Facts:
This consolidated case involves the legality and constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America. The antecedents trace back to the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, allowing US military presence in the Philippines. With the rejection of the proposed extension in 1991, the bases were removed, but the countries continued defense cooperation under the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951. Negotiations for the VFA, providing guidelines for US military presence, began in 1997, culminating in the formal signing in 1998 by Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon and US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
President Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA, which the Senate reviewed and concurred with through Resolution No. 18. The VFA entered into force following notification by both parties of their completion of constitutional processes necessary for its effectivity. Petitioners — comprised of legislators, non-governmental organizations, and private individuals — challenged the VFA’s constitutionality, asserting among other things, that it violates specific provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Issues:
1. Do the petitioners have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the VFA?
2. Is the VFA subject to the provisions of Section 21, Article VII, or Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution?
3. Does the VFA abdicate Philippine sovereignty, deprive Philippines courts of jurisdiction over offenses, or strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over certain offenses?
4. Does the VFA violate the equal protection clause, the prohibition against nuclear weapons, or authorize tax exemptions contrary to the national law?
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the VFA is constitutional. The Court found that:
1. The petitioners lacked legal standing, but given the importance of the issues, the Court elected to set aside this procedural barrier.
2. The VFA requires Senate concurrence under either Section 21, Article VII or Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Since the Senate provided its concurrence, the VFA is constitutional in this regard.
3. The VFA does not abdicate Philippine sovereignty. Philippine courts retained jurisdiction over certain offenses involving US military personnel, and the Supreme Court has not been deprived of jurisdiction over serious offenses.
4. The VFA does not violate the equal protection clause, it upholds the prohibition against nuclear weapons, and the provisions about tax exemptions are part of the binding international agreement.
Doctrine:
The VFA, as an international agreement, requires the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all members of the Philippine Senate to be valid and effective under Section 21, Article VII, or Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution. As long as the other contracting state, namely the USA, recognizes or accepts the VFA as a treaty, it is binding and effective.
Class Notes:
– Legal standing requires personal and direct injury or interest; however, in cases of transcendental importance, the Court may relax this requirement.
– The VFA is an executive agreement, which, under international law, bears the same binding effect as a treaty.
– The 1987 Philippine Constitution’s Sections 21, Article VII, and Section 25, Article XVIII, both provide for the requirement of Senate concurrence for international agreements.
– Section 25, Article XVIII specifically addresses agreements that involve foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, requiring Senate concurrence, possible ratification through a national referendum, and recognition as a treaty by the other contracting state.
Historical Background:
The Philippines has had a long-standing defense relationship with the United States, marked by agreements allowing the presence of US military personnel and facilities in its territory. The RP-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947 and the subsequent Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 laid the groundwork for defense cooperation. The VFA was conceived as a continuation of this defense partnership after the rejection of base extension in 1991, epitomizing evolving defense and foreign relations postures of both nations within a framework that respects Philippine sovereignty and legal processes.
Leave a Reply