Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Zamora
October 10, 2000
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition
Main Issue: Validity of the Visiting Forces Agreement
FACTS:
1.) March 14, 1947: Military Bases Agreement: the use of installations in the Philippine territory by US military
personnel
2.) August 30, 1951: Mutual Defense Treaty: parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their
territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft
3.) In view of the impending expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the PH and US negotiated for
a possible extension of the military bases agreement. This proposal was supposedly the RP-US Treaty of
Friendship, Cooperation and Security which would extend the presence of US military bases in the Philippines.
However, the Senate rejected this.
4.) Expiration of the RP-US military bases agreement military exercises were held in abeyance.
5.) Notwithstanding, the defense and security relationship between the Philippines and the United States continued
pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty.
6.) July 18, 1997: exchange of notes between the Philippines and the US on the:
a. complementing strategic interests if the United States and the Philippines in the Asia Pacific Region
b. Possible elements of the VFA
7.) Negotiations consolidated draft final series of conferences and negotiations culmination in Manila on Jan.
12 and 13, 1998
8.) FVR approved the VFA which was respectively signed by the Secretary Siazon and the US Ambassador Thomas
Hubbard on February 10, 1998
9.) October 5, 1998: Pres. Estrada, through the Secretary of Foreign affairs, ratified the VFA. (Instrument of
Ratification)
10.)The Instrument was then transmitted to the Senate and was approved by 2/3 vote of its members. (Senate
Resolution No. 18)
11.)VFA officially entered into force on June 1, 1999.
Visiting Forces Agreement
- Consists of a Preamble and 9 Articles
- Provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which the US Armed Forces
and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines
ISSUES:
(1) WON the petitioners have legal standing as concerned citizens, taxpayers, or legislators to question the
constitutionality of the VFA?
a. as concerned citizens- NO.
b. as taxpayers- NO.
c. as legislators- NO.
d. IBP- NO. It lacks legal capacity in the absence of a board resolution from its Board of Governors.
Notwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the issues raised in the
petitions, this Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushes aside the procedural barrier and takes cognizance of
the petitions.
(2) Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Article VII, Sec. 21 or Article XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution?
Sec. 25, Article XVIII applies to the VFA
Petitioners: Sec. 25 of Article XVIII: VFA has its subject the presence of military troops in the Philippines
Respondents: Sec. 21 of Article VII : VFA is not a basing agreement but merely involves temporary visits of United
States personnel engages in joint military exercises
Court:
Sec. 25 of Article XVIII
After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between
the Republic of the Philippines and the United States
of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred 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.
Specifically applies to treaties involving the presence
of foreign military bases, troops, and facilities in the
Philippines.
Requisites:
(1) It must be a Treaty duly concurred in by the
Senate
(2) recognized as such by other contracting state.
(3) ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national
referendum held for that purpose if so required by
the Congress
(3) WON VFA met the requirements of Sec. 25, Article XVIII YES.
- There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisitesthat it is a treaty and that is duly concurred in by
the Senate
o
o
international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its law as an excuse for failure to perform its
duty
Principle of pacta sunt servanda: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by
them in good faith( Article 26 of the Convention)
According to Justice Puno, the Court will be standing on unstable ground if it places a sole executive Agreement
like the VFA on the same constitutional plateau as a treaty.
A treaty has a greater dignity than an executive agreement because its constitutional effectiveness is beyond
doubt, because a treaty will commit the Senate and the people of the United States and make its subsequent
abrogation or violation less likely.
This Court must strike a blow for the sovereignty of our country by drawing a bright line between the dignity and
status of a treaty in contrast with a sole executive agreement.