Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDCA Memorandum PDF
EDCA Memorandum PDF
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
EN BANC
-versus-
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SECRETARY VOLTAIRE
GAZMIN, et al.,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x
-versus-
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM 2 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
MEMORANDUM
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
respectfully state:
RELEVANT FACTS
1
MDT, Article II.
2
S.R. No. 84, 12 May 1952.
3
VFA, Preamble.
4
S.R. No. 18, 27 May 1999.
5
VFA, Article I.
6
VFA, Article VII.
MEMORANDUM 3 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
ISSUE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
7
Terms of Reference approved by Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Teofisto T.
Guingona, cited in Lim v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 151445, 11 April 2002.
8
G.R. No. 175888, 11 February 2009.
9
EDCA, Preamble.
MEMORANDUM 4 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
A. ON PREPOSITIONING
C. ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS
D. ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS
E. ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION
DISCUSSION
I.
PETITIONERS HAVE NO STANDING TO BRING THESE SUITS.
10
G.R. No. 87636. 19 November 1990.
MEMORANDUM 5 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
8. The rule, therefore, is that only the Senate itself may sue to
invoke the powers of the courts on matters involving its constitutional
prerogatives. This naturally makes sense given the requirement of injury
in fact essential for the operation of the case or controversy
component of the jurisdiction of courts in constitutional law cases. Those
whose rights are allegedly violated are, of course, in the best position to
fully articulate the nature and details of the injury they have suffered,
creating that concrete adverseness that sharpens the presentation of
issues.14
10. Only incumbent Senators may raise this issue because they
alone have legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and
11
G.R. No. 113105, 19 August 1994.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).
15
CONSTITUTION, Art. VII, Sec. 21. 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.
MEMORANDUM 6 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
13. To date, the Senate has not issued a Resolution expressing its
objection to the EDCA, much less authorized any of its members to file a
suit on its behalf.18 The silence and active non-participation of the Senate
in the current proceedings is an affirmation of the Presidents
characterization of the EDCA as an executive agreement.
14. Absent any clear evidence that Senators have been prevented
from invoking the privileges of their institution, the Honorable Court
must presume that the Senate itself sees no need for such concurrence.
Consequently, no actual case or controversy exists that would warrant the
exercise of the Honorable Courts power of judicial review.
16
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, 07 December 2010.
17
Joint Hearing by the Senate Committee on Defense and Security with the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, 13 May 2014; Hearing by the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, 22 October 2014 and 01 December 2014.
18
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairperson Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said
that she would ask her colleagues to adopt a resolution that will express the Senates views
that the agreement should be concurred by the Senate. See
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/12/01/1397976/law-experts-tell-senate-edca-
needs-senate-concurrence
MEMORANDUM 7 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
petition does not automatically present a case within the meaning of the
actual case or controversy requirement of the Constitution.
17. Here, there is no such actual conflict between the Executive and the
Senate. Thus, the issue of Senate concurrence does not present a justiciable
controversy which the Honorable Court may decide. Otherwise, the
Honorable Court could end up arbitrating constitutional questions in the
abstract and allocat[ing] constitutional boundaries21 without a dispute
upon the instance of third parties, however well-intentioned.
19
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 03 May 2006.
20
John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v. Lim, G. R. No. 119775, 24 October 2003. Italics
supplied.
21
Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-45081, 15 July 1936.
22
G.R. No. 166052, 29 August 2007.
MEMORANDUM 8 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that it suffers thereby
in some indefinite way.23
21. The Honorable Court should already note that the overuse of
transcendental importance as an exception to the traditional
requirements for constitutional litigation has cheapened the value of the
Constitutions safeguards to adjudicationcase or controversy, standing,
prematurity, political questions, mootnessthat have long served to
protect the Supreme Court from unnecessary litigation of constitutional
questions and potential clashes with the other departments of
government.
II.
EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS FIND SUPPORT
IN THE CONSTITUTION AND JURISPRUDENCE.
23
Id.
24
Philippine Association of Universities and Colleges v. Secretary of Education, G.R. No. L-5279, 31
October 1955.
25
See Annex A.
26
See Annex B.
MEMORANDUM 9 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
27. This view flies in the face of the text of the Constitution, the
jurisprudence of this Honorable Court, and the long-standing practice of
the Executive Department.
27
Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, 22 October 1963; Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, G.R.
No. 139465, 18 January 2000.
28
See Annex C.
