RENEGOTIATE OR TERMINATE

THE VISITING FORCES AGREEMENT

By Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago
Chair, egis!ati"e O"ersight Committee on the VFA
(Sponsorship speech on 16 September 2009)
Mr. President, distinguished colleagues:
n behal! o! the "egislati#e #ersight $ommittee on the %isiting &orces
'greement ("%&'), Senate panel, ( ha#e the honor to see) appro#al o! Senate
*esolution +o. 1,-6, entitled .*esolution e/pressing the sense o! the Senate that
the 0epartment o! &oreign '!!airs should see) to renegotiate the %isiting &orces
'greement 1ith the 2nited States, and in case o! denial, should gi#e notice o!
termination o! the %&'.3
Constit#tion Bans Foreign Mi!itary $resen%e
'!ter the Marcos rule, the rene1al o! the countr45s constitutional regime
prioriti6ed the supreme concern o! putting an end to !oreign militar4 presence, and
an end to the continuit4 o! 2S hegemon4. 7hus, the $onstitution, 'rticle 18,
Section 2- pro#ides in part: .&oreign militar4 bases, troops, or !acilities shall not
be allo1ed in the Philippines, e/cept under a treat4 dul4 concurred in b4 the
Senate, and . . . recogni6ed as a treat4 b4 the other contracting State.3
7his supreme concern to !ree the countr45s armed !orces !rom the control o!
a !oreign po1er intended to trans!orm the '&P into a real bac)bone o! Philippine
so#ereignt4, instead o! the hired spine o! a !oreign so#ereign. 7he prospect o!
reali6ing the program o! '&P moderni6ation generated considerable e/pectation o!
independence right in the '&P itsel!.
9ut the ad#ent o! the %&' spelled the restoration o! the '&P dependence on
'merica. :ence, the !ate o! moderni6ation has ceased to be a politicall4
appropriate topic in ci#ili6ed circles.
&''( S#)reme Co#rt Case* Do%trina! Conf#sion
(n the 2009 case o! Nicolas v. Romulo, the Supreme $ourt held, b4 a split
#ote o! 9;<, that the %&' is constitutional. 7he dissenters 1ere led b4 no less than
$hie! =ustice Puno, 1ho began b4 sa4ing: .7his slur on our so#ereignt4 cannot
continue, especiall4 i! 1e are the ones perpetuating it.3
's a student o! constitutional la1, ( humbl4 submit that the Nicolas ruling
su!!ers !rom doctrinal con!usion, and that it 1ill not stand the test o! time. (
pointed out earlier that the Philippine $onstitution re>uires that !oreign militar4
bases, troops, or !acilities shall not be allo1ed in the Philippines, e/cept under a
treat4 re%ogni+e, as a treaty -y the other %ontra%ting State.
:as the 2S go#ernment recogni6ed the %&' as a treat4? 7he ans1er is no.
7he 2S $onstitution pro#ides that the 2S President has the po1er to ma)e
treaties, but onl4 .b4 and 1ith the ad#ice and consent o! the Senate, pro#ided t1o;
thirds o! the Senators present concur.3
1
:as the %&' been concurred in b4 t1o;
thirds o! the 2S Senate? 7he ans1er is no.
2
7he Nicolas ma@orit4 opinion claimed that the %&' 1as submitted to the
2S Senate. 7his is misleading. 7he %&' 1as submitted as a compliance 1ith an
'merican la1 called the $ase;Aabloc)i 'ct. 7his 'ct re>uires the 2S President,
through the Secretar4 o! State, to transmit to the 2S $ongress, the international
agreements entered into b4 the 2S go#ernment, or b4 its o!!icials or agencies,
/hi%h are not %hara%teri+e, as treaties. 7hus, the 2S go#ernment does not
characteri6e the %&' as a treat4. 7here!ore, the %&', since it does not compl4
1ith the re>uirement o! the *P $onstitution, is unconstitutional and #oid in our
countr4.
