Rene V. Saguisag et. al. vs. Exec. Sec. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.

G.R. No. 212426 January 12, 2016

FACTS:

The case in dispute was to question the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) as its
constitutionality. The agreement was between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America (U.S.). Rene V. Saguisag et. al. allege that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when they entered into EDCA with the U.S. Petitioners stated
that the instrument or agreement violated multiple constitutional provisions. The respondents in their
response, invoke the 1987 Constitution, treaties, and judicial precedents and even argue that petitioners
lack standing to bring the suit. The petition led to the laying down of the constitutional powers and roles
of the President and the Senate in respect of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). It
was stated under the Law that the powers of the President are: The prime duty of the Government is to
serve and protect the people; The duty to protect the territory and the citizens of the Philippines, the
power to call upon the people to defend the State, and the President as Commander-in-Chief; The
power and duty to conduct foreign relations; And the power to defend the State and to act as its
representative in the international sphere. The responsibility of the President when it comes to treaties
and international agreements under the present Constitution is therefore shared with the Senate. This
shared role, petitioners claim, is bypassed by EDCA.

EDCA was entered by the Republic of the Philippines and U.S. in order to authorize the latter’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 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. As to the government of the Philippines, the conclusion of EDCA
was the result of intensive and comprehensive negotiations in the course of almost two years. After
eight rounds of negotiations, 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. It was clarified that Philippines and U.S. had yet to agree formally on the specific sites of the
Agreed Locations mentioned in the agreement.

Two petitions for certiorari were thereafter filed before us assailing the constitutionality of EDCA. They
primarily argue that it should have been in the form of a treaty concurred in by the Senate, not an
executive agreement. On 10 November 2015, months after the oral arguments were concluded and the
parties ordered to file their respective memoranda, the Senators adopted Senate Resolution No. (SR)
105.91 The resolution expresses the "strong sense"92 of the Senators that for EDCA to become valid and
effective, it must first be transmitted to the Senate for deliberation and concurrence.
ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not the essential requisites for judicial review are present?

(2) Whether or not the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, as well as
with existing laws and treaties?

RULING:

(1) Yes. It was ruled under the law that that this case is a proper subject for judicial review.
While this Court has yet to thoroughly delineate the outer limits of this doctrine, it was
emphasized that not every other case, however strong public interest may be, can qualify as
an issue of transcendental importance. The factors to consider in brushing aside the
essential requisites for exercising its power of judicial review are: (1) the character of the
funds or other assets involved in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of
the government; and (3) the lack of any other party that has a more direct and specific
interest in raising the present questions. 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 stance towards the rule on standing and to determine
forthwith whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive
Department.

(2) Yes. It was held that EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. That as an executive agreement, it
remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement. It was ruled
that the fear that EDCA is a reincarnation of the U.S. bases so zealously protested by noted
personalities in Philippine history arises from a genuine desire for self-determination,
nationalism, and above all a commitment to ensure the independence of the Philippine
Republic from any foreign domination. Mere fears, however, cannot curtail the exercise by
the President of the Philippines of his Constitutional prerogatives in respect of foreign
affairs.
According to Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9 -Authority of President to Enter into Agreement with US
under Republic of the Phil. Military Assistance Act (1946) : "The President of the Philippines is hereby
authorized to enter into agreement or agreements with the President of the United States, or with any
of the agencies or instrumentalities of the Government of the United States, regarding military
assistance to the armed forces of the Republic of the Philippines, in the form of transfer of property and
information, giving of technical advice and lending of personnel to instruct and train them, pursuant to
the provisions of United States Public Act Numbered Four hundred and fifty-four, commonly called the
'Republic of the Philippines Military Assistance Act,' under the terms and conditions provided in this
Act."