SAGUISAG V OCHOA

FACTS:
These consolidated petitions before the Court question the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (executive
agreement) between the Philippines and US. Petitioners alleged that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction when they entered into EDCA with the U.S., claiming that EDCA violated multiple constitutional provisions. While,
Respondents argued that petitioners lack standing to bring the suit. To support the legality of their actions, respondents invoke the 1987
Constitution, treaties, and judicial precedents.
HISTORICAL FACTS OF EDCA:
1. The defeat of the Spanish fleet at the hands of the US naval forces At the Battle of Manila on May 1, 1898, cleared the day for the US
occupation in Manila and the transfer of the Phil. To US from Spain.
2. Philippine independence was declared on June 12, 1898;
3. Treaty of Paris was signed by US and Spain on Dec. 10, 1898, whereby Spain ceding several islands to US;
4. In 1901, President Roosvelt issued an executive order establishing the Subic Bay Naval Reservation;
5. In 1902, Roosvelt signed another EO establishing Fort Stotsenburg which was later occupied by Clark Airbase.
6. The war ensued between Phil. And US.
a. The military victory enabled the US to establish control over the Phil. Politically and economically.
b. Successive military governors exercising military, executive and civilian functions were appointed;
7. March 14, 1947, MBA between US and PH concerning military bases was signed. (Roxas and US)
a. Gave the US the control of at least 16 bases including Clark and Subic base
b. Access to use of Philippine facilities such as Mactan Island Army and Florida Blanca in Pampanga
8. RP-US Military Assistance Agreement was signed provided for the creation of JUSMAG (Joint US Advisory Group and permanent
stationing of US military forces in Manila;
9. Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in Washington.
a. MDT lasted for 25 years.
b. Over the years, US military bases in the country served as launching sites for US involvement in various wars such as Vietnam
war.
10. 1987 Philippine Constitution ratified, which explicitly prohibits foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the country beyond the
year 1991, except under a treaty concurred by Senate.
11. Therafter, Senate voted NOT to renew the MDT.
12. However, on May 27, 1999, the Senate ratified the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement, replacing the MDT.

1|Page
 a. Petitioner Bayan challenged the Constitutionality of VFA but the agreement was upheld as valid.
b. 2002, Balikatan was launched to send US troops to Mindanao to assist Phil forces in the war on terror against Abu Sayaff.
c. Sep. 23, 2009, in the light of the Subic rape case and after hearings regarding VFA, Senate passed a resolution calling on the
Executive to renegotiate the VFA and if the US refused, issue a notice of termination of the agreement.
13. 2012, Pres. Obama announced its strategic pivot towards Asia as laid down in sustaining US global leadership
a. Priorities for 21st century defense seeking to deploy 60% of its warship to Asia.
14. EDCA: Dialogues were made in Washington - with the PH Delegation, upon the instruction of Pres. Aquino, agreeing to adopt a policy of
increased of rotational presence of US troops, increased military exercises and more frequent port calls by the US ships (LATER CALLED
FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT  EDCA).
a. 2013, PH-AM began negotiations for the Framework Agreement for increased rotational presence and enhanced defense
cooperation which sought to give US military access to the PH facilities.
b. Form: the US regarded this as an EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT NOT NEEDING THE SENATE’S CONCURRENCE.
c. The negotiators the changed the name of the framework agreement to EDCA.
15. April 28, 2014, DFA Sec. Gazmin and US Ambassador to PH Philip Goldberg signed the EDCA.
16. April 29, 2014, the text of EDCA was made public via government websites.
17. Finding EDCA grossly one-sided and greatly disadvantageous to the Philippines, petitioners, then, filed petitions before the SC
questioning the constitutionality and or legality of EDCA. Hence, this petition.

TREATIES V EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS:

TREATY
Formal documents which require ratification with the approval of two-
thirds of the Senate
International agreements involving political issues or changes of
national policy and those involving
agreements of a permanent character
established national policies and traditions and those involving
arrangements of a more or less temporary nature
If there is an irreconcilable conflict, a later law or treaty takes
precedence over one that is prior
EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
Become binding through executive action without the need of a vote
by the Senate or by Congress
International agreements embodying adjustments of detail, carrying
out well established national policies and traditions and those
involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature
Must remain traceable to an express or
Implied authorization under the Constitution, statutes, or treaties
Cannot create new international obligations that are not expressly
allowed or reasonably implied in the law they purport to implement.
Once inconsistent with either a law or a treaty is considered
ineffective.