9ut because o! the Nicolas opinion, the %&' is no1 part o! the la1 o! the
land, to use *P constitutional language. 94 contrast, since the %&' is not
characteri6ed as a treat4 in the 2S, it is not the supreme la1 o! the land, to use 2S
constitutional language. 7he 2S does not consider the %&' as a treat4, and it
certainl4 does not consider the %&' as a sel!;e/ecuting treat4. 7hus, 2S courts are
not necessaril4 bound b4 it, because the 2S go#ernment considers the %&' as a
mere e/ecuti#e agreement.
VFA Voi, for Vag#eness
(n the language o! constitutional la1, the %&' is #oid !or #agueness,
because it !ails to de!ine the terms .#isit3, .temporar43, and .militar4 acti#ities.3
2nder the #agueness doctrine, it is impermissible !or a statute to delegate basic
,
polic4 matters to administrators, to such a degree as to lead to arbitrar4 and
discriminator4 application.
a. No Definition of 0Visit1
&ilipino political leaders in#ol#ed in the signature and rati!ication o! the
%isiting &orces 'greement 1ith the 2nited States (%&') appear to ha#e limited
themsel#es to the title o! the %&', and ne#er bothered to e/plain the term .#isit3
in the te/t. 7he4 ga#e the impression that under the %&', the 2S militar4 !orces
1ould be @ust .#isiting3.
7he document is o!!iciall4 titled: .'greement bet1een the go#ernment o!
the *epublic o! the Philippines and the go#ernment o! the 2nited States o!
'merica regarding the treatment o! 2S armed !orces "isiting the Philippines.3
B#t there is no ,efinition of a "isit.
9e!ore the %&' 1as signed b4 the t1o go#ernments, President *amos
described the %&' as intended !or militar4 e/ercises o! 2S and Philippine !orces.
Bndorsing the %&' !or Senate concurrence, President Bstrada emphasi6ed in his
press statements that the %&' pertained onl4 to .militar4 e/ercises3. 7hen
Secretar4 o! &oreign '!!airs Sia6on, 1ho signed the %&' !or the Philippines,
e/pressed himsel! more clearl4: .7he %&' onl4 spea)s o! 'merican militar4
!orces 1ho come to the countr4 to conduct @oint militar4 e/ercises 1ith Philippine
troops.3
2
0eliberate or not, these pronouncements, authoritati#e as the4 are, gi#e a
!alse or e#en decepti#e impression o! the %&'.
<
-. No Definition of 0Tem)orary1
7he %&', 'rticle 1 titled .0e!initions3 does not de!ine 1hat is
.temporar4.3 (t merel4 states: .52S personnel5 means 2S militar4 and ci#ilian
personnel tem)orari!y in the Philippines.3
Blacks Law Dictionary, 8th edition 200<, de!ines .#isit3 in international
la1 as a na#al o!!icer5s boarding o! an ostensibl4 neutral merchant #essel !rom
another state to e/ercise the right o! search. 7he same la1 dictionar4 de!ines
.temporar43 as continuing !or a limited (usuall4 short) time.
The Oxford Dictionary of Law, 6
th
edition 2006, de!ines .#isiting !orces3 as:
.!orces !rom abroad, including their ci#ilian components.3 (t does not bother to
de!ine .temporar4.3
(n the absence o! con#entional dictionar4 de!initions o! the 1ords .#isit3
and .temporar43 as terms o! international la1, it becomes necessar4 to de!ine
these terms in an4 international agreement. Chen the %&' !ailed to de!ine these
terms, then the !ailure to do so 1as done 1ill!ull4 and in bad !aith. 7hese
unde!ined terms are each a lacuna, a blan) space. 7hese lacunae in substanti#e
in!ormation are purposel4 de#ious, in order to allo1 the 2S !orces to sta4
inde!initel4 in our countr4.
7hus, built into the %&' is a mechanism o! !le/ibilit4 that can deplo4 the
2S militar4 !orces in Philippine territor4 in a broad spread o! strategic purposes,
ma)ing the %&' an omnibus o! 2S militar4 presence o! #arious !orms and o!
#ar4ing ob@ecti#es.
-
7he histor4 o! the Senate contains certain de!ining moments, and one o!
them 1as Senate re@ection o! a ne1 proposed agreement !or the retention o! the
2S militar4 bases. 9ut that de!ining moment appears to ha#e been blurred, i! not
erased, b4 the %&', 1hich restores 2S militar4 presence in our countr4.
