Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 133 views

    BAYAN v. Zamora

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Rose Taninas
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) allowing American troops to enter the Philippines was constitutional. While Section 25 of Article XVIII specifically governs treaties involving foreign military presence, Section 21 of Article VII on treaty approval was also applicable for determining the Senate vote requirement. The VFA met the requirements of Section 25 by being a treaty duly concurred by the Senate, and the third party recognition requirement was satisfied as executive agreements are equally binding under international law. Therefore, the VFA complied with the constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BAYAN v. Zamora

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Rose Taninas
    133 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) allowing American troops to enter the Philippines was constitutional. While Section 25 of Article XVIII specifically governs treaties involving foreign military presence, Section 21 of Article VII on treaty approval was also applicable for determining the Senate vote requirement. The VFA met the requirements of Section 25 by being a treaty duly concurred by the Senate, and the third party recognition requirement was satisfied as executive agreements are equally binding under international law. Therefore, the VFA complied with the constitution.

    Original Description:

    BAYAN v. ZAMORA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) allowing American troops to enter the Philippines was constitutional. While Section 25 of Article XVIII specifically governs treaties involving foreign military presence, Section 21 of Article VII on treaty approval was also applicable for determining the Senate vote requirement. The VFA met the requirements of Section 25 by being a treaty duly concurred by the Senate, and the third party recognition requirement was satisfied as executive agreements are equally binding under international law. Therefore, the VFA complied with the constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    133 views1 page

    BAYAN v. Zamora

    Uploaded by

    Kathleen Rose Taninas
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) allowing American troops to enter the Philippines was constitutional. While Section 25 of Article XVIII specifically governs treaties involving foreign military presence, Section 21 of Article VII on treaty approval was also applicable for determining the Senate vote requirement. The VFA met the requirements of Section 25 by being a treaty duly concurred by the Senate, and the third party recognition requirement was satisfied as executive agreements are equally binding under international law. Therefore, the VFA complied with the constitution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Zamora, G.R. No.

    138570, October
    10, 2000

    Facts:
    On October 5, 1998 President Joseph E. Estrada ratified the Visiting Forces
    Agreement (VFA) thru respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The VFA allows
    American Troops to enter the Philippines to conduct joint military exercises with
    members of the Philippines armed forces. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting
    thru Executive Secretary Zamora officially transmitted to the Senate, the Instrument of
    Ratification, letter of the President and the VFA for approval. It was approved by the
    Senate by a 2/3 vote of its members. On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into
    force after an exchange of notes between Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador
    Hubbard.
    Petitioners, who are oppose the VFA, challenged the constitutionality of said
    VFA contending that it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President to
    transmit the same to the Senate invoking Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution as
    the controlling provision when it should have been Section 25, Article XVIII.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the VFA is unconstitutional in view of petitioners’ contention
    that Section 21, Art. VII was erroneously invoked by the respondents.
    Ruling:
    No, the VFA is not unconstitutional. Section 25, Art. XVIII which specifically
    deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops or facilities should apply in
    the instant case. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or
    international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3
    of all the Members of the Senate. On the other hand, Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides :
    “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning
    Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the
    Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress so
    requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum
    held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senate by the other
    contracting state”.
    The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international
    agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. In contrast, the second
    cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases,
    troops and facilities in the Philippines. It is a finely-imbedded principle in statutory
    construction that a special provision or law prevails over a general one. To a certain
    extent, however, the provisions of Section 21, Art. VII will find applicability for the sole
    purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence
    of the Senate.
    Accordingly, for VFA to be constitutional it must sufficiently meet the following
    requisites: a) it must be under a treaty; b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the
    Senate, and when so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the
    people in a national referendum; and c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
    State. There is no dispute in the presence of the first two requisites. As for the third
    requisite, it is inconsequential whether the US treats the VFA only as an executive
    agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as
    a treaty. They are equally binding obligations upon nations. Therefore, there is indeed
    marked compliance with the mandate of the constitution in this regard.

    You might also like