DUAL ALLEGIANCE

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.

Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.

R.A. 7160 LCAL GVERN!ENT CDE" SEC. 40 DIS#UALI$IED $R!
RUNNING ELECTIVE LCAL PST%
sentenced by final judgment for offense involving moral turpitude or
punishable by 1 yr. Or more, win ! yrs of serving sentence
removed from office due to an administrative case
convicted by final judgment violated oath of allegiance to "P
those wdual citizenship
fugitives from justice in crim#l nonpolitical cases "P or abroad
permanent residents in foreign country or ac$uired rt to reside abroad %
continue to avail of such
insane or feeble&minded
AZNAR &'. C!ELEC (!)* +5" 1,,0-
Petition for Certiorari to review COMELEC resolution
'ov. 1(, 1()* + ,milio Osmena filed certificate of candidacy -COC. for pos of
Prov#l /ov. of Cebu for 0an. 1), 1()) elections
0an. !!, 1()) + Cebu PDP&1aban thru provincial chairman 0ose 2znar filed
wCO3,1,C petition to dis$ualify Osmena on ground that he#s an 2merican %
not a 4ilipino citizen.
0an. !*, 1()) + 2znar submitted following to CO3,1,C5
1. 6mmigration certificate stating Osmena is an 2merican % a holder of an
2lien Certificate of "egistration -2C". and 6mmigration Certificate of
"esidence -6C".
!. 7rgent ,8&Parte 3otion to issue 9"O enjoining Cebu Provincial :oard of
Canvassers from tabulatingcanvassing Osmena#s votes and proclaiming
him until final resolution has been issued
0an. !), 1()) + CO3,1,C resolution5 continue canvassing,
suspend proclamation
2dditional evidence presented by 2znar during hearing5 Osmena#s
2pplication for 2lien "egistration, 2C", permit to re&enter Philippines
Osmena5 maintained he#s a 4ilipino citizen w Philippine passport
% continuously residing in "P. ;e claims he has not gone out of "P for more
than < mos. % he#s a registered voter.
3arch =, 1()) + CO3,1,C directed canvassers to proclaim winner,
Osmena won.
0une 11, 1()) + petition dismissed by CO3,1,C
ISSUE% >O' Osmena should be dis$ualified
HELD% 'o.
RATI%
1. Pursuant to Omnibus ,lection Code, ?ec. *), a petition to dis$ualify a
registered candidate before the election may be filed by any person e8clusively
on the ground that any material representation of re$uirements under ?ec. *@
is false. 6t should be filed not later than !A days from time of filing COC %
should be decided not later than 1A days before election. Petition was filed
more than ! mos after Osmena filed his COC. 2 petition for $uo warranto stated
in ?ec. !A= is only applicable for petitions after the election. 9hus, it cannot be
invoBed for such is premature considering that Osmena was proclaimed only on
3arch =, 1()).
!. 'o substantial % convincing evidence presented to prove Osmena is no
longer a 4ilipino citizen % dis$ualified from running. 4ilipino citizenship is lost by
naturalization in a foreign country or by e8press renunciation of citizenship or
by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support another country#s consti or
laws -C2 'o. <=.. 'o proof that Osmena did any of those. 2znar assumed that
the 2C" % permit to re&enter were proof of such. ;owever, only "P courts are
allowed to determine whether one is a 4ilipino citizen or not, regardless of
whether that person is considered an 2merican under 7? laws. ;is father is
4ilipino thus, without proof of contrary, the presumption that he is a 4ilipino
remains.
=. 4rivaldo % 1abo cases not applicable because they have both admitted that
they are foreign citizens whereas Osmena vehemently denies his 2merican
citizenship.
@. ;e has a Philippine passport % he has continuously participated in electoral
process in "P both as a voter % as a candidate.
A. Certificate stating that he#s 2merican is just a certificate. 6t doesn#t say
that he#s not a 4ilipino nor is there any e8press or implied renunciation of his
4ilipino citizenship.