MEMORANDUM 10 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
29
Garcia and MasonCongressional Oversight and Related Issues Concerning International Security
Agreements Concluded by the United States, Congressional Research Service, 07 June 2012, p. 2.
30
Id at pp. 2-7.
31
Providing for the Guidelines in the Negotiation of International Agreements and Its
Ratification.
32
Interestingly, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Chairperson of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, recognizes this authority of the DFA and the distinction between a treaty
and an executive agreement. She said: it is the foreign affairs department which
determines whether an agreement is an executive agreement on one hand; or a treaty on the
other hand. This distinction is important, because while it is claimed that an executive
agreement needs only ratification by the President, a treaty needs concurrence by the Senate.
This distinction drawn between an executive agreement and a treaty is based on the 1961
case of Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading. Defensor-Santiago, Procedure for
Senate Concurrence to Treaties (2007), p. 2, cited in Malaya and Mendoza-Oblena, Philippine Treaty
Law and Practice, 35 INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES JOURNAL 1 (2010).
MEMORANDUM 11 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
Article VIII, Section 5(2)(a). The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers: xxx Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in: xxx All cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.34
33
Emphasis supplied.
34
Emphasis supplied.
35
G.R. No. L-14279, 31 October 1961.
MEMORANDUM 12 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
37. The Court further said that [t]he right of the Executive to
enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent
Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage and that [t]he
validity of these [executive agreements] has never been seriously
questioned by our courts. These executive agreements may cover such
subjects as commercial and consular relations, most-favored-nation
rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and
navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims.
36
Italics in the original.
37
G.R. No. 159618, 01 February 2011.
38
G.R. No. 185572, 07 February 2012.
MEMORANDUM 13 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
44. Putting the problem into context, the Senate would have to
contend with the sheer number of international agreements, the wide
scope of their subject matter, and the high level of detail of their
provisions. Our Senate, after concurring in a treaty, cannot be burdened
with formulating the minutest of operational details for its
implementation just as Congress, in the domestic sphere, is not expected
39
G.R. No. 167919, 14 February 2007.
40
Supra note 37.
41
E. Hopson, The Executive Agreement In United States Practice, 12 A.F. L. REV. 252.
MEMORANDUM 14 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
III.
THE EDCA IS AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT WHICH IMPLEMENTS THE
MDT AND THE VFA.
42
Supra note 35.
MEMORANDUM 15 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
50. In entering into the MDT, the US and the Philippines seek,
among others, to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and
their common determination to defend themselves against external armed
attack and further strengthen their present efforts to collective defense
for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a
more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area.43
51. The MDT has two important operative principles. The first is
the Principle of Defensive Reaction in Article IV, which involves assistance in
the case of an armed attack on either of the parties in the Pacific Area.
Article IV of the MDT provides
ARTICLE IV
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on either of
the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that
it would act to meet the common dangers in accordance with its
constitutional processes.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such
measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the
measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
43
MDT, Preamble. See list of island territories under Philippine jurisdiction, attached as
Annex D.
MEMORANDUM 16 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
55. The purpose, scope and operative provisions of the EDCA implement
the MDT. Article I of the EDCA provides that it is in furtherance of
Article II of the MDT, which states that the Parties separately and jointly
by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and
collective capacity to resist armed attack.
44
EDCA, Article I.1.a.
45
G.R. No. 151445, 11 April 2002.
46
Supra note 8.
47
VFA, Article I.
48
VFA, Article VII.
49
VFA, Article VIII.
MEMORANDUM 17 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
58. The contention that the VFA is only an agreement relating to troops is
negated by the text of the VFA. The term forces is broader than troops.
Article I defines United States personnel as United States military and
civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with
activities approved by the Philippine Government. Article VII is explicit
that the VFA relates to the entry or removal of US facilities in
connection with activities to which [the VFA] applies. It stipulates that
United States Government equipment, materials, supplies, and other
propertyin the Philippinesin connection with activities to which [the
VFA] applies may be imported or exported. 50 Article VIII allows the
entry of such facilities as vehicles, vessels and aircraft in Philippine
territory.
