Saguisag vs. Ochoa
On March 14, 1947, Agreement between US and phil concerning
FACTS:
These consolidated petitions before the Court question the
constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation
Agreement (EDCA) 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 ( YOU MAY DISREGARD THIS)
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 was ensued between Phil. And US. The military victory
enabled the US to establish control over the Phil. Politically and
economically. Successive military governors exercising military,
executive and civilian functions were appointed;
7.
military bases was signed. ( president Roxas and US)
8. MBA gave the US the control of at least 16 bases including Clark
and Subic base as well as the access to use of Philippine facilities
such as Mactan Island Army and Florida Blanca in Pampanga
9. RP-US Military Assistance Agreement was signed provided for
the creation of JUSMAG ( Joint US Advisory Group and permanent
stationing of USmilitary forces in Manila;
10. Mutual Defense Treaty was signed in Washington. MDT lasted
for 25 years. Over the years, US military bases in the country served
as launching sites for US involvement in various wars such as
Vietnam war.
11. In 1987 the Phil constitution was ratified , which explicitly
prohibits foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the country
beyond the year 1991, except under a treaty concurred by Senate.
Therafter, Phil. Senate voted not to renew the MDT.
12. However, on May 27, 1999, the Phil Senate ratified the RP-US
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
13. Petitioner Bayan challenged the Constitutionality of VFA but the
agreement was upheld as valid.
14. In 2002 , Balikatan was launched to send US troops to Mindanao
to assist Phil forces in the war on terror against Abu Sayaff.
15. On Sep. 23, 2009, in the light of the Subic rape case and after
hearings regarding VFA , Senate paased a resolution calling on the
Executive to renegotiate the VFA and if the US refused, issue a
notice of termination of the agreement
16. In 2012, Pres. Obama announced its strategic pivot towards Asia
as laid down in Sustaining US global leadership, priorities for 21 st
century defense seeking to deploy 60% of its warship to Asia.
Thereafter, dialogues were made in Washington . The dialogue
ended with the Phil. Delegation clearly upon the instruction of Pres.
1|Page
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.
17. In 2013 , US-Phil began negotiations for the Framework
Agreement for increased rotational presence and enhanced defense
cooperation which sought to give US military access to the Phil
facilities. The framework was in the form of EXECUTIVE
AGREEMENT NOT NEEDING THE SENATE’S CONCURRENCE.
The negotiators the changed the name of the framework agreement
to EDCA ( enhanced defense cooperation Agreement)
18 April 28, 2014 DFA Sec. Gazmin and US Ambassador to Ph.
Philip Goldberg signed the EDCA.
19. It was only on April 29, 2014 , the text of EDCA was made
publicy available via government websites.
20. 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.
ISSUES:
1. A. Whether the President may enter into an executive
agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities? (YES)
B. Is EDCA a treaty or an international agreement that requires
Senate concurrence? (No)
HELD:
1. A. YES.The President may enter into an executive agreement
pertaining to foreign military bases, troops, or facilities. The role of
the President as the executor of the law includes the duty to
defend the State, for which purpose he may use that power in the
conduct of foreign relations. SC has interpreted the faithful execution
clause as an obligation imposed on the President, and not a
separate grant of power.
The President may enter into an executive agreement on
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not
the instrument that allows the presence of foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities; or (b) it merely aims to
implement an existing law or treaty.
The President had the choice to enter into EDCA by way
of a executive agreement or a treaty. 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.
Executive agreements may cover the matter of foreign
military forces if it merely involves detail adjustments.
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.
The executive agreement must be consistent with the
Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties.
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
The starting point of our analysis is the rule that "an
executive agreement xx x may not be used to amend a treaty.
Both the history and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty
and the VFA support the conclusion that combat-related
activities as opposed to combat itself such as the one subject
of the instant petition, are indeed authorized.
2|Page
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.
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. As previously mentioned, these points
shall be addressed fully and individually in the latter
analysis of EDCA's provisions. 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.
B. Meanwhile, the power of the President to enter into
binding executive agreements without Senate concurrence is
already well-established in this jurisdiction. Although the
provision of Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution provides that:
SECTION 25. 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 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.
The effect of this statement is surprisingly profound, for, if
taken literally, the phrase "shall not be allowed in the
Philippines" plainly refers to the entry of bases, troops, or
facilities in the country.
It is evident that the constitutional restriction refers solely to
the initial entry of the foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities. 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.
The VFA has already allowed the entry of troops in the
Philippines. 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. 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. Because of the status of these prior
agreements, respondent emphasizes that EDCA need not be
transmitted to the Senate.
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.
The duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land is inherent in
executive power and is intimately related to the other executive
functions. These functions include the faithful execution of the
law in autonomous regions; the right to prosecute crimes; the
implementation of transportation projects; the duty to ensure
compliance with treaties, executive agreements and
executive orders; the authority to deport undesirable aliens; the
conferment of national awards under the President's jurisdiction;
and the overall administration and control of the executive
department. These obligations are as broad as they sound, for
3|Page
a President cannot function with crippled hands, but must be ineffective. Both types of international agreement are
capable of securing the rule of law. nevertheless subject To the supremacy of the Constitution.

Executive agreements may dispense with the requirement of This rule does not imply, though, that the President is
Senate concurrence because of the legal mandate with given carte blanche to exercise this discretion. Although
which they are concluded. As culled from the deliberations the Chief Executive wields the exclusive authority to
of the Constitutional Commission, past Supreme Court conduct our foreign relations, this power must still be
Decisions, and works of noted scholars, executive exercised within the context and the parameters set by the
agreements merely involve arrangements on the Constitution, as well as by existing domestic and
implementation of existing policies, rules, laws, or international laws. There are constitutional provisions that
agreements. They are concluded (1) to adjust the details of restrict or limit the President's prerogative in concluding
a treaty; (2) pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of international agreements, such as those that involve the
the Legislature;or (3) in the exercise of the President's following:
independent power.

First, executive agreements must remain traceable to an

express or implied authorization under the Constitution, 1. The policy of freedom from nuclear weapons within
statutes, or treaties. The absence of these precedents puts Philippine territory
the validity and effectivity of executive agreements under 2. The fixing of tariff rates, import and export quotas,
serious question for the main function of the Executive is tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts,
to enforce the Constitution and the laws enacted by the which must be pursuant to the authority granted by
Legislature, not to defeat or interfere in the performance of Congress
these rules.
3. The grant of any tax exemption, which must be
In sum, executive agreements cannot create new pursuant to a law concurred in by a majority of all the
international obligations that are not expressly allowed or Members of Congress. The contracting or guaranteeing,
reasonably implied in the law they purport to implement. on behalf of the Philippines, of foreign loans that must be
Second, treaties are, by their very nature, considered previously concurred in by the Monetary Board.
superior to executive agreements. Treaties are products of the
acts of the Executive and the Senate unlike executive
agreements, which are solely executive actions. Because of
legislative participation through the Senate, a treaty is
regarded as being on the same level as a statute. 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

4|Page