Title
Bayan vs. Zamora
Case
G.R. No. 138570
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2000
The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the U.S., ratified in 1999, was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court, affirming it as a valid executive agreement that respects Philippine sovereignty and aligns with the Mutual Defense Treaty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138570)

Petitioners and Respondents

Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the VFA and the Executive’s referral of it to the Senate, alleging grave abuse of discretion. Respondents defended the President’s authority to negotiate and ratify the VFA and the Senate’s two‐thirds concurrence under the 1987 Constitution.

Key Dates

– 1947: RP–US Military Bases Agreement signed
– 1951: RP–US Mutual Defense Treaty entered into force
– Feb. 10, 1998: VFA signed by Philippine and U.S. representatives
– Oct. 5, 1998: President Estrada ratified the VFA
– May 27, 1999: Senate concurred by two‐thirds vote
– June 1, 1999: VFA entered into force
– Oct. 10, 2000: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution, notably:
• Section 21, Article VII (two‐thirds Senate concurrence on treaties)
• Section 25, Article XVIII (special rule on foreign military bases, troops or facilities)
• Other provisions on sovereignty, equal protection, prohibition of nuclear weapons, tax exemptions

Issues Presented

I. Locus standi of citizens, taxpayers and legislators to challenge the VFA
II. Whether the VFA is governed by Section 21, Article VII or the special provision in Section 25, Article XVIII
III. Whether the VFA abdicates sovereignty, including delegation of criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel
IV. Alleged violations of equal protection, the nuclear‐free policy, tax‐exemption rules and other constitutional clauses
V. Alleged grave abuse of discretion by the President and the Senate

Standing and Transcendental Importance

The Court found petitioners lacked the direct, personal injury required for normal standing as taxpayers or legislators. Nevertheless, invoking the “transcendental importance” exception, it elected to hear the case, brushing aside procedural objections.

Lex Specialis: Section 25, Article XVIII Governs

Although Section 21 generally covers all treaties, Section 25 is a special rule on foreign military bases, troops or facilities. The VFA, which regulates U.S. forces’ presence and activities, falls squarely under Section 25. As lex specialis it prevails over the general treaty‐concurrence rule.

Senate Concurrence and Referendum Not Required

Section 25 requires a treaty “duly concurred in by the Senate” and, if Congress so demands, a referendum. The VFA was concurred in by at least two‐thirds of all Senators (18 of 24), satisfying both Section 21’s vote‐count and Section 25’s “duly concurred” mandate. Congress did not require a referendum, so none was needed.

“Recognized as a Treaty” by the U.S.

Section 25 also demands recognition of the agreement as a treaty by the other contracting state. The Court held that the U.S. Government’s formal letter (from Ambassador Hubbard) acknowledging the VFA as binding sufficed, regardless of its characterization under U.S. domestic law as an “executive agreement.”

No Abdication of Sovereignty or Jurisdiction

The Court ruled the VFA does not strip Philippine courts of jurisdiction over crimes by U.S. personnel; it preserves primary jurisdiction for the Philippines except in limited, enumerated circumstances. It does not violate sovereignty or impede the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

No Other Consti



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms