Case Digest (G.R. No. 212426)
Facts:
The case is Rene A.V. Saguisag, et al. v. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 212426, and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), et al. v. Department of National Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, et al., G.R. No. 212444, promulgated July 26, 2016, Supreme Court En Banc, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court. The resolution before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision dated January 12, 2016, in which the consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) were dismissed.Petitioners—individuals, party-list representatives, and civil society organizations—originally sued respondents (Executive Secretary, Secretaries of DND, DFA, DBM, and AFP Chief of Staff and other government officials) contending that EDCA (an April 28, 2014 agreement between the Philippines and the United States) (1) is effectively a treaty or basing agreement requiring Senate concurrence under Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution, (2) permits foreign bases, troops or facilities without the required constitutional process, and (3) raises ancillary concerns on telecommunications, taxation, nuclear weapons, contractors and jurisdiction.
The consolidated petitions were resolved by the Court’s January 12, 2016 Decision (denying relief), which held that EDCA is an executive agreement that implements the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and therefore did not require fresh Senate concurrence under Article XVIII, Sec. 25. Petitioners filed Motions for Reconsideration on February 3–4, 2016, reiterating procedural and substantive objections (including a claim that EDCA is a treaty and/or a basing agreement). The present resolution denies those motions. The Court considered precedent (e.g., Lim v. Executive Secretary, Bayan v. Zamora) and constitutional text (Art. VII Sec. 21; Art. XVIII Sec. 25; Art. VIII Sec. 4(2)) and reiterated its earlier characterization of EDCA as an executive agreement implementing existing treaty authority (VFA/MDT). Several justices filed separate opinions: concurrences and multiple dissents appear in the record.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Should the Court grant the Motions for Reconsideration and reverse its January 12, 2016 Decision dismissing the petitions?
- Is the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) a treaty (or a basing agreement) requiring Senate concurrence under Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution, or is it an executive agreement that implements existing treaty authority (VFA/MDT) and thus valid without new Senate concurrence?
- If EDCA is not a treaty, does it nonetheless unlawfully reintroduce foreign military bases, troops, or fac...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)