%. No Definition of 0A%ti"ities1
7he political leadership that has gi#en a decepti#e description o! the %&' as
designed onl4 !or .militar4 e/ercises3 1ill be put to shame b4 their o1n reading o!
the %&' te/t, 1hich NEVER uses the term .militar4 e/ercise3. 7he Preamble
merel4 states: .*ea!!irming their obligations under the Mutual 0e!ense 7reat4 o!
,0 'ugust 19-1.3 94 contrast, the te/t o! the %&' uses the term .acti#ities,3
1ithout de!ining it or setting its limits.
'lthough the .acti#ities3 o! 2S militar4 !orces under the %&' are
unbounded, not one o!!ice or agenc4 o! the Philippine go#ernment D including the
Senate D has e#er raised the !undamental issue as to the magnitude o! 2S militar4
presence that the %&' allo1s. Similarl4, the unlimited .acti#ities3 that the
Philippine go#ernment ma4 appro#e under the %&' has not been publicl4
discussed. 'nd 4et, the determination o! the true nature and e/tent o! the %&'
hinges on 1hat .acti#ities3 are contemplated b4 its ob@ect and purpose.
7he %&', 'rticle 1, ma)es mention o! .acti#ities appro#ed b4 the
Philippine Eo#ernment,3 1hich ma4 @usti!4 the presence o! 2nited States militar4
and ci#ilian personnel in the Philippines. 2nder 'rticle , (1), the Philippine
6
Eo#ernment is under dut4 to !acilitate the admission o! 2S personnel into the
Philippines .in connection 1ith acti#ities co#ered b4 this agreement3. Chat
.acti#ities3 are sub@ect to appro#al b4 the Philippine Eo#ernmentF and 1hat are
the .acti#ities co#ered b4 this agreement3 are >uestions that determine the nature,
purpose, scope, and !re>uenc4 o! .#isits3 that actuali6e the 2S militar4 presence.
7he result is that the %&', in circum#ention o! the prohibition against
!oreign militar4 presence under the $onstitution, opens the 1a4 to all !orms o!
militar4 acti#ities o! the 2S !orces in Philippine territor4, short o! establishing a
permanent militar4 base.
Strategy of For/ar, O)erating Bases
(t must be emphasi6ed that !ollo1ing the end o! the $old Car 1ith the
implosion o! the So#iet 2nion, the 2nited States shi!ted its strategic polic4 !rom
maintaining a permanent militar4 base. (t could be that changing po1er relations
ma4 re>uire basing arrangements, in particular because o! the emergence o! an
Bnem4 State, in sharpening con!lict situations that ma4 de#elop in 2S;$hina
relations. 9ut that is !or the !uture.
&or the present, the 2S polic4 is in !a#or o! !le/ible militar4 responses
to1ard the de#elopment o! .h4brid 1ar!are3 that calls !or >uic) mobili6ation o!
small speciall4 trained contingents, directed to speci!ic incidents. 7his is also
called .crisis response, rapid deplo4ment unit3.
G
7hese are part o! the ne1 'merican militar4 strateg4 o! !ighting so;called
as4mmetrical 1ars. 2nder this ne1 le/icon, 2S !orces establish $ooperati#e
Securit4 "ocations 1here the4 pre;position logistical support. 7he 'mericans
)eep these locations small to a#oid detection, but are prepared to con#ert them into
larger militar4 bases, 1hen it becomes necessar4.
2nder co#er o! the %&', the 2S in e!!ect operates these mobile and !le/ible
!or1ard operating bases. 7hese bases are not limited to training and capacit4
building. 7he4 go !urther b4 allegedl4 pro#iding .logistical and intelligence
support.3 7his term is so broad that under 2S interpretation, it allo1s actual
immersion in combat operations.
,
'n 'merican 1riter, in an article in the publication tlantic !onthly, said:
<

7here is high probabilit4 as 1ell as e/isting accounts that the 2S
!orces are engaged in combat operations. 7he 2S (nstitute !or
Peace, a 2S go#ernment !unded institution, describes the role o! the
2S !orces deplo4ed in Mindanao in its &ebruar4 2008 report. 7he
deplo4ment o! 2S !orces in Mindanao 1as not !or humanitarian
missions or ci#ic actions, but !or speci!ic militar4 ob@ecti#es.
