Bayan v.

Zamora
G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000 Buena, J.
Art. II Sec. 2 Created by: Sophia
Nature/Keyword: Adoption of International Law and the doctrine of incorporation, Visiting
Force Agreement (VFA) Treaty
Petitioners: Respondents:
BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) Exec. Sec. Ronaldo Zamora
Bishop Tomas Millamena (Iglesia Filipina Independiente) Foreign Affair Sec. Domingo Siazon
Bishop Elmer Bolocan (United Church of Christ of the Phil.) Defense Sec. Orlando Mercado
Dr. Reynaldo Legasca Brig. Gen. Alexander Aguirre
Kilusang Mambubukid ng Pilipinas Sen. Pres. Marcelo Fernan
Kilusang Mayo Uno Sen. Franklin Drilon
Gabriela Sen. Blas Ople
ProLabor Sen. Rodolf Biazon
Public Interest Law Center Sen. Francisco Tatad
Recit Ready Summary
On March 14, 1947, A military based agreement between the United States of America
and the Philippines was formalized and under this agreement is the usage of the installation in
the Philippine territory by the US Military. To further strengthen the defense and security
relationship of the Philippines and the USA, a Mutual Defense Treaty was entered by the parties
on August 30, 1951 in which an agreement of both parties to respond in any external armed
attack on their territory.
In 1991, the expiration of the RP-US Military Base Agreement negotiated for possible
extension in which the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security would
have extended the presence of the military bases in the Philippines but this is rejected by the
Senate thus the military exercise between the two countries were held abeyance. On July 18,
1997, the Philippines and the United States exchange notes and discussed the possible elements
of the Visiting Force Agreement. A series of conference and negotiation regarding VFA was made
on January 12 and 13, 1998 which resulted to the approval of the VFA by President Fidel V.
Ramos.
On October 5, 1998, President Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA (Visiting Force Agreement).
Thereafter, the Senate Resolution no. 443 was approved by the senate by a 2/3 vote of its
member and was re numbered as Senate Resolution No. 18. On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially
entered to the force after exchange of notes between Foreign Affair Secretary Siazon and US
Ambassador Hubbard.
A consolidated petition for certiorari and prohibition were filed to question the
constitutionality of the VFA (Visiting Force Agreement). In order for the VFA to be constitutional
it must meet the following requisites: a) it must be under a treaty, b) ratified by majority in a
national referendum and c) recognized as a treaty by other contracting states. The petition was
hereby dismissed.
Facts of the case
1. The VFA regulates the circumstances and condition under which US Armed Forces and defense
personnel may be present in the Philippines. A petition for certiorari and prohibition
regarding the constitutionality of the VFA and a grave discretion to the respondents who ratify
the agreement.
2. The petitioner state that the Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable and not
the Section 21, Article VII.
3. The argument of the petitioners under Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution cited. “foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following
conditions are sufficiently met:
a) it must be a treaty
b) It must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress
c) recognized as such by the other contracting states
4. The argument of the respondents under Sec. 21 Article VII is applicable since the requirement
for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence by at least 2/3 of the members of the
senate.
Issue Ruling
1. W/N Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the 1987 constitution Yes
should apply in the Visiting Force Agreement
2. W/N Visiting Force Agreement is constitutional Yes
Rationale/Legal Basis
1. Section 25 Art. XVIII deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops, or facilities
should apply in the instant case. To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, the
provisions of sec. 21, Art VII is applicable in regard to the issue and sole purpose of determining
the number of votes required to obtain for a valid and effective concurrence of the senate.
2. Section 25, Art. XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless
the following requisites has been met and VFA would be constitutional, which are as follows:
a) it must be under a treaty
b) The treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress
c) recognized as such by the other contracting states
3. There is no dispute as to the presence of the two requisites in the case of the Visiting Force
Agreement. The concurrence handed by the senate which is 2/3 vote of its member and was re
numbered as Senate Resolution No. 18. In accordance to the provision of the constitution in
requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in the national referendum since the congress
does not require it thus it is unnecessary.
4. the third requisite implies that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the
agreement as a treaty. To submit the VFA in the United States Senate for the concurrence
pursuant to its constitution conform to the meaning of the phrase. The records reveal that the
United States Government, through Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard, has stated that the United
States government has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. For as long as the
United States of America accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a treaty, and binds itself further to
comply with its obligations under the treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate
of the Constitution
5. There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the executive department as to their power
to ratify the Visiting Force Agreement (VFA)..
Disposition
The petition is hereby DISMISSED.