: This involves 5 consolidated petitions for certiorari & prohibition regarding
an agreement forged by the government with the USA – the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA).
Facts:
 March 14, 1947: RP-US forged Military Bases Agreement (MBA) w/c included
US military use of installations in RP
 Aug. 30, 1951: RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) wherein they agreed to
respond to external armed attack on their territories, armed forces, public
vessels & aircraft
 MBA expired in 1991. Parties negotiated for extension however, Senate rejected
proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation & Security, extending US
stay. MDT continued.
 July 18, 1997: US & RP met and discussed their complementing strategic
interests in the Asia-Pacific. They discussed possible elements of VFA.
Negotiations & conferences took place on Jan. 12-13, 1998.
 Feb. 10, 1998: then Pres. Ramos, DFA Sec. Siazon & US Ambassador Thomas
Hubbard approved & signed VFA.
 Oct. 5, 1998: Erap ratified VFA thru DFA Sec.
 Oct. 6, 1998: Exec. Sec. Ronaldo Zamora transmitted Instrument of Ratification
(includes info that VFA is the framework to strengthen RP-US relations, to give
life to MDT, to hold regular joint military exercises, info on guidelines re
admission, prosecution of US personnel, importation & exportation of US
materials) to the Senate. Including letter of President & VFA. This is in pursuant
to Art. VII, Sec. 21 of 87 Consti.
 Senate referred VFA to Committee on Foreign Relations (Ople, head) and
Committee on National Defense & Security (Biazon, head). Both committees
had joint public hearings & deliberations.
 May 3, 1999: Committees submitted Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443
recommending Senate concurrence to the VFA & creation of Legislative
Oversight Committee to oversee implementation. They agreed w/VFA because
it: 1)promoted common security of RP & US, 2) doesn’t give US unrestricted
access or unhampered mov’t in RP, 3) not a basing agreement nor does it
revive US bases & facilities, 4) these are only temporary visits, 5) RP courts
have primary jurisdiction over US personnel unless it only involves US
prop/person, 6) US commits to respect RP laws, 7) enhance RP political,
economic & security partnership & cooperation w/ US. It was also stated that
RP has rt to terminate agreement unilaterally if it’s no longer part of national
interest.
 May 27, 1999: VFA approved by a vote of 18-5. Became Sen. Resolution. No.
18
 June 1, 1999: VFA enforced after US (Hubbard) & RP (Siazon) exchange of
notes. It has a preamble & 9 articles providing for mechanism that will govern
USAF & defense personnel in RP. (pls. see pp. 469 – 476 for whole VFA text)
 Petitioners assail constitutionality of VFA as legislators, NGOs, citizens &
taxpayers. They allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON petitioners have locus standi. NO
 For one to have standing, one must prove that law is invalid & that he/she
has/wills sustain some direct injury if law will be enforced. It also involves
denial of rights/privileges one is entitled to. Petitioners were not able to prove
this.
 Taxpayers – failed to establish that VFA involves taxing or spending powers of
Congress. For such to be appreciated, it should involve illegal disbursement of
public funds derived from taxation. NO public funds are involved here. They
didn’t allege that public funds are being misspent or illegally expended either.
 Legislators (Representatives Wigberto Tanada, Butz Aquiino, Joker Arroyo) – no
standing either for they failed to prove that they or Congress will sustain direct
injury due to VFA. Alleged impairment of legislative power such as delegation of
Congress power to grant tax exemptions, more apparent than real.
 Integrated Bar of the Philippines – no standing either since there is no board
resolution from Board of Governors authorizing its President to file this suit.
 But then again, since it is of paramount importance & constitutional
significance, procedural barrier will be brushed aside & SC will take cognizance
of case.
2. What is the applicable constitutional provision to the case at bar? Art.
18, Sec. 25.
 Petitioners: Sec. 25, Art. XVIII is applicable (“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.”) because it involves
foreign military troops.
 Respondents: Sec. 21, Art. VII applicable (“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.”) since VFA is not a basing agreement
but an agreement involving temporary visits of US personnel for joint military
exercises.
