SAGUISAG VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY  OCHOA, JR.

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

SERENO, J.:

FACTS:

 The petitioner question the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America
(U.S.).  Petitioners allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when they entered into EDCA with the U.S.,  claiming that the instrument
2

violated multiple constitutional provisions.  In reply, respondents argue that petitioners lack standing
3

to bring the suit. To support the legality of their actions, respondents invoke the 1987 Constitution,
treaties, and judicial precedents. 4

The role of the President in foreign affairs is qualified by the Constitution in that the Chief Executive
must give paramount importance to the sovereignty of the nation, the integrity of its territory, its
interest, and the right of the sovereign Filipino people to self-determination.

EDCA authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain
"Agreed Locations" in the country. It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive's
understanding that to do so was no longer necessary.  Accordingly, in June 2014, the Department of
85

Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the U.S. Embassy exchanged diplomatic notes confirming the completion
of all necessary internal requirements for the agreement to enter into force in the two countries. 86

According to the Philippine government, the conclusion of EDCA was the result of intensive and
comprehensive negotiations in the course of almost two years.  After eight rounds of negotiations,
87

the Secretary of National Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines signed the
agreement on 28 April 2014.  President Benigno S. Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6 June 2014.  The
88 89

OSG clarified during the oral arguments  that the Philippine and the U.S. governments had yet to
90

agree formally on the specific sites of the Agreed Locations mentioned in the agreement.

ISSUES:

1. WHEATHER OR NOT THE essential requisites for judicial review are present

2. WHEATHER OR NOT THE President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities

3. WHEATHER OR NOT THE under EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, as well as
with existing laws and treaties

RULING:

1. Yes. An exhaustive evaluation of the memoranda of the parties, together with the oral
arguments, shows that petitioners have presented serious constitutional issues that provide
ample justification for the Court to set aside the rule on standing. The transcendental
importance of the issues presented here is rooted in the Constitution itself. Section 25,
Article XVIII thereof, cannot be any clearer: there is a much stricter mechanism required
before foreign military troops, facilities, or bases may be allowed in the country. The DFA has
already confirmed to the U.S. Embassy that "all internal requirements of the Philippines x x x
have already been complied with."  It behooves the Court in this instance to take a liberal
142
 stance towards the rule on standing and to determine forthwith whether there was grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department. We therefore rule that this case
is a proper subject for judicial review.

2. The role of the President as the executor of the law includes the duty to defend the State, for
which purpose he may use that power in the conduct of foreign relations. SECTION 1. Power
of Control. - The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and
offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. 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
164

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.

3. Yes. The plain meaning of the Constitution prohibits the entry of foreign military bases,
troops or facilities, except by way of a treaty concurred in by the Senate - a clear limitation on
the President's dual role as defender of the State and as sole authority in foreign relations.
The President, however, may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities; or (b) it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty.

As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it remains consistent

with existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement.

WHEREFORE, we hereby DISMISS the petitions.