Saguisag v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. 1.

EDCA is constitutional in its arrangement as an executive

G.R. No. 212444 agreement.
January 12, 2016 2. It remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it purports
to implement.
Facts:
-EDCA or Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement is an agreement Rationale
between the Philippines and America wherein it authorizes the U.S. military -The manner of the President's execution of the law, even if not expressly
forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain "Agreed granted by the law, is justified by necessity and limited only by law, since
Locations" in the country. the President must "take necessary and proper steps to carry into execution
-After eight rounds of negotiations for two years, the Secretary of National the law. It is the President's prerogative to do whatever is legal and
Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines signed the agreement necessary for Philippine defense interests (commander-in-chief powers).
on 28 April 2014. President Benigno S. Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6 June -EDCA is considered an executive agreement, therefore may be bound
2014. It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive's understanding through the President without the need of senatorial votes for its execution.
that to do so was no longer necessary. -The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the
-Senators file Senate Resolution No. (SR) 105.91. The resolution expresses necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long
the "strong sense" of the Senators that for EDCA to become valid and usage.
effective, it must first be transmitted to the Senate for deliberation and TREATIES EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
Formal documents which require Become binding through executive
concurrence
ratification with the approval of action without the need of a vote
two-thirds of the Senate by the Senate or by Congress
Issues: International agreements involving International agreements
political issues or changes of embodying adjustments of detail,
1. Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on national policy and those involving carrying out well established
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. agreements of a permanent national policies and traditions and
character those involving arrangements of a
2. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the more or less temporary nature
Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties. Considered superior to executive Must remain traceable to an
agreements and is regarded as express or implied authorization
being on the same level as a statute under the Constitution, statutes, or
Held: Petition DISMISSED. as they are products of the acts of treaties
the Executive and the Senate
 If there is an irreconcilable conflict, Cannot create new international
a later law or treaty takes obligations that are not expressly
Leonen: EDCA needs to be submitted to the Senate for concurrence. It
precedence over one that is prior allowed or reasonably implied in the
law they purport to implement. involves a key political issue that substantially alters or reshapes our national
Once inconsistent with either a law
and foreign policy. He votes to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petitions and
or a treaty are considered
ineffective to DECLARE the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between
-The term "international agreements" does not include the term "executive
the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America as a formal
agreements.
and official memorial of the results of the negotiations concerning the
-EDCA increases the likelihood that, in an event requiring a defensive
allowance of United States military bases, troops, or facilities in the
response, the Philippines will be prepared alongside the U.S. to defend its
Philippines, which is NOT EFFECTIVE until it complies with the requisites of
islands and insure its territorial integrity pursuant to a relationship built on
Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, namely: (1) that
previous treaties, particularly the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 (MDT) and
the agreement must be in the form of a treaty; (2) that the treaty must be
Visiting Forces Agreement of 1999 (VFA).
duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and, when so required by
Congress, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national
(Semi) Concurring Opinion
referendum; and (3) that the agreement is either (a) recognized as a treaty or
Leonardo-De Castro: Agrees with the issues raised. Believes that the EDCA
(b) accepted or acknowledged as a treaty by the United States before it
is an international agreement that allows the presence in the Philippines of
becomes valid, binding, and effective
foreign military bases, troops and facilities, and thus requires that the three
requisites under Section 25, Article XVIII be complied with. The EDCA must
be submitted to the Senate for concurrence. Furthermore, EDCA is without
any clear limitation as to the duration of their stay.

Dissenting Opinions
Brion: EDCA is constitutionally deficient and, hence, cannot be enforced in
our country. EDCA should be in the form of a treaty. Believes that the
ponencia's approach and interpretation are incorrect because they are overly
simplistic. EDCA reiterates the purposes of the 1951 MDT and the 1998 VFA
but also contains an entirety new agreement pertaining to Agreed Locations
 Saguisag vs Executive Secretary
Case Digest: GR 212426 Jan 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 1: W/N the petitions as citizens suit satisfy the requirements of
legal standing in assailing the constitutionality of EDCA
No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental act, petitioners
suing as citizens may dodge the requirement of having to establish a direct
and personal interest if they show that the act affects a public right. But
here, aside from general statements that the petitions involve the
protection of a public right, and that their constitutional rights as citizens
would be violated, the petitioners failed to make any specific assertion of a
particular public right that would be violated by the enforcement of
EDCA. For their failure to do so, the present petitions cannot be considered
by the Court as citizens suits that would justify a disregard of the
aforementioned requirements.
Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as taxpayers
No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA is neither meant to
be a tax measure, nor is it directed at the disbursement of public funds.
A taxpayers suit concerns a case in which the official act complained of
directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from
taxation. Here, those challenging the act must specifically show that they
have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of public
money, and that they will sustain a direct injury as a result of the
enforcement of the assailed act. Applying that principle to this case, they
must establish that EDCA involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or
spending powers. A reading of the EDCA, however, would show that there
has been neither an appropriation nor an authorization of disbursement.
Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as legislators suit
No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international agreement is an
institutional prerogative granted by the Constitution to the Senate. In a
legislators suit, the injured party would be the Senate as an institution or
any of its incumbent members, as it is the Senates constitutional function
that is allegedly being violated. Here, none of the petitioners, who are
former senators, have the legal standing to maintain the suit.
Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial Review over the case EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it merely involves
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise matters adjustments in detail in the implementation of the MTD and the
of transcendental importance which justify setting aside the rule on VFA. These are existing treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. that
procedural technicalities. The challenge raised here is rooted in the very have already been concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have thereby
Constitution itself, particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which provides for a met the requirements of the Constitution under Art XVIII, Sec 25. Because
stricter mechanism required before any foreign military bases, troops or of the status of these prior agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to
facilities may be allowed in the country. Such is of paramount public the Senate.
interest that the Court is behooved to determine whether there was grave De Castro Dissent
abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department. No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct from the VFA
Brion Dissent and the MDT. Whether the stay of the foreign troops in the country is
Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners satisfied the permanent or temporary is immaterial because the Constitution does not
requirement of legal standing in asserting that a public right has been distinguish. The EDCA clearly involves the entry of foreign military bases,
violated through the commission of an act with grave abuse of discretion. troops or facilities in the country. Hence, the absence of Senate concurrence
The court may exercise its power of judicial review over the act of the to the agreement makes it an invalid treaty.
Executive Department in not submitting the EDCA agreement for Senate
concurrence not because of the transcendental importance of the issue, but
because the petitioners satisfy the requirements in invoking the courts
expanded jurisdiction.
Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA agreement for concurrence
by the Senate violates the Constitution
No. The EDCA need not be submitted to the Senate for concurrence
because it is in the form of a mere executive agreement, not a
treaty. Under the Constitution, the President is empowered to enter into
executive agreements on foreign military bases, troops or facilities if (1)
such agreement is not the instrument that allows the entry of such and (2) if
it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty.