Saguisag vs. Ochoa, G.R. NO. 212426, etc.

January 12, 2016

FACTS: Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators, questioned before the SC the
constitutionality of EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement), an agreement entered
into by the executive department with the US and ratified on June 6, 2014. Under the EDCA, the
PH shall provide the US forces the access and use of portions of PH territory, which are called
Agreed Locations. Aside from the right to access and to use the Agreed Locations, the US may
undertake the following types of activities within the Agreed Locations: security cooperation
exercises; joint and combined training activities; humanitarian and disaster relief activities; and
such other activities that as may be agreed upon by the parties.

Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive agreement as medium of agreement with US
violated the constitutional requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the EDCA involves
foreign military bases, troops and facilities whose entry into the country should be covered by
a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The Senate, through Senate Resolution 105, also expressed
its position that EDCA needs congressional ratification.

ISSUE: For allowing the U.S. a rent-free access and use of Philippines bases and other agreed
locations around the country by the US troops and its vessels and with authority to construct
facilities thereat and to preposition and store defense equipment, supplies and materials at these
Philippine bases and other agreed locations, is EDCA consistent with the content, purpose and
framework of the MDT and the VFA and not violative of Philippine sovereignty?

RULING: Yes. The EDCAs validity in that as an executive agreement fell within the
parameters of the Visiting Forces Agreement and Mutual Defense Treaty and seamlessly merged
with the whole web of Philippine law. The EDCA did not go beyond the framework since the
entry of US troops has long been authorized under a valid and subsisting treaty which is the
VFA. Therefore EDCA is consistent and within the bounds of the obligations imposed by both
treaties. Thus, the Court find no reason for EDCA to be declared unconstitutional because it fully
conforms to the Philippines' legal regime through the MDT and VFA. It also fully conforms to
the 1987 Constitution demands that the "State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and
enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens, and governments continued policy to enhance our
military capability in the face of various military and humanitarian issues that may arise.