<. 2rt. @, ?ec. A #)* Consti5 dual allegiance will be dealt wby law. -they
raised this because Osmena is both 4ilipino % 2merican. ;owever, no
implementing rules have been enacted yet.
!e.encio-He//e/)" 0i''entin1% 6f Osmena had dual citizenship, he had the chance
to elect his citizenship upon majority. ;e did elect such when he was !@ % @A by
obtaining an 2C" wc is a clear % unambiguous proof that he#s no longer a citizen.
;e claims he was compelled by past regime to change his citizenship but he could
have asBed for its cancellation before he ran for office. >e need not wait for the
implementing guidelines of the dual allegiance law to consider giving up legal
convenience of dual citizenship.
C/23" Di''entin1% >hen one voluntarily registers as a citizen, he in effect affirms
that he#s not a citizen. 9here was e8press renunciation on his part when he tooB his
oath as a naturalized 7? citizen. ,ven if naturalization is revoBed, his renunciation
still lies -1abo vs. CO3,1,C.. 9here was an e8press renunciation of citizenship as
defined in C2 'o. <= wc is an une$uivocal % deliberate act wfull awareness of its
significance % conse$uences -Cu vs. C6D.. Osmena was not re$uired to register as
an alien but he chose to do so despite having a land willing to consider him as its
own. Philippine citizenship is lost as long as repudiation is categorical enough %
preference for foreign state in unmistaBable, such as in this case. ;is efforts in
improving Cebu and the fact that majority of the people voted for him are
immaterial owing to the fact that it is unlawful to Beep him, a non&4ilipino citizen, in
office.
P)0i..)" Di''entin1% ;e was a dual citizen at one point. ;is 2C" application is
tantamount to an e8press renunciation of his 4ilipino citizenship % proof that he#s an
alien under "P laws. 6f he were truly a 4ilipino citizen, he should have not applied
for a re&entry permit since it#s every 4ilipino citizen#s rt to return to his country. ;e
has been a registered alien since 1(A) and another registration tooB place in 1(*(.
9he first registration is an e8press renunciation because this is under the provision
re$uiring aliens 1@ yrs or above to elect their citizenship and if they choose to
remain an alien, they must register personally % ac$uire an 2C". Osmena was
about !D during the time of the first registration. Dual citizenship should be
prohibited because it is a necessary complement of dual allegiance. 6t results in
$uestionable loyalties % leads to international conflicts. Citizens can choose their
nationality but limited to one choice only. 6f 1abo was declared an alien, how come
Osmena#s notE ?C is inconsistent in its rulings.
S)/4iento" Conc2//in1% 6mpt to Bnow how he obtained 7? citizenship. 6f by
naturalization, then he has lost his 4ilipino citizenship. 6f by jus soli, it#s by force of
circumstances % not by choice, then he doesn#t lose "P citizenship if he were born of
4ilipino parents. >ithout any evidence re this, presumption of his 4ilipino citizenship
remains. 2C" is not e$ual to an e8press renunciation.
G2tie//e3% ?tand in 1abo % Cu cases remain. ;e can#t participate coz he#s related to
one of the counsels win @
th
civ degree.
!e/c)0o &'. !)n3)no (!)* +6" 1,,,-
S5eci). Ci&i. Actio in t6e S25/e4e Co2/t. Ce/tio/)/i
4acts5
,duardo 3anzano and ,rnesto 3ercado were candidates for vice&mayor of
the City of 3aBati in the 3ay 11, 1(() elections. 3anzano received by the
highest number of votes.
9he proclamation of 3anzano was suspended in view of a pending petition
for dis$ualification filed by ,rnesto 3amaril who alleged that 3anzano was not a
citizen of the Philippines but of the 7nited ?tates.
