8. Bayan vs.

Zamora
Ponente: BUENA, J. Facts: To further strengthen defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty. In view of the impending expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the United States panel met with the Philippine panel to discuss the extension of the military bases agreement and among others things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. The VFA was later on approved by President Ramos and signed by Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard. It was then ratified by President Joseph Estrada and approved by Senate by 2/3 votes. Petitioners assert that Sec. 25, Art XVIII of the 1987 constitution is applicable and not Section 21, Article VII. They argued that may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met: a) it must be a treaty, b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and c) recognized as such by the other contracting state. Respondents argued 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 2/3 of all the members of the senate. ISSUE: WON the VFA is governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution? HELD: Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. These constitutional provisions both embody phrases in the negative and thus, are deemed prohibitory in mandate and character. In particular, Section 21 opens with the clause No treaty x x x, and Section 25 contains the phrase shall not be allowed. In both instances, the concurrence of the Senate is indispensable to render the treaty or international agreement valid and effective. Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case. To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, the provisions of section 21, Article VII will find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the senate.

The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Section 21, Article VII, and that the Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision, is immaterial. For in either case, whether under Section 21, Article VII or Section 25, Article XVIII, the fundamental law is crystalline that the concurrence of the Senate is mandatory to comply with the strict constitutional requirements.