 SC says Art. VII, Sec. 21 involves treaties or international agreements in
general w/c needs 2/3 concurrence of Senate members. Examples are
extradition or tax treaties or those economic in nature or any other treaty or
international agreement entered into by RP of any subject. Whereas, Art. XVIII,
Sec. 25 is a special provision applicable to foreign military bases, troops or
facilities in RP. It requires concurrence of Senate by a treaty, ratification of
majority of voters in national referendum if required by Congress & recognition
as treaty by other contracting state. Both are in the negative, prohibitory in
mandate & character & require Senate concurrence.
 VFA: agreement w/c defines treatment of US troops & personnel visiting RP.
Provides guidelines & rts of both parties. Sec. 25, Art. XVIII is then
applicable. Sec. 21, Art. VII will be applicable in the sense that it states the
number of votes required to obtain valid Senate concurrence w/c is 2/3.
 LEX SPECIALIS DEROGANT GENERALI: Special provision such as Art. XVIII,
Sec. 25, prevails over a general one like Art. VII, Sec. 21. General enactment
will only be suppletory to the special provision.
 UBI LEX NON DISTINGUIT NEC NOS DISTINGUIRE DEBEMOS: When no
distinction is made by law, the Court should not distinguish. Art. XVIII, Sec. 25
does not distinguish between a permanent or transient stay of troops, thus
duration of US military stay in RP is immaterial.
 A18 S25 is applicable even if only foreign troops & facilities and not bases are
involved. Disjunctive “or” is used with a comma, meaning, the 3 are
independent from each. Provision contemplates 3 different situations. Fr.
Bernas expressly stated during Con Con that even if only one situation arises,
the requirements would still be the same. Military bases are actually no longer
viable because of other alternatives such as nuclear weapons, warships, etc.
which are mobile & no longer require presence in a territory.
3. WON the requirements of A18 S25 were complied with. YES
 Requirement #1 met. It is under a treaty.
 Requirement #2 met. It obtained 2/3 concurrence of Senate thru Resolution
No. 18. National referendum is not necessary because Congress didn’t require
it. 2/3 means at least 16 should have voted in favor. There were 18 votes in
favor of the VFA. Even if there were only 23 incumbent senators at that time,
2/3 would still be met.
 Petitioners allege that 3rd requisite of the contracting party recognizing the
agreement as a treaty has not been met. They claim that VFA should have
advice & consent of US Senate & not be considered merely as an executive
agreement by the US. Respondents on the other hand presented a letter from
Hubbard saying that VFA is binding on the US gov’t. They say that for VFA to be
binding, it must only be accepted as a treaty by the US. SC view: recognition
only means accepting or acknowledging the agreement as a treaty. Requiring
US Senate concurrence would accord a strict meaning to the phrase. Remember
verba legis, ordinary meaning/common use unless technical terms are
employed. Besides, under International Law, an executive agreement is binding
as a treaty. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defined a treaty as an
internat’l instrument concluded between States in written form & governed by
international law whatever its particular designation. Name is immaterial as
long as the negotiating functionaries have remained w/in their powers. A treaty
can be called differently (act, protocol, agreement, concordat, convention,
declaration, etc.) & still mean the same. RP recognizes binding effect of
executive agreements w/o Senate or Congress concurrence. We recognize
power of executive to enter into binding agreements w/o concurrence. US SC
has recognized such too. (Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading)
Con Con deliberations also show that ratification by the other state should be
governed by their own laws. Hubbard’s letter is also proof of US acceptance &
acknowledgment. (see p. 491 for the letter) Ratification is generally held to be
an executive act undertaken by head of state or gov’t. In RP, such power is
vested on President. Senate is only limited to giving or w/holding consent or
concurrence to ratification. Since VFA has been ratified and there has been an
exchange of notes bet. RP & US, such agreement is already binding on us. We
can’t plead the Consti as a convenient excuse for non-compliance of our
obligations, duties & responsibilities. Such is prohibited by Art. 13 of the
Declaration of rts & duties.
4. WON there was grave abuse of discretion on part of respondents. NO
 It is w/in president’s power to enter into & ratify treaties. Consti grants him
such powers. He is the sole organ & authority in country’s external affairs. He is
the chief architect of our nation’s foreign policy. Senate & Congress cannot
intrude into the President’s power to negotiate. SC believes it is w/in President’s
power to ratify & w/in Senate’s power to concur with VFA. Senate is an
independent body & wisdom of its actions are beyond SC’s jurisdiction. SC can
only check WON other branches went beyond their jurisdiction & not that it
erred or has a different view.
