RENE A.V. SAGUISAG et.

al, Petitioners,
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et.al, Respondents.

G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016

FACTS:

Petitioners questioned before the Court the constitutionality of the Enhanced

Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) - an agreement entered into by
the executive department with the US and ratified on June 6, 2014. Under
the EDCA, the PH shall provide the US forces the access and use of portions
of PH territory, which are called Agreed Locations. Aside from the right to
access and to use the Agreed Locations, the US may undertake the following
types of activities within the Agreed Locations: security cooperation
exercises; joint and combined training activities; humanitarian and disaster
relief activities; and such other activities that as may be agreed upon by the
parties

Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as medium of

agreement with US violated the constitutional requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25
since the EDCA involves foreign military bases, troops and facilities whose
entry into the country should be covered by a treaty concurred in by the
Senate. The Senate, through Senate Resolution 105, also expressed its position
that EDCA needs congressional ratification

ISSUE:

Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign

military bases, troops, or facilities

HELD:

The oath of the President prescribed by the 1987 Constitution reads thus:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously

fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of
the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws,
do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the
Nation. So help me God. (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be
omitted.)147 (Emphases supplied)
This Court has interpreted the faithful execution clause as an obligation
imposed on the President, and not a separate grant of power. Section 1 7,
Article VII of the Constitution, expresses this duty in no uncertain terms and
includes it in the provision regarding the President's power of control over the
executive department x x x

In light of this constitutional duty, it is the President's prerogative to do

whatever is legal and necessary for Philippine defense interests. It is no
coincidence that the constitutional provision on the faithful execution clause
was followed by that on the President's commander-in-chief powers, which
are specifically granted during extraordinary events of lawless violence,
invasion, or rebellion. And this duty of defending the country is unceasing,
even in times when there is no state of lawlesss violence, invasion, or rebellion.
At such times, the President has full powers to ensure the faithful execution of
the laws.

It would therefore be remiss for the President and repugnant to the faithful-
execution clause of the Constitution to do nothing when the call of the
moment requires increasing the military's defensive capabilities, which could
include forging alliances with states that hold a common interest with the
Philippines or bringing an international suit against an offending state.