3ay *, 1(() the ?econd Division of Comelec granted the petition on the
ground that 3anzano is a dual citizen and, under section @D -d. of the 1ocal
/overnment Code, persons with dual citizenship are dis$ualified from running
for any elective position. 2 motion for reconsideration was filed but it remained
pending until the 3ay 11, 1(() elections.
3ay 1(, 1(() + 3ercado sought to intervene in the case for dis$ualification
this motion for intervention was opposed by 3anzano.
2ugust =1, 1(() + the Comelec en banc reversed the ruling of the second
division on the grounds that when 3anzano registered himself as a voter and
voted in the elections of 1((!, 1((A and 1(() he effectively renounced his 7?
citizenship under the 2merican 1aw. 7nder Philippine law, he no longer had 7?
citizenship.
2ugust =1, 1(() 3anzano was proclaimed as the vice mayor of the City of
3aBati.
3ercado file a petition for certiorari seeBing to set aside the resolution of
the Comelec en banc.
6ssues5
1. >O' 3ercado has the right to bring the suit. C,?
>hen can a person interveneE 6f he has legal interest in the
matter of litigation, or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by
such action or proceeding
>hen 3ercado sought to intervene in the proceedings before the
Comelec there had been no proclamation of the results of the election for the
vice mayoralty contest for 3aBati City. 3ercado had an interest in ousting
private respondent from the race at the time he sought to intervene.
7nder "2 <<@< section < intervention may be allowed in
proceedings for dis$ualification even after election if there has yet been no final
judgement rendered.
!. >O' dual citizenship is a ground for dis$ualification. 'O
?ection @D of the local government code declares as dis$ualified from
running for any elective position those with dual citizenship. Petitioner
contends that through section @D-d. command in e8plicit terms the ineligibility
of persons possessing dual allegiance to hold elective official.
Dual 2llegiance 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 :orn of 4ilipino fathers andor mothers in foreign countries which
follow the principle of jus soli
o :orn in the Philippines of 4ilipino mothers and alien fathers if by
law of their fathers# country such children are citizens of that country
o 9hose 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 2llegiance + when a person simultaneously owes, by some positive
act, loyalty to two or more states. "esult of an individual#s volition
2rticle 6F -A. of the constitution provides5 GDual 2llegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by the lawH. 9he
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. 9herefore, dual citizenship im "2 *1<D
section @D -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. >e recognize a child of a 4ilipino mother.
:ut whether or not she is considered as a citizen of another country is
something completely beyond our control.
=. >O' 3anzano has effectively elected Philippine citizenship. C,?
:y voting in the Philippine elections 3anzano renounced his 2merican
citizenship. :y filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post,
private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounce his
2merican citizenship.
4rivaldo vs. Comelec5 4rivaldo lost his 2merican citizenship when he tooB
his oath of allegiance to the Philippine government when he ran for /overnor in
1()), 1((! and 1((A. ,very certificate of candidacy contains an oath of
allegiance to the Philippine /overnment.
2znar vs. Comelec5 9he mere fact that he has a certificate stating that he
is an 2merican does not mean that he is not still a 4ilipino. 9he certification
that he is an 2merican does not mean that he is not still a 4ilipino, possessed
as he is, of both nationalities or citizenship.
:y declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a 4ilipino citizenI that
he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another countryI 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 2merican citizenship and anything which he may have said
before as a dual citizen.
7)1on1 A.*)n')n1 !)8)9)*)n :7A;AN< &'. Z)4o/) (ct. 10" +000-
Special Civil Actions in the SC. Certiorari & Prohibition
N)t2/e% 9his involves A consolidated petitions for certiorari % prohibition regarding
an agreement forged by the government with the 7?2 + the Fisiting 4orces
2greement -F42..