Holding: Case dismissed.
Puno Dissent
Only issue for him is WON A18 S25 was violated. This agreement can be classified
as permanent there being no mention of duration of joint military exercises. It is
open-ended. Only states that it will expire 180 days from date on w/c either party
notifies the other in writing of its desire to terminate agreement. It can be in force
indefinitely. Siazon said VFA will continue until there is no longer a possible threat to
our national security. Training will be on a larger scale according to Defense Sec.
Mercado. Then, escalation of duration & frequency are highly probable too. This is
w/in A18 S25 & such is ripe for adjudication.
To ascertain if VFA has complied w/ consti’l provision, we should look at intent of
Consti framers. Con Con deliberations show that such provision was enacted to
remove flaws of the 1947 MBA. By the phrase “recognized as a treaty,” they meant
that other party must perform all acts required for the agreement to reach the
status of a treaty in their country. Thus, we should go back to US Consti. US Consti
allows president to make treaties provided that 2/3 of senate concurs. US
recognizes 4 types of international agreements: treaty, executive agreement
pursuant to a treaty, congressional-executive agreements & sole executive
agreements. Exec. Agreement is a convenient catch-all to subsume all international
agreements intended to bind US & another gov’t other than those w/c receive
consent of 2/3 of US Senate. This is recognized by all branches of the gov’t. This is
used to come up with decisions & actions expediently using force or diplomacy. It
may be treaty-authorized (authority conferred in prior treaty), congressional-
executive (either negotiated w/prior Congressional authorization or confirmed by
Congress after negotiation), or presidential or sole (exclusive presidential powers
such as commander-in-chief). VFA falls under the presidential or sole executive
agreement accdg to Puno but respondents failed to quality under which category
VFA falls. This is important in determining criminal jurisdiction over US forces
stationed abroad. Sole executive agreements and treaties, although both superior
over state laws, have different effects when pitted against prior inconsistent acts of
Congress. A treaty can supersede a prior act of Congress and vice-versa. The one
with later date will prevail. Sole executive agreements cannot prevail over prior
inconsistent federal legislation. It can only do so if it is supported by an appropriate
legislation. President does not have the power to repeal existing federal laws, thus
he can’t make an indirect appeal thru a sole executive agreement. SC can’t equate
the VFA to a treaty since it is only an executive agreement. A treaty has a greater
dignity due to its constitutional effectiveness. It commits the Senate & people of the
US & its subsequent abrogation is less likely. VFA can’t climb to the same lofty
height that the dignity of treaty can reach. It does not meet the 3rd requisite.
Lim vs. Executive Secretary [April 11, 2002]
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the
joint exercise
Facts:
 This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a petition-
in-intervention, praying that respondents be restrained with the Balikatan 02-1
and after due notice and hearing, that judgement be rendered issuing a
permanent writ of injunction and/or prohibition against the deployment of US
troops in Basilan and Mindanao for being illegal and in violation of the
Constitution.
 January 2002 – Armed forces of the US started arriving in Mindano to take part
in the Balikatan exercises. Balikatan exercises are a simulation of joint military
maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). The MDT is a
bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and The US in 1951.
 February 11, 2002 - Sanlakas and Partido ng Manggagawa (party list
organizations) filed a petition-in-intervention.
 The petitioners contend that the MDT is applicable only when there is an armed
attack by an external aggressor and that the attacks of ASG cannot be
considered as external. Also, the VFA does not authorize the American soldiers
to engage in combat operations in the Philippine territory, not even to fire back
if fired upon.
 In the reply filed by the Solicitor General he pointed out the following:
o They may not file suit in their capacities as taxpayers because it has not
been shown that Balikatan 02-1 involves the exercise of Congress’ taxing
or spending power
o Cannot file suit in their capacities as lawyers because being lawyers does
not invest them with sufficient personality to initiate the case
o The petitioners have failed to demonstrate the requisite showing of direct
personal injury
Issue:
1. WON the petitioners have the legal standing to file the suit. NO
 The court agreed with the solicitor general that the petitioners cannot file
suit in their capacity as taxpayers and as lawyers. Also the petitioners
failed to demonstrate the requisite showing of direct injury.
