BAYAN VS ZAMORA CASE DIGEST

I. FACTS
● [1947] RP and US forged the Military Bases Agreement provided for the use of
installations in the Philippine Territory by US military personnel
● [1951] Mutual Defense Treaty for RP and US to strengthen their defense and security
relationship.
● [1991] Military Bases Agreement expired. RP and US negotiated for extension.
● [1991] Philippine Senate rejected proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation
and Security which would have extended the presence of military bases in the
Philippines.
● [1997] US panel and RP panel discussed among other things, the possible elements of
VFA.
● [1998] Ramos approved VFA
● [1998] Estrada ratified VFA
● [1999] Committee submitted Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 in concurrence to
VFA. It recommended the creation of Legislative Oversight Committee. From here,
debates ensued.
● [1999] Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 approved by Senate with 2/3 votes.
Renumbered resolution: Resolution No. 18
● [June 1, 1999] VFA entered into force.
II. ISSUES

1. {Locus Standi } Do petitioners have standing to sue?

A. Respondents challenged petitioners standing to sue on the ground that:

a. petitioners have not shown any interest in the case
b. petitioners failed to substantiate that they may have or will sustain direct injury as a
result of the operation of the VFA.
B. Petitioners: validity or invalidity of VFA is a matter of transcendental importance, this
justifies their standing.
C. A party bringing suit challenging the constitutionality of a law, act or statute must show
not only that the law is invalid, but also that he has sustained or in immediate, or imminent
danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he
has been, or is about to be, denied some indefinite way.
D. In this case, petitioners failed to show, to the satisfaction of this Court, that they have
sustained or are in danger of sustaining any direct injury as a result of the enforcement of
VFA.

2. Which constitutional provision should be applicable?

A. Petitioners argue: Section 25, Article XVIII is applicable

- special provision that applies to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military, troops
or facilities in the Phils.

Section 25, Article XVIII: after the expiration in 1991 of the agreement between the RP and
the USA concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be
allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and when the
 Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

B. Respondents argue: Section 21, Article VII should apply

- deals with treaties or international agreements in general
- 2/3 of all the Senate Members is required to make the subject treaty or international
agreement valid and binging on the part of the Philippines.
C. Courts observations:
a. both provisions actually share some common ground. They are not contradicting.
b. Sec 25 Article 18 should apply in the instant case.
c. Provisions of Sec 21 Article 7 will apply for the purpose of determining the number of
votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the Senate.

3. Is VFA a binding agreement seeing that it is only an EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT? {

requirement is that it should be recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state}

Petitioners contentions: phrase recognized as a treaty embodied in Sec 25 Article 18 means

that the VFA should have the advice and consent of US Senate and it should not be
considered merely an executive agreement by the US.
A. Respondents argue: letter of US Ambassador Hubbard stating that VFA is binding on
the US Govt is conclusive. VFA is recognized as a treaty by the US. For it to be
binding, it must only be accepted as a treaty by the US.

B. Courts ruling: VFA has a binding effect.

Agreement is accepted or acknowledged that the agreement is a treaty. To have it concurred

by US senate is to accord strict meaning to the phrase recognized as a treaty

Under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. As long as VFA

possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, said agreement is to be
taken equally as a treaty.

C. Courts ruling on grave abuse of discretion:

a. presidents ratification and submission of VFA to the Senate are within the confines
and limits of the powers vested in the president.
b. Concurrence of Senate constitution lodges the power, to concur or not concur with
treaties, with the Senate alone. Senate did not abuse discretion.

III. RULING OF THE COURT

Dismissed. On the grounds of absence of any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on
part of respondents. This Court is then without power to conduct an incursion and meddle with
affairs purely executive and legislative in character and nature.