$)ct'%
3arch 1@, 1(@*5 "P&7? forged 3ilitary :ases 2greement -3:2. wc included
7? military use of installations in "P
2ug. =D, 1(A15 "P&7? 3utual Defense 9reaty -3D9. wherein they agreed to
respond to e8ternal armed attacB on their territories, armed forces, public
vessels % aircraft
3:2 e8pired in 1((1. Parties negotiated for e8tension however, ?enate rejected
proposed "P&7? 9reaty of 4riendship, Cooperation % ?ecurity, e8tending 7?
stay. 3D9 continued.
0uly 1), 1((*5 7? % "P met and discussed their complementing strategic
interests in the 2sia&Pacific. 9hey discussed possible elements of F42.
'egotiations % conferences tooB place on 0an. 1!&1=, 1(().
4eb. 1D, 1(()5 then Pres. "amos, D42 ?ec. ?iazon % 7? 2mbassador 9homas
;ubbard approved % signed F42.
Oct. A, 1(()5 ,rap ratified F42 thru D42 ?ec.
Oct. <, 1(()5 ,8ec. ?ec. "onaldo Jamora transmitted 6nstrument of "atification
-includes info that F42 is the frameworB to strengthen "P&7? relations, to give
life to 3D9, to hold regular joint military e8ercises, info on guidelines re
admission, prosecution of 7? personnel, importation % e8portation of 7?
materials. to the ?enate. 6ncluding letter of President % F42. 9his is in pursuant
to 2rt. F66, ?ec. !1 of )* Consti.
?enate referred F42 to Committee on 4oreign "elations -Ople, head. and
Committee on 'ational Defense % ?ecurity -:iazon, head.. :oth committees
had joint public hearings % deliberations.
3ay =, 1(((5 Committees submitted Proposed ?enate "esolution 'o. @@=
recommending ?enate concurrence to the F42 % creation of 1egislative
Oversight Committee to oversee implementation. 9hey agreed wF42 because
it5 1.promoted common security of "P % 7?, !. doesn#t give 7? unrestricted
access or unhampered mov#t in "P, =. not a basing agreement nor does it
revive 7? bases % facilities, @. these are only temporary visits, A. "P courts
have primary jurisdiction over 7? personnel unless it only involves 7?
propperson, <. 7? commits to respect "P laws, *. enhance "P political,
economic % security partnership % cooperation w 7?. 6t was also stated that
"P has rt to terminate agreement unilaterally if it#s no longer part of national
interest.
3ay !*, 1(((5 F42 approved by a vote of 1)&A. :ecame ?en. "esolution. 'o.
1)
0une 1, 1(((5 F42 enforced after 7? -;ubbard. % "P -?iazon. e8change of
notes. 6t has a preamble % ( articles providing for mechanism that will govern
7?24 % defense personnel in "P. -pls. see pp. @<( + @*< for whole F42 te8t.
Petitioners assail constitutionality of F42 as legislators, '/Os, citizens %
ta8payers. 9hey allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion.
I''2e' = R)tio%
1. >N 5etitione/' 6)&e .oc2' 't)n0i. N
4or one to have standing, one must prove that law is invalid % that heshe
haswills sustain some direct injury if law will be enforced. 6t also involves
denial of rightsprivileges one is entitled to. Petitioners were not able to prove
this.
9a8payers + failed to establish that F42 involves ta8ing or spending powers of
Congress. 4or such to be appreciated, it should involve illegal disbursement of
public funds derived from ta8ation. 'O public funds are involved here. 9hey
didn#t allege that public funds are being misspent or illegally e8pended either.
1egislators -"epresentatives >igberto 9anada, :utz 2$uiino, 0oBer 2rroyo. + no
standing either for they failed to prove that they or Congress will sustain direct
injury due to F42. 2lleged impairment of legislative power such as delegation of
Congress power to grant ta8 e8emptions, more apparent than real.
6ntegrated :ar of the Philippines + no standing either since there is no board
resolution from :oard of /overnors authorizing its President to file this suit.
