BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) VS. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) VS. vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000
FACT:
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a Military Bases
Agreement which formalized, among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by
United States military personnel. To further strengthen their defense and security relationship, the
Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951. Under
the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed
forces, public vessels, and aircraft.
1
In view of the impending expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the Philippines
and the United States negotiated for a possible extension of the military bases agreement. On
September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended the presence of US military bases in
the Philippines. With the expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the periodic military
2
exercises conducted between the two countries were held in abeyance. Notwithstanding, the
defense and security relationship between the Philippines and the United States of America
continued pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty.
On July 18, 1997, VFA was created. On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through
respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA.
On May 3, 1999, the Committees submitted Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 recommending
8
the concurrence of the Senate to the VFA and the creation of a Legislative Oversight Committee to
oversee its implementation. Debates then ensued.
On May 27, 1999, Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 was approved by the Senate, by a two-
thirds (2/3) vote of its members. Senate Resolution No. 443 was then re-numbered as Senate
9
Resolution No. 18. 10
On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes between
respondent Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Hubbard.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the agreement forged in the turn of the last century between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America -the Visiting Forces Agreement be invalid
RULING:
No. respondents challenge petitioner’s standing to sue, on the ground that the latter have not shown
any interest in the case, and that petitioners failed to substantiate that they have sustained, or will
sustain direct injury as a result of the operation of the VFA.
This Court is of the firm view that the phrase "recognized as a treaty" means that the other
contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.32 To require the other
contracting state, the United States of America in this case, to submit the VFA to the United States
Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, 33 is to accord strict meaning to the phrase.
it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement
because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. To be sure, as
35
long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, the said
agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty.
, in international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their
binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within
their powers. International law continues to make no distinction between treaties and executive
38
agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations. 39
By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as head of State, is the
sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country. In many ways, the President is the
chief architect of the nation’s foreign policy; his "dominance in the field of foreign relations is (then)
conceded." Wielding vast powers an influence, his conduct inIn fine, absent any clear showing of
51
grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents, this Court- as the final arbiter of legal
controversies and staunch sentinel of the rights of the people - is then without power to conduct an
incursion and meddle with such affairs purely executive and legislative in character and nature. For
the Constitution no less, maps out the distinct boundaries and limits the metes and bounds within
which each of the three political branches of government may exercise the powers exclusively and
essentially conferred to it by law.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson describes, is "executive altogether." 5

BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) VS. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) VS. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) VS. vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) VS. vs.

Resolution No. 18. 10

agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations. 39

the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson describes, is "executive altogether." 5

You might also like