You are on page 1of 4

Uberrimae Fidei

The strictest law may become the severest injustice.

Powered by Blogger.

Translate to your language


Select Language Select Language

0 Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

About this blog


These are all original case digests or case briefs done while the author was studying law school in the Philippines.

Hopefully these digested cases will help you get a good grasp of the salient facts and rulings of the Supreme Court in order to have a better
understanding of Philippine Jurisprudence.

Please forgive any typo/grammatical errors as these were done while trying to keep up with the hectic demands brought about by the study of law.

God bless!

P.S.
If this blog post as helped you in any way, kindly click on any of the blog sponsors' advertisements. It won't cost you a thing. This would help
tremendously.

Thank you for your time.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Type and hit enter to search

Popular Posts
Bayan v Zamora (Public International Law)
MMDA v Concerned
BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan), a JUNK VFA MOVEMENT v EXECUTIVE Residents of Manila
SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA Bay (Environmental
G.R. No. 138570 Law)
October 10, 2000 Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority
FACTS: v Concerned Residents
of Manila Bay GR No.
The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August
171947-48 December
30, 1951, To further strengthen their defense and security relationship. Under the treaty,
18, 2008 FACTS: The
the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed
complaint...
forces, public vessels, and aircraft.
Laguna Lake
On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Development
Friendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended the presence Authority v CA
of US military bases in the Philippines. (Environmental Law)
Laguna Lake
On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the
Development Authority
possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).This resulted to a series of
v CA GR No. 110120
conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter,
March 16, 1994 FACTS:
President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary
Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard. The LLDA Legal and
Technical personnel
On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of found that the City ...
Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting through Mactan Cebu
respondent Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to the Senate of International Airport
the Philippines,the Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President and the VFA, for Authority v Marcos
concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. (1996)
Mactan Cebu
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners as legislators, non-governmental
International Airport
organizations, citizens and taxpayers assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute
to herein respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the agreement. Authority v Marcos GR
No 120082, September
Petitioner contends, under they provision cited, the foreign military bases, troops, or 11, 1996 FACTS:
facilities may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently Petitioner w...
met: a) it must be a treaty,b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a Paat v CA (Natural
majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required Resources)
by congress, and c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.
PAAT v CA G.R. No.
111107 January 10,
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that,
what is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least 1997 FACTS: On May
two-thirds of all the members of the senate. 19, 1989 when the
truck of private
ISSUES AND RULING: respondent Victoria de
Guzman ...
1. Issue 1: Do the Petitioners have legal standing as concerned citizens, taxpayers, or
Caltex Philippines,
legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA?
Inc. v COA (1992)
NO. Petitioners Bayan Muna, etc. have no standing. A party bringing a suit challenging Caltex Philippines, Inc.
the Constitutionality of a law must show not only that the law is invalid, but that he has v Commission on Audit
sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its GR No. 92585, May 8,
enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. Petitioners 1992 FACTS: In 1989,
have failed to show that they are in any danger of direct injury as a result of the VFA. COA sent a lette...
Oposa v Factoran
As taxpayers, they have failed to establish that the VFA involves the exercise by
(Environmental Law)
Congress of its taxing or spending powers. A taxpayer's suit refers to a case where the
act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from Oposa v Factoran GR
taxation. Before he can invoke the power of judicial review, he must specifically prove No. 101083 July 30,
that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by 1993 FACTS:
taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the Petitioners herein are
questioned statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest all minors duly
common to all members of the public. Clearly, inasmuch as no public funds raised by represented and
taxation are involved in this case, and in the absence of any allegation by petitioners that joined by their resp...
public funds are being misspent or illegally expended, petitioners, as taxpayers, have no
Calalang v Williams
legal standing to assail the legality of the VFA.
(Labor Standards)
Similarly, the petitioner-legislators (Tanada, Arroyo, etc.) do not possess the requisite Calalang v Williams GR
locus standi to sue. In the absence of a clear showing of any direct injury to their person No. 47800 December 2,
or to the institution to which they belong, they cannot sue. The Integrated Bar of the 1940 FACTS:
Philippines (IBP) is also stripped of standing in these cases. The IBP lacks the legal Pursuant to the power
capacity to bring this suit in the absence of a board resolution from its Board of delegated to it by the
Governors authorizing its National President to commence the present action. Legislature, the Director
of P...
Notwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance
Schneckenburger v
of the issues raised, the Court may brush aside the procedural barrier and takes
Moran (Civil
cognizance of the petitions.
Procedure)
2. Issue 2: Is the VFA governed by section 21, Art. VII, or section 25, Art. XVIII of the SCHNECKENBURGER v
Constitution? MORAN G.R. No. L-
44896 July 31, 1936
Section 25, Art XVIII, not section 21, Art. VII, applies, as the VFA involves the presence Categories ABAD SANTOS, J.:
of foreign military troops in the Philippines. civil law (5) FACTS: The petitioner
wa...
The Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on civil procedure (32)
CIR v Algue (Taxation)
treaties or international agreements. conflict of laws (12)
CIR v Algue GR No. L-
constitution (20) 28896, February 17,
Section 21, Article VII reads: [n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. contracts (8) 1988 FACTS: The BIR
corporation (7) assessed Algue a total
Section 25, Article XVIII, provides:[a]fter the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement amount of delinquency
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Credit Transactions (6)
taxes of Php 83,183.85
Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the criminal (2) for t...
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the criminal law (8) Bayan v Zamora
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
criminal procedure (1) (Public International
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting
State. Law)
environmental (6)
BAYAN (Bagong
insurance (10) Alyansang Makabayan),
Section 21, Article VII deals with treaties or international agreements in general, in
which case, the concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the Senate labor relations (6) a JUNK VFA MOVEMENT
is required to make the treaty valid and binding to the Philippines. This provision lays labor standards (5) v EXECUTIVE
down the general rule on treaties. All treaties, regardless of subject matter, coverage, or SECRETARY RONALDO
particular designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid natural resources (8)
ZAMORA G.R. No.
and effective. In contrast, Section 25, Article XVIII is a special provision that applies to negotiable 138570 October 10,
treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the instruments law (6) 2000 FACTS: ...
Philippines. Under this provision, the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the
obligations (8)
requisites to render compliance with the constitutional requirements and to consider the
agreement binding on the Philippines. Sec 25 further requires that foreign military PALS (13) Blog Archive
bases, troops, or facilities may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a treaty Personal (2) April (39)
duly concurred in by the Senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national
Public International September (3)
referendum held for that purpose if so required by Congress, and recognized as such by
the other contracting state. Law (2)
October (16)
Special Commercial
On the whole, the VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of US troops visiting Law (3) November (70)
the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, December (68)
succession (4)
and further defines the rights of the US and RP government in the matter of criminal
jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, import and export of equipment, materials taxation (95) January (27)
and supplies. Undoubtedly, Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties Torts (71) February (13)
involving foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, should apply in the instant case. To
a certain extent, however, the provisions of Section 21, Article VII will find applicability June (75)
with regard to determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence July (2)
of the Senate.
December (13)
It is specious to argue that Section 25, Article XVIII is inapplicable to mere transient
agreements for the reason that there is no permanent placing of structure for the
establishment of a military base. The Constitution makes no distinction between
transient and permanent. We find nothing in Section 25, Article XVIII that requires
foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed permanently in the Philippines.
When no distinction is made by law; the Court should not distinguish. We do not
subscribe to the argument that Section 25, Article XVIII is not controlling since no
foreign military bases, but merely foreign troops and facilities, are involved in the VFA.
The proscription covers foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. Stated differently,
this prohibition is not limited to the entry of troops and facilities without any foreign
bases being established. The clause does not refer to foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities collectively but treats them as separate and independent subjects, such that
three different situations are contemplated a military treaty the subject of which
could be either (a) foreign bases, (b) foreign troops, or (c) foreign facilities any of the
three standing alone places it under the coverage of Section 25, Article XVIII.