:ut then again, since it is of paramount importance % constitutional
significance, procedural barrier will be brushed aside % ?C will taBe cognizance
of case.
+. >6)t i' t6e )55.ic)9.e con'tit2tion). 5/o&i'ion to t6e c)'e )t 9)/? A/t.
1@" Sec. +5.
Petitioners5 ?ec. !A, 2rt. KF666 is applicable -After the expiration in 11 of
the A!ree"ent between the #epublic of the Philippines an$ the %nite$ States of
A"erica concernin! "ilitar& bases' forei!n "ilitar& bases' troops' or facilities
shall not be allowe$ in the Philippines except un$er a treat& $ul& concurre$ in
b& the Senate an$' when the Con!ress so re(uires' ratifie$ b& a "a)orit& of the
votes cast b& the people in a national referen$u" hel$ for that purpose' an$
reco!ni*e$ as a treat& b& the other contractin! State.+. because it involves
foreign military troops.
"espondents5 ?ec. !1, 2rt. F66 applicable -,o treat& or international
a!ree"ent shall be vali$ an$ effective unless concurre$ in b& at least two-
thir$s of all the Me"bers of the Senate.+. since F42 is not a basing agreement
but an agreement involving temporary visits of 7? personnel for joint military
e8ercises.
?C says 2rt. F66, ?ec. !1 involves treaties or international agreements in
general wc needs != concurrence of ?enate members. ,8amples are
e8tradition or ta8 treaties or those economic in nature or any other treaty or
international agreement entered into by "P of any subject. >hereas, 2rt. KF666,
?ec. !A is a special provision applicable to foreign military bases, troops or
facilities in "P. 6t re$uires concurrence of ?enate by a treaty, ratification of
majority of voters in national referendum if re$uired by Congress % recognition
as treaty by other contracting state. :oth are in the negative, prohibitory in
mandate % character % re$uire ?enate concurrence.
F425 agreement wc defines treatment of 7? troops % personnel visiting "P.
Provides guidelines % rts of both parties. Sec. +5" A/t. AVIII i' t6en
)55.ic)9.e. ?ec. !1, 2rt. F66 will be applicable in the sense that it states the
number of votes re$uired to obtain valid ?enate concurrence wc is !=.
1,K ?P,C6216? D,"O/2'9 /,',"2165 ?pecial provision such as 2rt. KF666,
?ec. !A, prevails over a general one liBe 2rt. F66, ?ec. !1. /eneral enactment
will only be suppletory to the special provision.
7:6 1,K 'O' D6?96'/769 ',C 'O? D6?96'/76", D,:,3O?5 >hen no
distinction is made by law, the Court should not distinguish. 2rt. KF666, ?ec. !A
does not distinguish between a permanent or transient stay of troops, thus
duration of 7? military stay in "P is immaterial.
21) ?!A is applicable even if only foreign troops % facilities and not bases are
involved. Disjunctive GorH is used with a comma, meaning, the = are
independent from each. Provision contemplates = different situations. 4r.
:ernas e8pressly stated during Con Con that even if only one situation arises,
the re$uirements would still be the same. 3ilitary bases are actually no longer
viable because of other alternatives such as nuclear weapons, warships, etc.
which are mobile % no longer re$uire presence in a territory.
B. >N t6e /eC2i/e4ent' oD A1@ S+5 Ee/e co45.ie0 Eit6. ;ES
"e$uirement L1 met. 6t is under a treaty.
"e$uirement L! met. 6t obtained != concurrence of ?enate thru "esolution
'o. 1). 'ational referendum is not necessary because Congress didn#t re$uire
it. != means at least 1< should have voted in favor. 9here were 1) votes in
favor of the F42. ,ven if there were only != incumbent senators at that time,
!= would still be met.