2S Tas3 For%e Engages in Com-at
71o categories o! militar4 acti#ities under the %&' ha#e been established:
7he regular @oint militar4 e/ercises, 1hich re>uire tem)orary sta4 o!
2S !orces !or the duration o! each @oint e/erciseF and
7he =oint Special perations 7as) &orce Philippines (=S7&;P), here
)no1n as 7as) &orce. 7he 7as) &orce is intended to target .terrorists3, i.e. the
'bu Sa44a! Eroup ('SE) and the =emaah (slami4ah (=(), 1hich are both listed b4
8
the 2S 0epartment o! State as .!oreign terrorist organi6ations3. 94 its nature, the
7as) &orces, such as the =S7&;P, normall4 operate in 1ar 6ones as 2S
instruments in its .global 1ar against terror3.
7he !irst commander o! the 7as) &orce, $ol. 0a#id Ma/1ell, has clearl4
implied that combat operations are part o! its business. :e 1rote in a militar4
re#ie1 @ournal this @a1;dropping e/ample o! constitutional illiterac4:
-

7he deplo4ment o! 2.S. troops 1as contentious in;countr4,
because the local press asserted that 2.S. !orces could not legall4
participate in combat operations. Ho/e"er, a %orre%t rea,ing of the
$hi!i))ine Constit#tion re"ea!s that it )rohi-its on!y the
stationing of foreign for%es in the $hi!i))ines4 The Constit#tion
,oes not )rohi-it %om-at o)erations and pro#ides an e/ception to
this i! there is a treat4 in !orce and a treat4 has been in !orce bet1een
the t1o countries since 19-1. (Bmphasis added.)
+e1spaper reports, internet sources, and 2S militar4 accounts indicate that
through the 7as) &orce, 2S !orces are engaged in uncon#entional 1ar!are and
combat operations. $ol. Ma/1ell has described the 7as) &orce that he once led as
conducting operations .under the guise o! an e/ercise3.
6
(t is 1idel4 belie#ed too,
through 2S and Philippine sources, that 2S !orces ha#e established small;scale
militar4 bases in Aamboanga $it4 and Sulu.
0etailed accounts o! 2S militar4 presence in the Philippines are too
e/tensi#e to be treated in a short sponsorship speech. 'ccordingl4, ( am prepared
1ith an 'nne/ .'3 that gi#es a sampling o! the sources a#ailable, in particular
!rom 2S militar4 accounts.
9
'dding to the e/pansi#e meaning o! the term .acti#ities3 as used in the
%&', 2S 0e!ense Secretar4 Cilliam $ohen once declared that the %&' 1ould
enable 2S ships to ha#e port calls or regular calls, aside !rom militar4 training. (n
the period 'pril 2001 to ctober 200G, more than -0 2S 1arships entered
Philippine territor4 and doc)ed in #arious parts o! the Philippine archipelago.
G

M#t#a! Defense Treaty Irre!e"ant
Since this Senate !ailed to raise the !undamental issue as to the scope or
magnitude o! 2S militar4 !orces under the %&', 1hat .acti#ities3 ha#e been
per!ormed in practice in the course o! the %&' implementation?
94 decision o! the Mutual 0e!ense 9oard, the 2S;*P Mutual 0e!ense
7reat4 (M07) has been retooled into an anti;terrorism instrument, presumabl4 on
the basis o! agreement bet1een President 9ush and President 'rro4o. Huite
remote !rom the ob@ect and purpose o! the M07, anti;terrorist acti#ities ha#e
assumed a !ormal #ehicle in M07.
7his gi#es the impression that the anti;terrorism measures b4 2S militar4
!orces in Philippine territor4 are being carried out as a matter o! treat4 obligation
on the part Philippine go#ernment. 7hus, there 1ould be no need o! a separate
agreement on combating international terrorism, and conse>uentl4 there 1ould be
no need o! Senate appro#al through constitutional concurrence. (t is under the 2S
polic4 against terrorism that the 2S;*P @oint militar4 e/ercises ha#e been
conducted through the 4ears, such as the 9ali)atan e/ercises.