3. Issue 3: Was Sec 25 Art XVIII's requisites satisfied to make the VFA effective?

YES
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the
country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met:
(a) it must be under a treaty;
(b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by
Congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum;
and
(c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the VFA.
The concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with
the Constitution, as there were at least 16 Senators that concurred.

As to condition (c), the Court held that the phrase recognized as a treaty means that
the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To
require the US to submit the VFA to the US Senate for concurrence pursuant to its
Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to the phrase. Well-entrenched is the principle
that the words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus attached to
them prevails. Its language should be understood in the sense they have in common use.

The records reveal that the US Government, through Ambassador Hubbard, has stated
that the US has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. For as long as the
US accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a treaty, and binds itself further to comply with
its treaty obligations, there is indeed compliance with the mandate of the Constitution.

Worth stressing too, is that the ratification by the President of the VFA, and the
concurrence of the Senate, should be taken as a clear and unequivocal expression of our
nation's consent to be bound by said treaty, with the concomitant duty to uphold the
obligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder. Ratification is generally held to be
an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state, through which the formal
acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed. A State may provide in its domestic legislation
the process of ratification of a treaty. In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in
the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is
limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.

With the ratification of the VFA it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part,
under principles of international law (pacta sunt servanda), to be bound by the terms of
the agreement. Thus, no less than Section 2, Article II declares that the Philippines
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
amity with all nations.
Posted by Victor Morvis Recommend this on Google
Labels: Public International Law

No comments:

Post a Comment

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Google Account

Publish Preview

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Treat yourself
Search This Blog
Search

Uberrimae Fidei: Bayan v Zamora (Public International Law)


Showfreevids + Watch TV Series = Bringing your business online.

You might also like