Petitioners allege that =
rd
re$uisite of the contracting party recognizing the
agreement as a treaty has not been met. 9hey claim that F42 should have
advice % consent of 7? ?enate % not be considered merely as an e8ecutive
agreement by the 7?. "espondents on the other hand presented a letter from
;ubbard saying that F42 is binding on the 7? gov#t. 9hey say that for F42 to be
binding, it must only be accepted as a treaty by the 7?. ?C view5 recognition
only means accepting or acBnowledging the agreement as a treaty. "e$uiring
7? ?enate concurrence would accord a strict meaning to the phrase. "emember
verba legis, ordinary meaningcommon use unless technical terms are
employed. :esides, under 6nternational 1aw, an e8ecutive agreement is binding
as a treaty. Fienna Convention on the 1aw of 9reaties defined a treaty as an
internat#l instrument concluded between ?tates in written form % governed by
international law whatever its particular designation. 'ame is immaterial as
long as the negotiating functionaries have remained win their powers. 2 treaty
can be called differently -act, protocol, agreement, concordat, convention,
declaration, etc.. % still mean the same. "P recognizes binding effect of
e8ecutive agreements wo ?enate or Congress concurrence. >e recognize
power of e8ecutive to enter into binding agreements wo concurrence. 7? ?C
has recognized such too. -Commissioner of Customs vs. ,astern ?ea 9rading.
Con Con deliberations also show that ratification by the other state should be
governed by their own laws. ;ubbard#s letter is also proof of 7? acceptance %
acBnowledgment. -see p. @(1 for the letter. "atification is generally held to be
an e8ecutive act undertaBen by head of state or gov#t. 6n "P, such power is
vested on President. ?enate is only limited to giving or wholding consent or
concurrence to ratification. ?ince F42 has been ratified and there has been an
e8change of notes bet. "P % 7?, such agreement is already binding on us. >e
can#t plead the Consti as a convenient e8cuse for non&compliance of our
obligations, duties % responsibilities. ?uch is prohibited by 2rt. 1= of the
Declaration of rts % duties.
4. >N t6e/e E)' 1/)&e )92'e oD 0i'c/etion on 5)/t oD /e'5on0ent'. N
6t is win president#s power to enter into % ratify treaties. Consti grants him
such powers. ;e is the sole organ % authority in country#s e8ternal affairs. ;e is
the chief architect of our nation#s foreign policy. ?enate % Congress cannot
intrude into the President#s power to negotiate. ?C believes it is win President#s
power to ratify % win ?enate#s power to concur with F42. ?enate is an
independent body % wisdom of its actions are beyond ?C#s jurisdiction. ?C can
only checB >O' other branches went beyond their jurisdiction % not that it
erred or has a different view.
Ho.0in1% Case dismissed.
P2no Di''ent
Only issue for him is >O' 21) ?!A was violated. 9his agreement can be classified
as permanent there being no mention of duration of joint military e8ercises. 6t is
open&ended. Only states that it will e8pire 1)D days from date on wc either party
notifies the other in writing of its desire to terminate agreement. 6t can be in force
indefinitely. ?iazon said F42 will continue until there is no longer a possible threat to
our national security. 9raining will be on a larger scale according to Defense ?ec.
3ercado. 9hen, escalation of duration % fre$uency are highly probable too. 9his is
win 21) ?!A % such is ripe for adjudication.
9o ascertain if F42 has complied w consti#l provision, we should looB at intent of
Consti framers. Con Con deliberations show that such provision was enacted to
remove flaws of the 1(@* 3:2. :y the phrase Grecognized as a treaty,H they meant
that other party must perform all acts re$uired for the agreement to reach the
status of a treaty in their country. 9hus, we should go bacB to 7? Consti. 7? Consti
allows president to maBe treaties provided that != of senate concurs. 7?