2|Page
ISSUES:
1. WON President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities? (YES)
a. WON EDCA strays from provisions of VFA – because EAs merely implement already established laws or treaties (NO)
2. WON EDCA is a treaty or an international agreement that requires Senate concurrence? (NO)
HELD:
1. WON President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities?
a. YES. The President may enter into an executive agreement pertaining to foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.
b. The role of the President as the executor of the law includes the duty to defend the State,  he may use that power in the
conduct of foreign relations.
c. SC has interpreted the faithful execution clause as an obligation imposed on the President, and not a separate grant of power.
d. The President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, if:
i. it is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities;
ii. it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty (to be proven by respondents).
e. The President had the choice to enter into EDCA by way of an executive agreement or a treaty.
i. No court can tell the President to desist from choosing an executive agreement over a treaty to embody an international
agreement, unless the case falls squarely within Article VIII, Section 25.
ii. Executive agreements may cover the matter of foreign military forces if it merely involves detail adjustments.
f. EDCA’s relationship with VFA (Conditions of E.A. – WON EDCA follows VFA:
i. The executive agreement must not go beyond the parameters, limitations, and standards set by the law and/or treaty
that the former purports to implement; and must not unduly expand the international obligation expressly mentioned
or necessarily implied in the law or treaty.
ii. The executive agreement must be consistent with the Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties.
1. In light of the President's choice to enter into EDCA in the form of an executive agreement, respondents carry
the burden of proving that it is a mere implementation of existing laws and treaties concurred in by the
Senate. EDCA must thus be carefully dissected to ascertain if it remains within the legal parameters of a valid
executive agreement. EDCA is consistent with the content, purpose, and framework of the MDT and the VFA.
iii. The starting point of our analysis is the rule that "an executive agreement x x x may not be used to amend a treaty.
1. Based on Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA, combat - related activities as opposed to combat itself such as
the one subject of the instant petition, are indeed authorized.
2. Hence, even if EDCA was borne of military necessity, it cannot be said to have strayed from the intent of the
VFA since EDCA's combat - related components are allowed under the treaty.
iv. Another difference is that EDCA supposedly introduces a new concept not contemplated in the VFA or the MDT: Agreed
Locations, Contractors, Pre-positioning, and Operational Control.

3|Page
 1. As previously mentioned, these points shall be addressed fully and individually in the latter analysis of EDCA's
provisions.
2. However, it must already be clarified that the terms and details used by an implementing agreement need not
be found in the mother treaty. They must be source from the authority derived from the treaty, but are not
necessarily expressed word-for-word in the mother treaty.
2. WON EDCA is a treaty or an international agreement that requires Senate concurrence? (NO)
a. The power of the President to enter into binding executive agreements (IN GENERAL) without Senate concurrence is already
well- established in this jurisdiction.
b. Although the provision of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that:

SECTION 25. After the expiration in 1991 of [the MBA], 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 by cast the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by
the other contracting State.
i. Taken literally, the phrase "shall not be allowed in the Philippines" plainly refers to the entry of bases, troops,
or facilities in the country.
ii. It is evident that the constitutional restriction refers solely to the INITIAL ENTRY of the foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities.
iii. Once entry is authorized, the subsequent acts are thereafter subject only to the limitations provided by the rest of the
Constitution and Philippine law, and not to the Section 25 requirement of validity through a treaty.
c. The VFA has already allowed the entry of troops in the Philippines.
i. This Court stated in Lim v. Executive Secretary: Thus, EDCA can be in the form of an executive agreement, since it
merely involves "adjustments in detail" in the implementation of the MDT and the VFA.
ii. It points out that there are existing treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. that have already been
concurred in by the Philippine Senate and have thereby met the requirements of the Constitution under Section
25.
iii. Because of the status of these prior agreements, respondent emphasizes that EDCA need not be transmitted to
the Senate.
iv. Therefore, the President may generally enter into executive agreements subject to limitations defined by the
Constitution and may be in furtherance of a treaty already concurred in by the Senate.
d. The duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land is inherent in executive power and is intimately related to the other
executive functions, such as:
i. faithful execution of the law in autonomous regions;
ii. the right to prosecute crimes; the implementation of transportation projects;

4|Page
 iii.ensure compliance with treaties, executive agreements and executive orders;
iv. authority to deport undesirable aliens;
v. the conferment of national awards under the President's jurisdiction;
vi. overall administration and control of the executive department.
1. These obligations are as broad as they sound, for a President cannot function with crippled hands, but
must be capable of securing the rule of law.
e. Executive agreements may dispense with Senate concurrence because of the legal mandate with which they are concluded.
i. As culled from the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, past Supreme Court Decisions, and works of
noted scholars, executive agreements merely involve implementation of existing policies, rules, laws, or
agreements.
ii. They are concluded to:
1. to adjust the details of a treaty;
2. pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of the Legislature;
3. in the exercise of the President's independent power.
iii. First, executive agreements must remain traceable to an express or implied authorization under the
Constitution, statutes, or treaties.
1. The absence of these precedents puts the validity and effectivity of executive agreements under
serious question for the main function of the Executive is to enforce the Constitution and the laws
enacted by the Legislature, not to defeat or interfere in the performance of these rules.
2. In sum, executive agreements cannot create new international obligations that are not expressly
allowed or reasonably implied in the law they purport to implement.
iv. Second, treaties are superior to executive agreements.
1. Treaties are products of the acts of the Executive and the Senate unlike executive agreements, which are
solely executive actions.
2. Because of legislative participation through the Senate, a treaty is regarded as being on the same level
as a statute.
3. If there is an irreconcilable conflict, a later law or treaty takes precedence over one that is prior. An executive
agreement is treated differently; Executive agreements that are inconsistent with either a law or a treaty
are considered ineffective.
4. Both types of international agreement are nevertheless subject To the supremacy of the Constitution.
v. DOES NOT MEAN that the President is given carte blanche to exercise this discretion.
1. Although the Chief Executive wields the exclusive authority to conduct our foreign relations, this power
must still be exercised within the context and the parameters set by the Constitution, as well as by
existing domestic and international laws.

5|Page
2. There are constitutional provisions that restrict or limit the President's prerogative in concluding
international agreements, such as those that involve the following:
a. The policy of freedom from nuclear weapons within Philippine territory
b. The fixing of tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts, which must be pursuant to the authority granted by Congress
c. The grant of any tax exemption, which must be pursuant to a law concurred in by a majority of all the
Members of Congress. The contracting or guaranteeing, on behalf of the Philippines, of foreign loans
that must be previously concurred in by the Monetary Board.

6|Page