59. The authorization of activities under the VFA serves as the operative
license for allowing troops, equipment, supplies, vessels, aircraft, etc. This is
confirmed by the Honorable Courts decision in Lim when it said that
[t]he VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an
impermanent basis, in activities, the exact meaning of which was left
undefined. The Honorable Court ruled that
50
VFA, Article VII (Importation and Exportation). 1. United States Government
equipment, materials, supplies, and other property imported into or acquired in the
Philippines by or on behalf of the United States armed forces in connection with activities to
which this agreement applies, shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes and other similar
charges. Title to such property shall remain with the United States, which may remove such
property from the Philippines at any time, free from export duties, taxes, and other similar
charges. The exemptions provided in this paragraph shall also extend to any duty, tax, or
other similar charges which would otherwise be assessed upon such property after
importation into, or acquisition within, the Philippines. Such property may be removed from
the Philippines, or disposed of therein, provided that disposition of such property in the
Philippines to persons or entities not entitled to exemption from applicable taxes and duties
shall be subject to payment of such taxes, and duties and prior approval of the Philippine
Government.
2. Reasonable quantities of personal baggage, personal effects, and other property for the
personal use of United States personnel may be imported into and used in the Philippines
free of all duties, taxes and other similar charges during the period of their temporary stay in
the Philippines. Transfers to persons or entities in the Philippines not entitled to import
privileges may only be made upon prior approval of the appropriate Philippine authorities
including payment by the recipient of applicable duties and taxes imposed in accordance
with the laws of the Philippines. The exportation of such property and of property acquired
in the Philippines by United States personnel shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes, and
other similar charges.
MEMORANDUM 18 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and
the VFA support the conclusion that combat-related activitiesas
opposed to combat itself are indeed authorized.
62. The Honorable Court in Lim ruled that these activities are
already covered by the VFA. Under Lim, maritime security, maritime
domain awareness, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief
capabilities are activities that are authorized to be undertaken in the
Philippines under the VFA.
64. Article III of the EDCA provides for the Agreed Locations
where the Philippines authorizes US to conduct the following activities:
training; transit; support and related activities; refueling of aircraft;
bunkering of vessels; temporary maintenance of vehicles, vessels and
aircraft; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications;
prepositioning of equipment, supplies and materiel; deploying forces and
materiel; and such other activities as the Parties may agree.
MEMORANDUM 19 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
54
EDCA, Article IV.
55
Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President is the Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), which is constitutionally designated as the
protector of the people and the State. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that
[t]he goal [of the Armed Forces of the Philippines] is to secure the sovereignty of the State
and the integrity of the national territory of the Philippines. Under Article II, Section 4 of
the Constitution, the President, as head of State and chief representative of government, has
the prime duty to serve and protect the people. The National Defense Act also provides
that [t]he national defense policy of the Philippines is the preservation of the State.
MEMORANDUM 20 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
56
Lum and Margesson, Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda): U.S. and International Response to Philippines
Disaster, Congressional Research Service, 10 February 2014.
MEMORANDUM 21 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
Article IV
think things through and come up with a better response with all the
relevant data.
D. The MDT and the VFA constitute prior, sufficient licenses for
the EDCA.
80. The MDT and the VFA are valid and subsisting international
agreements that already allow the entry of US troops and facilities in the
Philippines under Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Constitution. The
Honorable Court has consistently affirmed the constitutionality of the
MDT and the VFA in BAYAN v. Zamora,58 Lim v. Executive Secretary,59
Nicolas v. Romulo60 and Arigo v. Swift.61
81. Both the MDT and the VFA constitute the prior, sufficient
licenses for the EDCA. The EDCA simply operationalizes and articulates
58
G.R. No. 138570, 10 October 2000.
59
Supra note 45.
60
Supra note 8.
61
G.R. No. 206510, 16 September 2014.
MEMORANDUM 23 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
62
See Annex E.
MEMORANDUM 24 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
87. There are some, however, who argue that the EDCA cannot
be couched as an executive agreement because it allegedly allows foreign
military bases and foreign military facilities. Thus, it is claimed that the
EDCA should be in the form of a treaty pursuant to Article XVIII,
Section 25 of the Constitution.
89. First, under Article II.4 of the EDCA, all facilities and areas
that may be used and accessed by the US are provided by the Philippine
Government through the AFP. Article V of the EDCA clearly states that
[t]he Philippines shall retain ownership of and title to Agreed
63
BAYAN Petition, p. 29.
64
1. With the consideration of the views of the Parties, the Philippines hereby authorizes
and agrees that the United Sates forces, United States contractors, and vehicles, vessels, and
aircraft operated by or for United States forces may conduct the following activities with
respect to Agreed Locations: training; transit; support and related activities; refuelling of
aircraft; bunkering of vessels; temporary accommodation of personnel; communications;
prepositioning of equipment, supplies, and material; deploying forces and material; and such
other activities as the Parties may agree.
