STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

1. Saguisag vs, et.al., Petitioners, vs. Ochoa, et.al., Respondents

TITLE Saguisag vs, et.al., vs. Ochoa, et.al.,

GR NUMBER G.R. No. 212426

DATE January 12, 2016

PONENTE SERENO, J.

NATURE/KEYWORDS
FACTS  The petitions1 before this Court 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 violated multiple
constitutional provisions.

 In reply, respondents argue that petitioners lack

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

 A proper analysis of the issues requires this

Court to lay down at the outset the basic
parameters of the constitutional powers and roles
of the President and the Senate in respect of the
above issues. A more detailed discussion of
these powers and roles will be made in the latter
portions.
ISSUE(S) 1. Whether the essential requisites for judicial review are
present
2. Whether the President may enter into an executive
agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 3. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with
the Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties

RULING(S) Guided by these pillars, it may invoke the power only when the
following four stringent requirements are satisfied: (a) there is an
actual case or controversy; (b) petitioners possess locus standi;
(c) the question of constitutionality is raised at the earliest
opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality is the lis mota
of the case.Of these four, the first two conditions will be the
focus of our discussion.

1. YES. Notwithstanding the lack of legal standing of the

petitioners, the court finds it that there is basis for review
for there’s an actual controversy and that petitoners raise
issues involving matters of transcendental importance.

2. YES. The President may generally enter into executive

agreements subject to limitations defined by the
Constitution and may be in furtherance of a treaty
already concurred in by the Senate. One of the
distinguishing features of executive agreements is that
their validity and effectivity are not affected by a lack of
Senate concurrence. This distinctive feature was
recognized as early as in Eastern Sea Trading (1961),
viz: Treaties are formal documents which require
ratification with the approval of two-thirds of the
Senate. Executive agreements become binding through
executive action without the need of a vote by the
Senate or by Congress. The right of the Executive to
enter into binding agreements without the necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed
by long usage.

3. YES. The case discussed in great lengths to illustrate the

source of EDCA’s validity, that as an executive
agreement it fell within the parameters of the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA) of 1999 and Mutual Defense
Treaty (MDT)of 1951.

In order to keep the peace in its archipelago in this region of the

world, and to sustain itself at the same time against the
destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 Who they are, and what form the friendships will take, are for
the President to decide. The only restriction is what the
Constitution itself expressly prohibits. It appears that this
overarching concern for balancing constitutional requirements
against the dictates of necessity was what led to EDCA.

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.

DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLES Verba Legis; Under the principles of constitutional construction,

of paramount consideration is the plain meaning of the language
expressed in the Constitution, or the verba legis rule.—Under the
principles of constitutional construction, of paramount
consideration is the plain meaning of the language expressed in
the Constitution, or the verba legis rule. It is presumed that the
provisions have been carefully crafted in order to express the
objective it seeks to attain. It is incumbent upon the Court to
refrain from going beyond the plain meaning of the words used
in the Constitution. It is presumed that the framers and the people
meant what they said when they said it, and that this
understanding was reflected in the Constitution and understood
by the people in the way it was meant to be understood when the
fundamental law was ordained and promulgated. Saguisag vs.
Ochoa, Jr., 779 SCRA 241, G.R. No. 212426, G.R. No. 212444
January 12, 2016

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

2. Salvacion, petitioners vs Central Bank of the Philippines, respondents

TITLE Salvacion vs. Central Bank

GR NUMBER G.R. No. 94723

DATE August 21, 1997

PONENTE TORRES, JR., J

NATURE/KEYWORDS
FACTS  Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for
committing four counts ofrape and serious illegal
detention against Karen Salvacion. Salvacion
wasrescued and Bartelli was arrested. The Police
recovered from Bartelli severaldollar checks and a
dollar account in the China Banking Corp. Bartelli
was,however, able to escape from prison on the day of
the hearing of his petition forbail. In a civil case filed
against Bartellli, the trial court awarded Salvacion
moral,exemplary and attorney’s fees amounting to
almost P1,000,000.00.

 On February 4, 1989, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an

American tourist, coaxed andlured petitioner Karen
Salvacion, then 12 years old, to go with him
to hisapartment. Therein, Greg Bartelli detained Karen
Salvacion for four days, or upto February 7, 1989 and
was able to rape the child once on February 4, and three
times each day on February 5, 6, and 7, 1989. On
February 7, 1989, after policemen and people living
nearby rescued Karen, Greg Bartelli was arrestedand
detained at the Makati Municipal Jail. The policemen
recovered from Bartelli the following items:

1.) Dollar Check No. 368, Control No.

021000678-1166111303, US 3,903.20
2.) COCOBANK Bank Book No. 104-108758-8
(Peso Acct.)

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 3.) Dollar Account — China Banking Corp.,
US$/A#54105028-2
4.) ID-122-30-8877
5.) Philippine Money (P234.00) cash
6.) Door Keys 6 pieces
7.) Stuffed Doll (Teddy Bear) used in seducing
the complainant

 Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for

committing four counts ofrape and serious illegal
detention against Karen Salvacion. Salvacion
wasrescued and Bartelli was arrested. The Police
recovered from Bartelli severaldollar checks and a
dollar account in the China Banking Corp. Bartelli
was, however, able to escape from prison on the day of
the hearing of his petition forbail. In a civil case filed
against Bartellli, the trial court awarded Salvacion
moral, exemplary and attorney’s fees amounting to
almost P1,000,000.00

 The court’s judgment against Bartelli and in favor of

thepetitioners by way of granting prayer of
attachment and a notice ofgarnishment that was
served, Salvacion tried to execute this judgment
onBartelli’s dollar deposit with China Banking
Corp. but the latter refused andinvoked R.A. No.
1405 arguing that Section 113 of Central Bank Circular
No. 960exempts foreign currency deposits from
attachment, garnishment, or any otherorder or process
of any court, legislative body, government
agency or any administrative body whatsoever.

 This prompted the petitioner’s counsel to inquire

herein respondent whether the said circular has any
exception or has been repealed or amended. Respondent
cited that the provision is absolute in application. Thus,
Salvacion filed this action for declaratory relief in the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE(S) Should Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by PD

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

 1246, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit
Act be made applicable to a foreign transient?

RULING(S) NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes
futile the favourable judgment and award of damages that
Salvacion and her parents fully deserve. The intention of the
questioned law may be good when enacted but the law failed to
anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright
injustice and inequality such as the case before us.

If we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank

Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment,
or any other order or process of any court, legislative body,
government agency or any administrative bodywhatsoever,
is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result
especiallyto a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused
Bartelli.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the provisions of Section 113 of Central

Bank Circular No. 960and PD No. 1246, insofar as it amends
Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, are hereby held to be
INAPPLICABLE to this case because of its peculiar
circumstances. Respondents are hereby required to comply
with the writ of execution issued in the civil case and to release
to petitioners the dollar depositof Bartelli in such amount as
would satisfy the judgment. Petition for declaratory relief treated
as a petition for mandamus; exemption from
garnishment/attachment of foreign currency deposits not
applied to protect foreign transients as the same would lead to
injustice, a consequence not presumed intended under the law.
DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLES  In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of
laws, it is presumed that the law making body intended
right and justice to prevail.

 “Ninguno non deue enriquecerse tortizeramente con

dano de otro.” Simply stated, when the statute is silent or
ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions
that would respond to the vehement urge of conscience.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.