Constitutional*Law*1*|*Dean*Sedfrey*Candelaria!
Lim vs. Executive Secretary
G.R. Nos. 151445, April 11, 2002
OVERVIEW: Lim vs. Executive Sexretary "Balikatan 02-1 is
covered by the VFA. It is in Sections 2 and 7 of the Article 2 of
Constitution that the Philippines accepts principles of international
law and the country pursues independent foreign policy. The
Constitution also regulates the foreign relations powers of the Chief
Executive when it provides that "no treaty of international agreement
shall be valid unless concurred in by two-thirds of all members of
Senate.
I. Action:
• Special civil action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari and
Prohibition
• Ponente: De Leon, Jr.
II. Facts:
• January 2002- US troops started arriving in Mindanao to take
part, together with the Philippine Military, in "Balikatan 02-1"
which is the largest combined training operations involving
Filipino and American troops.
• The said Balikatan exercises are under the bilateral defense
agreement "Mutual Defense Treaty" (MDT) signed by RP and
US in 1951.
• 1995- Last Balikatan was held.
• 1999- Visiting Forces agreement (VFA) was concluded.
• 1 February 2002- Petitioners filed this petition because of the
said unconstitutionality of the exercise with intervenors
SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA.
• 7 February 2002- Senate conducted hearing on the Balikatan
exercise whith VP Teofisto Guingona, who is also the
Secreatary of Foreign Affairs, presented the Draft Terms of
Reference (TOR) which he approved 5 days after.
III. Issue/s & Held:
• W/N "Balikatan 02-1" is covered by the Visiting Forces
Agreement
YES, it is covered by such treaty. The solicitor-general, in the
case, said that"Balikatan 02-1 is covered by the VFA,
considering the President's monopoly in the field of foreign
relations and her role as commander-in-chief of the Philippine
armed forces"
Sections 2 and 7 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution is the
useful tool in determining the extent to which foreign military
troops are allowed in the Philippine territory.
Section 3 of The Viena Convention on the Law of Treaties
provide for the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an
examination of text that verbalize partes' intentions. The
Convention dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the
meaning of terms which it refers to as the context of the
treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into account
alongside the aforesaid context.
Hence, The TOR of "Balikatan 02-1" rightly fall within the
context of VFA.
W/N Balikatan 02-1 is actually a war by US government and
that provision on self-defense serves only as camouflage to
conceal true nature of the exercise.
Neither MDT nor the VFA allow foreign troops to engage in
an offensive war on Philippine territory.
Uy,Christian | 1-A

Paragraph 8 of Section 1 of TOR stipulates that US exercise
participants may not engage in combat "except in self-
defense".
All treaties, including MDT and VFA as well as all treaties and
international agreements to which Philippines is a party must
be read in the context of the 1987 Constitution.
• Petition and petition-in-intervention are DISMISSED
without prejudice.
IV. Separate Opinion/s:
• Dissenting Opinion by Judge Kapunan
There is no treaty allowing US troops to engage in combat
Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution provides for the
ban of Military Bases and troops in the country except under
a treaty duly concurred by the Senate and when under
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes of the
people in national referendumand recognized as a treaty by
the other contracting State.
Balikatan exerises are not covered by VFA as US troops are
not allowed to engage in combat
-Training in Basilan will serve as provocation against ASG
-US troops in Basilan are described as "on a slippery slope
between training and fighting".
-A former Green Beret who is an analyst of Washington's
Center for Strategies and Budgetary Assessments notes that
"when troops go out on patrol, they come as close as they
can to direct combat."
RP-US Balikatan 02-1 Exercises are aimed at seeking out the
ASG and exterminating it.
-The country may be dragged into a more devastating and
protracted conflict as a result of continuous presence of US
Constitutional*Law*1*|*Dean*Sedfrey*Candelaria! 2
Military troops in Basilan. (Single sniper bullet could be a
massive retaliation from US in the name of "self-defense")
US military presence is essentially indefinite and open-ended
-The presidents of both countries declarations suggest a
long-drawn conflict without a forseeable end.
-DND Secretary Reyes that there would be 10 more
exercises that year. (2002)
-MILF, MNLF and NPA could possibly be all lumped up as
"terrorists" in a unilateral characterization.
US military intervention is not the solution to the Mindanao
problem
-Annihilation of the rebel bandits would be futile quest so long
at the root causes of their criminality are not addressed.
-Presence of US troops in Basilan, whether from legal or
philosophical and even practical perspective, cannot be
justified.
-The inevitable "collateral damage" such as killing of women
and burning of homes would fan the flames of fantacism and
transform mere rogues into martyrs.
-Training of Filipino soldiers would be more effective if done
outside of Basilan
-US instead could supply our soliders with modern and high
tech weaponry.
-Lastly, he said that it is erroneous to argue that petitioners
do not have legal standing over the matter for the issues
raised are of transcendental importance.
Separate Opinion by Judge Panganiban (VOTE to DISMISS)
-Cases cannot be decided on mere speculation or prophecy.
Decisions of this Court especially in certiorari and prohibition cases
are issued only if the facts are clear and definite which is not present
in the current case.
Uy,Christian | 1-A