10
(t is routinel4 argued that the 1998 %&' merel4 implements the 19-1
Mutual 0e!ense 7reat4. 7hese t1o instruments are -0 4ears apart. :o1 could the
*P and the 2S pro#ide in 19-1 !or the problem o! terrorism in 1998? 'nd i! this
agreement is to be ta)en seriousl4, 1h4 is there no mention o! the Mutual 0e!ense
7reat4 in the te/t o! the %&'? 7he M07 is onl4 mentioned in the Preamble.
7he Philippine Supreme $ourt considers that the preamble is not an
essential part o! a statute: .7he preamble can neither e/pand nor restrict its
operation, much less pre#ail o#er its te/t. +or can a preamble be used as basis !or
gi#ing a statute a meaning not apparent on its !ace.3
8
(n an4 e#ent, the M07 merel4 declares in 'rticle <: .Bach part4 recogni6es
that an arme, atta%3 in the Paci!ic area or either o! the parties 1ould be
dangerous to its o1n peace and sa!et4, and declares that it 1ould act to meet the
common dangers in a%%or,an%e /ith its %onstit#tiona! )ro%esses.3
7hus, the M07 is irrele#ant to the %&'. 7here is no armed attac) against
the PhilippinesF 1hat 1e ha#e in Mindanao is an insurgenc4. (n case o! armed
attac) in the Philippines, 2S response 1ould not be automatic, but 1ould ha#e to
undergo 2S constitutional processes, 1hate#er the 'mericans 1ill concei#e it to
be.
(! $hina launches an armed attac) against the Philippines o#er o1nership
claims to the Spratle4s, 1ill the 2S come to the aid o! the Philippines? +o.
0uring this 4ear5s #isit to the Philippines, 2S 0e!ense Secretar4 *obert Eates 1as
>uoted as sa4ing: .7here are a number o! securit4 challenges and ob#ious
11
concerns on con!licting claims in the South $hina Sea. The 2S ta3es no )osition
on these %!aims.1
9
9ut in real"olitik, Eates 1as merel4 sa4ing that the 2S at this time cannot
a!!ord to antagoni6e the 2S. $hina has bought 2S treasur4 bonds 1orth 2SI1
trillion. 7hese so;called treasuries are documents o! loans borro1ed b4 the 2S.
:ence, the 2S o1es 2SI1 trillion to $hina.
Benefits Are I!!#sory
7he Philippines is not e#en among the 7op 7en Militar4 'id *ecipients o!
the 2S compiled b4 the $enter !or Public (ntegrit4 three 4ears a!ter the 9;11
bombings o! the 71in 7o1ers in +e1 Jor).
10
7he !ollo1ing list uses round
!igures:
1. (srael ; I 9 9
2. Bg4pt ; I 6 9
,. Pa)istan ; I <.6 9
<. =ordan ; I 2.6 9
-. '!ghanistan ; I 2.6 9
6. $olombia ; I 2 9
G. 7ur)e4 ; I 1 9
8. Peru ; I<<-.8 M
9. 9oli#ia ; I,20.6 M
10. Poland ; I,1, M
&rom MalacaKang, the %&' $ommission has produced the !ollo1ing list o!
!inancial aid !rom the 2S, as !ollo1s:
&oreign Militar4 &inancing since 1999 ; 2SI2-0 M
&oreign Militar4 Sales 2001;0G ; G6.- M
B/cess 0e!ense 'rticles 1999;200G ; G6.G M
12
7he 2S calls the Philippines as a ma@or non;+'7 all4, but treats us li)e a
shabb4 countr4 cousin. (n return !or the %&', 1hat 1e recei#e is paltr4, mostl4 in
the !orm o! B/cess 0e!ense 'rticles, in other 1ords, 2S militar4 @un). 'ccording
to the &ederation o! 'merican Scientists: .+ot 1anting to pa4 the cost o! things or
destro4ing the surplus, the 2S 0epartment o! 0e!ense dispenses most o! it !or
!ree, or at deep reduction through the e/cess de!ense articles (B0') program.3
(t is said that despite 4ears o! 'merican militar4 aid to the Philippines, the
'&P remains the most poorl4 e>uipped in 'sia. #aano, akala natin $i$i%yan tayo
n% merikano n% "am"a%ara, yon "ala, ukay&ukay an% ina$ot natin'
Con%!#sion
7his Senate should at best e/press the desire o! the thin)ing &ilipino to
renegotiate or else terminate the %&', !or the !ollo1ing reasons:
1. (t #iolates the Philippine $onstitution, 1hich pro#ides that the 2S as the
other contracting state should ha#e recogni6ed the %&' as a treat4, not as a mere
e/ecuti#e agreement.
