Case Digest (G.R. No. 123426)
Facts:
In Rene A.V. Saguisag, et al. v. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al. (G.R. Nos. 212426 & 212444, July 26, 2016), petitioners, including former senator Rene Saguisag, Professor Wigberto Taaada, Professor Francisco “Dodong” Nemenzo, Jr., Sr. Mary John Mananzan, and various party-list and activist groups represented by Bayan and its affiliates, challenged the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America. They prayed that the Court declare the EDCA “invalid and unconstitutional” for having been entered into as an executive agreement rather than a treaty, thus circumventing the Senate-concurrence requirement of Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution concerning foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. The petitions were filed directly with the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In a Decision dated January 12, 2016, the Court en banc dismissCase Digest (G.R. No. 123426)
Facts:
- Parties and Original Petitions
- Petitioners Saguisag et al. and BAYAN et al. challenged the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States.
- They named respondents including the Executive Secretary, Secretaries of National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Budget and Management, and Armed Forces Chief of Staff.
- January 12, 2016 Decision
- Supreme Court, en banc, dismissed the consolidated petitions, ruling EDCA is an executive agreement implementing existing treaties (Mutual Defense Treaty and Visiting Forces Agreement).
- The Court held no Senate concurrence was required under Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution.
- Motions for Reconsideration (filed February 3–4, 2016)
- Petitioners reassert procedural and substantive errors, chiefly that EDCA should be a treaty requiring Senate concurrence under Article XVIII, Section 25.
- They also raised issues on telecommunications, taxation, nuclear weapons, and comparisons to prior Military Bases Agreement.
Issues:
- Whether the Supreme Court erred in ruling that EDCA is an executive agreement rather than a treaty requiring Senate concurrence under Article XVIII, Section 25.
- Whether “allowed in” in Article XVIII, Section 25 refers only to initial entry of foreign bases, troops, and facilities.
- Whether EDCA merely implements existing treaties (Mutual Defense Treaty and Visiting Forces Agreement) or creates new obligations.
- Whether exceptions to Article XVIII, Section 25 must be strictly construed to require each foreign military presence to be embodied in a treaty.
- Whether EDCA constitutes a basing agreement akin to the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, thus mandating Senate-ratified treaty status.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)