65
VFA, Article VII.
66
VFA, Article VIII.
MEMORANDUM 25 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
91. Third, the use of and access to Philippine military bases by the
US will be restricted, and consistent with our national security interests:
67
EDCA, Article V.1.
68
EDCA, Article V.4.
69
EDCA, Article III.4; Art. IV.1.
70
EDCA, Article I.1.b.
71
EDCA, Article III.5.
72
EDCA, Article VI.2.
73
EDCA, Art. III, par. 4.
74
EDCA, Art. III, par. 6.
MEMORANDUM 26 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
[T]he rights, power and authority within the bases which are
necessary for the establishment, use, operation and defense
thereof or appropriate for the control thereof and all the rights,
power and authority within the limits of territorial waters and air
space adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the bases which are necessary
to provide access to them, or appropriate for their control. 75
95. The Philippines has control over these Agreed Locations not
only because we own them but also because we can set the parameters for
their use and access by the US through the permission system in place. By
this control test, the Agreed Locations are decidedly Philippine, not foreign, Military
Bases.
96. Under the EDCA, as with the VFA, the consent mechanism
is individualized, ensuring that every activity will be limited in scope and
duration.76 This type of consent mechanism is highly protective of
Philippine interests because it provides the Mutual Defense Board (MDB)
and the Security Engagement Board (SEB) real opportunity to scrutinize
every activity that they authorize, develop a feedback mechanism for
previous authorizations, and make sure that every activity fits a larger
national or geopolitical context.
75
Article III. 1, Agreement Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America Concerning Military Bases. (Signed in Manila, March 14, 1947). Emphasis supplied.
76
See Flowchart, attached as Annex F.
MEMORANDUM 27 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
IV.
A SENATE REFERRAL OF THE EDCA WILL CREATE MULTIPLE
FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS.
100. With all due respect, a referral to the Senate will create
multiple fundamental constitutional problems for the Honorable Court,
the President, and the Senate.
101. The Court cannot refer the EDCA to the Senate for consideration
without preliminarily declaring the EDCA unconstitutional for non-compliance with
Article XVIII, Section 25. On the assumption that the Honorable Court
does not dismiss the present petitions for lack of standing or other
jurisdictional grounds, the question is whether the EDCA is an executive
agreement or a treaty, and the task of the Honorable Court is either to
dismiss the petitions or grant them.
102. The Court cannot force a referral to the Senate without authority from
the President. Only the President has the authority to refer international
agreements to the Senate. As held in Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, it is
within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the
MEMORANDUM 28 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
103. The Senate cannot be compelled to accept a responsibility it did not seek
or does not want to assume. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or
withholding its consent or concurrence to the ratification.78 In the context
of separation of powers, the silence of the Senate must be understood to
mean nothing less than a positive endorsement of the EDCA as an
executive agreement and as an executive agreement that is good for the
country. We ask the Honorable Court to consider the Senates silence as a
nuanced affirmation of the powers of the President.
77
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, 6 July 2005.
78
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, supra note 77.
MEMORANDUM 29 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
V.
ASSORTED ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONS
A. On Prepositioning
United States forces are authorized to exercise all rights and authorities
within Agreed Locations that are necessary for their operational
control or defense, including taking appropriate measures to protect
United States forces and United States contractors. The United States
should coordinate such measures with appropriate authorities of the
Philippines.
114. The operational control granted to the US does not refer to the control
over a military base or activity. Control over the Philippine military base
remains with the Philippine military commander while control over an
activity is exercised by the Philippines when it gives its consent and when
it sets the specific parameters of the activity approved. Operational
control is a characteristic inherent in military command and it pertains to
a much lower lever of controlthat of a superior officer over a
subordinate. Under the US Department of Defense glossary cited by
petitioners, operational control refers to:
115. Within the framework of the permission system under the VFA, a
mission necessarily refers to the activity approved by the MDB/SEB.
79
Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms,
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf. Emphasis supplied.
MEMORANDUM 31 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
118. Article III.4 of the EDCA grants to the US operational control for
construction activities:
80
Glossary, Annex A of the Philippine Air Force Manual, available at
http://www.paf.mil.ph/archive/MANUALS/annexes/Annex%20A%20-%20Glossary.pdf.
Emphasis supplied.
MEMORANDUM 32 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
Self defense
81
Supra note 45.