2. 7he %&', to use a constitutional la1 term, is #oid !or #agueness, in that
it !ails to de!ine the crucial terms .#isit3, .temporar4,3 and .acti#ities.3
,. 7he Supreme $ourt opinion in the 2009 case o! Nicolas v. Romulo
su!!ers !rom doctrinal con!usion.
<. 'merican militar4 !orces constitute so;called !or1ard operating bases,
thus circum#enting the constitutional prohibition against !oreign militar4 bases.
1,
-. nl4 the preamble, not the te/t, o! the %&' mentions the ancient Mutual
0e!ense 7reat4, 1hich does not e#en pro#ide !or automatic 2S help in case o!
actual attac) on the Philippines.
6. 7he alleged !inancial bene!its under %&' !or the most part constitutes
2S militar4 @un).
G. 7he %&' is a !ailure, because a!ter 10 4ears, the '&P has not
moderni6ed su!!icientl4 to )eep up 1ith our 'sian neighbors, and the terrorist
groups are still acti#e.
7o top it all, on 21 'ugust 2009, the New (ork Times reported: .0e!ense
Sec. *obert M. Eates has decided to )eep an elite 600;troop counterinsurgenc4
operation deplo4ed in the Philippines.3 "adies and gentlemen o! the Senate, this
unilateral statement, issued 1ith the usual 'merican militar4 hubris, 1ithout
consultation and 1ithout the consent o! the proper Philippine authorities, is no less
than an act o! pro#ocation against our so#ereign countr4. Please, President
bama, sa4 it5s not true.
'nd please, ladies and gentlemen o! the Senate, do not continue to loo) the
other 1a4, because histor4 is loo)ing us straight in the !ace. Ce ha#e tried the
%&' !or ten 4ears and !ound it 1anting. (t is not !or this Senate to determine the
li!e e/pectanc4 o! the %&'. 7hat po1er belongs to the Philippine President.
7here!ore, at the #er4 least, this Senate should as) the e/ecuti#e branch o!
go#ernment either to renegotiate or to terminate the %&'.
1<
&or, as the immortal =ustice :olmes said: .(t must be remembered that in
>uite as great a degree as the courts, legislatures are the ultimate guardian o! the
liberties and 1el!are o! the people.3
;Bnd;
1-
FOOTNOTES
1
2S $onstitution, 'rt. 2, Sec. 2.

2
Cith sources !rom M. M. Magallona, Le%al )ssues in the R#&*+ ,isitin%
-orces %reement, 2.P. "a1 $enter, 1998, p.1.
,
=ohn :endren, .*ebels shoot at 2S 7roops in the Philippines,3 Los
n%eles Times, 18 =une 2002.
<
*obert 0. Laplan, .(mperial Erunts,3 tlantic !onthly, ctober 2008,
a#ailable online.
-
!ilitary Review .ournal, Ma4;=une 200<, as >uoted in -ocus on the
/lo$al +outh, 2ncon#entional Car!are, +o. 1 =anuar4 200G, pp. 8;10.
6
-ocus on the /lo$al +outh, 't the 0oor o! 'll the Bast, +o. 2, +o#ember
2002, pp. 60;61.
G
)nternational 0erald Tri$une, < 'ugust 1998.
8
#eo"le v. /arcia, 8- Phil. 66, (19-0).
9
Bllen 7ordesillas, =une 2009 online.
10
$enter !or Philippine (ntegrit4, .$ollateral 0anger: :uman *ights and
2S Militar4 'id '!ter 9M11,3 issued 22 Ma4 200G online.






16
1G