2. WON the court can take cognizance of the case. YES
 The court ruled that they can take cognizance of the case because of its
transcendental importance to the public. The court cites cases wherein the
court ruled that in cases of transcendental importance, the Court may relax
the standing requirements and to allow a suit to prosper even when there
is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review
(Kilosbayan vs. Guingona Jr.)
3. WON the Balikatan -02-1 is covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement. YES
 The VFA permits US personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in
“activities.” The exact meaning of activities was left undefined. The court
used the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to aid them in
interpreting the word “activities”.
 From a reading of the Vienna Convention it is clear that the cardinal rule of
interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed
to verbalize the intention of the parties. The text of a treaty is presumed
to be the authentic expression of the intentions of the parties. The starting
point of interpretation is the elucidation of the meaning of the text, not an
investigation ab initio into the intentions of the parties.
 With the aid of the Vienna Convention it appears farfetched that the
ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word “activities” arose from
accident. The US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes
other than military.
 VFA legitimizes the Balikatan exercises. Also, Balikatan 02-1 is authorized
by the MDT and VFA. Both history and intent of the MDT and VFA support
the conclusion that combat-related activities as opposed to combat itself
are authorized.
4. WON American troops are prohibited from engaging in an offensive war on the
Philippine territory. NO
 Neither the MDT nor the VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an offensive
war on the Philippine territory.
 1987 Constitution: Declaration of Principle and State Policies
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation,
and amity with all nations.
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations
with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
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
 From the provision of the constitution it can be seen that foreign troops are
allowed entry into the Philippines only by way of direct exception. Conflict
arises between the fundamental law and our obligations from International
agreements. In Philip Morris, Inc. v. CA the court ruled that the fact that
international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any
means imply the primacy of international law over national law. Rules of
international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislation
 In Gonzales vs. Hechanova the court ruled that the SC may not be deprived of
its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari,
or writ of error as the law or rules of court may provide, final judgements and
decrees of inferior courts. Our constitution authorizes the nullification of a
treaty, not only when it conflicts the fundamental law, but, also when it runs
counter to an act of Congress.
5. WON the American troops actively engaged in combat alongside Filipino soldiers
under the guise of an alleged training assistance exercise.
 The court does not take cognizance of newspaper or electronic reports per
se, not because of any issue as to their truth, accuracy, or impartiality, but
for the simple reason that facts must be established in accordance with the
rules of evidence.
 Determination of this issue involves basically a question of fact. This
present action is not a fit topic for a special civil action for certiorari. SC is
not a trier of facts.

Dissenting Opinion: J. Kapunan

 There is no treaty allowing US troops to engage in combat – MDT does not

authorize the US military troops to engage the ASG in combat. MDT
contemplates only an external armed attack.
 There is no evidence that the ASG is connected with “global terrorism” – ASG
committed mostly crimes of kidnapping for ransom and murder which are
common crimes that are punishable under the penal code but which, by
themselves, hardly constitute terrorism.
 Balikatan exercises are not covered by VFA as US troops are not allowed to
engage in combat – Military exercise that are contemplated in the VFA are
those in accordance with the National Defense Plan (NDP) of the Philippine.
NDP is directed against potential foreign aggressors, not designed to deal with
internal disorders.
 US military presence is essentially idenfinite and open-ended – J. Kapunan
enumerated various newspaper clipping and speeches delivered by US President
Bush. He stated that the Court can take judicial notice of the pronouncements
because they are of public knowledge, having been circulated in all channels of
the media. Neither have they been denied.

Separate Opinion: J. Panganiban

 J. Panganiban voted to dismiss the petition because in the absence of a firm

factual findings that the Americans will stay indefinitely in our country or are
engaged in actual offensive combat with local insurgents as alleged by the
petitioners, respondent Philippine officials who are hosting the Balikatan
exercise cannot possibly be imputed with grave abuse of discretion – an
indispensable element of certiorari.