82
DIETER FLECK, ED., THE HANDBOOK OF THE LAW OF VISITING FORCES, 546 (2001).
MEMORANDUM 33 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
124. Article VI.3 of the EDCA does not refer to the self-defense of states,
legitimized through appropriate international processes and requiring the determination
of just cause. Rather, the concept is grounded in specific tactical situations
where an armed force is constrained to defend itself through combat. It is
limited in scope (only over the troops being attacked and always subject to
the rules of engagement) and area (the area of conflict). It does not refer
to control over the security of the Philippine military base, the primary
responsibility over which the EDCA explicitly gives to the Philippines.84
125. Even at the tactical level, it should be noted that the use of
force is not an automatic response to any attack. Both US armed forces
and the AFP practice weapons discipline, applying force based on rules of
engagement that can be tailored based on the nature of each mission.
C. On Telecommunications
83
Handbook on United Nations Multidimensional Peacekeeping Operations, p. 57. Available
at
http://www.peacekeepingbestpractices.unlb.org/Pbps/library/Handbook%20on%20UN%
20PKOs.pdf
84
Article VI.2.
MEMORANDUM 34 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
D. On Dispute Resolution
The Parties agree to resolve any dispute arising under this Agreement
exclusively through consultation between the Parties. Disputes and
other matters subject to consultation under this Agreement shall not be
referred to any national or international court, tribunal, or other similar
body, or to any third party for settlement, unless otherwise agreed by
the parties.
85
Republic Act No. 7295.
86
Id. SEC. 16. Franchise. - No person shall commence or conduct the business of being a
public telecommunications entity without first obtaining a franchise.
87
BAYAN Petition, pp. 40-43.
MEMORANDUM 35 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
133. This does not mean, however, that Philippine courts are
deprived of jurisdiction over other disputes. Neither does it mean that the
Philippines has deprived individuals who are non-parties to the agreement
of recourse to the courts. Only the parties to the EDCAthe Republic of
the Philippines and the USare bound by Article XI. Thus, only disputes
between the parties in relation to the EDCA are controlled by Article XI.
E. On Nuclear Weapons
134. The EDCA does not violate the policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons under Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution. Article
IV.6 of the EDCA provides that [t]he prepositioned materiel shall not
include nuclear weapons. All prepositioning must be carried out through
bilateral security mechanisms such as the MDB and the SEB. Through the
MDB and SEB, the Philippine Government will regulate the equipment,
supplies and facilities that may be allowed entry into the Philippines.
Article IV.1 of the EDCA provides
135. The argument that Article IV.1 of the EDCA only applies to
prepositioned materiel and would not bar the entry of US vessels and
aircraft carrying nuclear weapons is specious and contradicted by the
express provisions of the EDCA. The EDCA is premised on full respect
for the Philippine Constitution and Philippine laws88 and the parties
88
EDCA, Preamble.
MEMORANDUM 36 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
138. Petitioners maintain that the EDCA violates the Labor Code,
the National Internal Revenue Code, the Local Government Code, and
the National Building Code, among others.
Article VII
144. Under the EDCA, taxes on the use of water, electricity, and
other public utilities by the US forces and US contractors will be for the
89
Nicolas v. Romulo, supra note 8, citing DIETER FLECK, ED., THE HANDBOOK OF THE LAW
OF VISITING FORCES (2001).
90
Supra note 37.
MEMORANDUM 38 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
PRAYER
Respondents pray for other just and equitable reliefs under the
premises.
91
Article VI, Section 28(4): No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
92
See National Power Corporation v. Province of Quezon, G.R. No. 171586, 15 July 2009.
MEMORANDUM 39 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
FLORIN T. HILBAY
Acting Solicitor General
Roll No. 44957
IBP Lifetime No. 08505
MCLE Exemption No. IV-001068, 5-14-13
EMERSON S. BAEZ
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 56723
IBP No. 953502, 01-08-14
MCLE Compliance No. V-0002900, 07-09-14
GERARDO E. MENDOZA
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 62511
IBP No. 965933, 4-3-2014
MCLE Compliance No. V-0003278
MELBOURNE D. PANA
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 61900
IBP No. 954309, 1-9-14
MCLE Compliance No. N/A
MEMORANDUM 40 G.R. Nos. 212444, 212426
This Memorandum is being served by registered mail due to lack of sufficient personnel in
the Office of the Solicitor General to effect personal service.