recognizes @ types of international agreements5 treaty, e8ecutive agreement
pursuant to a treaty, congressional&e8ecutive agreements % sole e8ecutive
agreements. ,8ec. 2greement is a convenient catch&all to subsume all international
agreements intended to bind 7? % another gov#t other than those wc receive
consent of != of 7? ?enate. 9his is recognized by all branches of the gov#t. 9his is
used to come up with decisions % actions e8pediently using force or diplomacy. 6t
may be treaty&authorized -authority conferred in prior treaty., congressional&
e8ecutive -either negotiated wprior Congressional authorization or confirmed by
Congress after negotiation., or presidential or sole -e8clusive presidential powers
such as commander&in&chief.. F42 falls under the presidential or sole e8ecutive
agreement accdg to Puno but respondents failed to $uality under which category
F42 falls. 9his is important in determining criminal jurisdiction over 7? forces
stationed abroad. ?ole e8ecutive agreements and treaties, although both superior
over state laws, have different effects when pitted against prior inconsistent acts of
Congress. 2 treaty can supersede a prior act of Congress and vice&versa. 9he one
with later date will prevail. ?ole e8ecutive agreements cannot prevail over prior
inconsistent federal legislation. 6t can only do so if it is supported by an appropriate
legislation. President does not have the power to repeal e8isting federal laws, thus
he can#t maBe an indirect appeal thru a sole e8ecutive agreement. ?C can#t e$uate
the F42 to a treaty since it is only an e8ecutive agreement. 2 treaty has a greater
dignity due to its constitutional effectiveness. 6t commits the ?enate % people of the
7? % its subse$uent abrogation is less liBely. F42 can#t climb to the same lofty
height that the dignity of treaty can reach. 6t does not meet the =
rd
re$uisite.
Li4 &'. EFec2ti&e Sec/et)/* (A5/i. 11" +00+-
Petition Do/ Ce/tio/)/i )n0 P/o6i9ition" )tt)c8in1 t6e con'tit2tion).it* oD t6e
Goint eFe/ci'e
4acts5
9his case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a
petition&in&intervention, praying that respondents be restrained with the
:aliBatan D!&1 and after due notice and hearing, that judgement be rendered
issuing a permanent writ of injunction andor prohibition against the
deployment of 7? troops in :asilan and 3indanao for being illegal and in
violation of the Constitution.
0anuary !DD! + 2rmed forces of the 7? started arriving in 3indano to taBe
part in the :aliBatan e8ercises. :aliBatan e8ercises are a simulation of joint
military maneuvers pursuant to the 3utual Defense 9reaty -3D9.. 9he 3D9 is
a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and 9he 7? in
1(A1.
4ebruary 11, !DD! & ?anlaBas and Partido ng 3anggagawa -party list
organizations. filed a petition&in&intervention.
9he petitioners contend that the 3D9 is applicable only when there is an
armed attacB by an e8ternal aggressor and that the attacBs of 2?/ cannot be
considered as e8ternal. 2lso, the F42 does not authorize the 2merican soldiers
to engage in combat operations in the Philippine territory, not even to fire bacB
if fired upon.
6n the reply filed by the ?olicitor /eneral he pointed out the following5
o 9hey may not file suit in their capacities as ta8payers because it
has not been shown that :aliBatan D!&1 involves the e8ercise of Congress#
ta8ing 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 9he petitioners have failed to demonstrate the re$uisite showing
of direct personal injury
6ssue5
1. >O' the petitioners have the legal standing to file the suit. 'O
9he court agreed with the solicitor general that the petitioners
cannot file suit in their capacity as ta8payers and as lawyers. 2lso the
petitioners failed to demonstrate the re$uisite showing of direct injury.
!. >O' the court can taBe cognizance of the case. C,?
9he court ruled that they can taBe cognizance of the case because
of its transcendental importance to the public. 9he court cites cases
wherein the court ruled that in cases of transcendental importance, the
Court may rela8 the standing re$uirements and to allow a suit to prosper
even when there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of
judicial review -Milosbayan vs. /uingona 0r..
=. >O' the :aliBatan &D!&1 is covered by the Fisiting 4orces 2greement. C,?
