Bayan vs.

Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora

G.R. No. 138570, 10 October 2000

FACTS:

On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a Military Bases
Agreement which formalized, among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by
United States military personnel. To further strengthen their defense and security relationship,
the Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951.
Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory,
armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft.

Undersecretary Rodolfo Severino Jr., to exchange notes on "the complementing strategic

interests of the United States and the Philippines in the Asia-Pacific region." Both sides
discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA for
brevity). Then President Fidel V. Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by
public respondent Secretary Siazon and Unites States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard on February
10, 1998.

On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign

Affairs, ratified the VFA.

On May 27, 1999, Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 was approved by the Senate, by a two-
thirds (2/3) vote9 of its members. Senate Resolution No. 443 was then re-numbered as Senate
Resolution No. 18.

ISSUES:

Whether or not VFA is constitutional

HELD:

Yes. Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically 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 section 21, Article VII will find applicability with regard to the
issue and for the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid
concurrence of the Senate, as will be further discussed hereunder.
It is a finely-imbedded principle in statutory construction that a special provision or law prevails
over a general one. Lex specialis derogat generali. Thus, where there is in the same statute a
particular enactment and also a general one which, in its most comprehensive sense, would
include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the
general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language which are
not within the provision of the particular enactment

There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the VFA. The
concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution, whether under the general requirement in Section 21, Article VII,
or the specific mandate mentioned in Section 25, Article XVIII, the provision in the latter article
requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary
since Congress has not required it.

As to the matter of voting, Section 21, Article VII particularly requires that a treaty or
international agreement, to be valid and effective, must be concurred in by at least two-thirds of
all the members of the Senate. On the other hand, Section 25, Article XVIII simply provides that
the treaty be "duly concurred in by the Senate."