9he F42 permits 7? personnel to engage, on an impermanent
basis, in Gactivities.H 9he e8act meaning of activities was left undefined.
9he court used the Fienna Convention on the 1aw of 9reaties to aid them in
interpreting the word GactivitiesH.
4rom a reading of the Fienna Convention it is clear that the
cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an e8amination of the te8t,
which is presumed to verbalize the intention of the parties. 9he te8t of a
treaty is presumed to be the authentic e8pression of the intentions of the
parties. 9he starting point of interpretation is the elucidation of the
meaning of the te8t, not an investigation ab initio into the intentions of the
parties.
>ith the aid of the Fienna Convention it appears farfetched that
the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word GactivitiesH arose from
accident. 9he 7? forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes
other than military.
F42 legitimizes the :aliBatan e8ercises. 2lso, :aliBatan D!&1 is
authorized by the 3D9 and F42. :oth history and intent of the 3D9 and
F42 support the conclusion that combat&related activities as opposed to
combat itself are authorized.
@. >O' 2merican troops are prohibited from engaging in an offensive war on
the Philippine territory. 'O
'either the 3D9 nor the F42 allow foreign troops to engage in an
offensive war on the Philippine territory.
1()* Constitution5 Declaration of Principle and ?tate Policies
Section +. 9he Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy,
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, e$uality, justice, freedom, cooperation,
and amity with all nations.
Section 7. 9he ?tate shall pursue an independent foreign policy. 6n its relations
with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self&determination.
Section @. 9he Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and
pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Section +5. 2fter the e8piration in 1((1 of the 2greement between the "epublic of
the Philippines and the 7nited ?tates of 2merica concerning military bases, foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines e8cept
under a treaty duly concurred in by the ?enate and, when the Congress so re$uires,
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held
for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting ?tate
4rom the provision of the constitution it can be seen that foreign
troops are allowed entry into the Philippines only by way of direct e8ception.
Conflict arises between the fundamental law and our obligations from
6nternational agreements. 6n Philip 3orris, 6nc. v. C2 the court ruled that the
fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not
by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law. "ules
of international law are given a standing e$ual, not superior, to national
legislation
6n /onzales vs. ;echanova the court ruled that the ?C 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.
A. >O' the 2merican troops actively engaged in combat alongside 4ilipino
soldiers under the guise of an alleged training assistance e8ercise.
9he court does not taBe 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 $uestion of fact.
9his present action is not a fit topic for a special civil action for certiorari.
?C is not a trier of facts.
Dissenting Opinion5 0. Mapunan
9here is no treaty allowing 7? troops to engage in combat + 3D9 does not
authorize the 7? military troops to engage the 2?/ in combat. 3D9
contemplates only an e8ternal armed attacB.
9here is no evidence that the 2?/ is connected with Gglobal terrorismH +
2?/ committed mostly crimes of Bidnapping for ransom and murder which are
common crimes that are punishable under the penal code but which, by
themselves, hardly constitute terrorism.
:aliBatan e8ercises are not covered by F42 as 7? troops are not allowed to
engage in combat + 3ilitary e8ercise that are contemplated in the F42 are
those in accordance with the 'ational Defense Plan -'DP. of the Philippine.
'DP is directed against potential foreign aggressors, not designed to deal with
internal disorders.
7? military presence is essentially idenfinite and open&ended + 0. Mapunan
enumerated various newspaper clipping and speeches delivered by 7? President
:ush. ;e stated that the Court can taBe judicial notice of the pronouncements
because they are of public Bnowledge, having been circulated in all channels of
the media. 'either have they been denied.
?eparate Opinion5 0. Panganiban
0. Panganiban voted to dismiss the petition because in the absence of a
firm factual findings that the 2mericans 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 :aliBatan
e8ercise cannot possibly be imputed with grave abuse of discretion + an
indispensable element of certiorari.