[28.1] SAGUISAG v OCHOA, JR.
GR No. 212426 & GR No. 212444 | Jan. 12, 2016 | Chief Justice Sereno| Freya Patron
G.R. No. 168613
PETITIONERS: Rene Saguisag, Wigberto Tanada, Francisco Nemenzo, Mary John
Mananzan, Pacifico Agabin, Esteban Salonga, Harry Roque, Jr., Evalyn Ursua, Edre
Olalia, Dr. Carol Araullo, Dr. Roland Simbulan and Teddy Casino
RESPONDENTS: Executive Sec. Paquito Ochoa, Jr., Dept. of National Defense Sec.
Voltaire Gazmin, DFA Sec. Albert del Rosario, Jr., DBM Sec. Florenico Abad and AFP
Chief of Staff Gen. Emmanuel Bautista.
G.R. No. 185571
PETITIONERS: BAYAN Rep Sec. General Renato Reyes, Jr., Bayan Muna Reps Neri
Colmenares and Carlos Zarate, Gabriela Reps Luz Ilagan and Emerenciana de Jesus,
Act Teachers Rep Antonio Tinio, Anakpawis Rep Fernando Hicap, Kabataan Rep
Terry Ridon, Makabayan Rep Saturnino Ocampo, Liza Maza, Bienvenido Lumbera,
Joel Lamangan, Rafael Mariano, Salvador France, Rogelio Soluta and Clemente
Bautista
RESPONDENT: Executive Sec. Paquito Ochoa, Jr., Dept. of National Defense Sec.
Voltaire Gazmin, DFA Sec. Albert del Rosario, Jr., DBM Sec. Florenico Abad and AFP
Chief of Staff Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino,
Amb. Lourdes Yparraguirre, Amb. Eduardo Malaya, DOJ Undersecretary Francisco
Baraan III and DND Assistant Sec. for Strategic Assessments Raymund Jose Quilop as
Chairperson and Members of the Negotiating Panel for the Phils. On EDCA
TOPIC: Presidency
CASE SUMMARY: The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an
executive agreement that gives U.S. troops, planes and ships increased rotational
presence in Philippine military bases and allows the U.S. to build facilities to store
fuel and equipment there. It was signed against the backdrop of the Philippines'
maritime dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea. The agreement was
signed on April 2014. President Benigno Aquino III ratified the same on June 2014. It
was not submitted to Congress on the understanding that to do so was no longer
necessary. Petitions for Certiorari were filed before the Supreme Court assailing the
constitutionality of the agreement. The Court held that the EDCA is constitutional. As
an executive agreement it remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that it
purports to implement.
DOCTRINE: 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. The mandate is self-executory by virtue of its being inherently
executive in nature. The import of this characteristic is that the manner of the
President's execution of the law, even if not expressly granted by the law, is
justified by necessity and limited only by law, since the President must "take
necessary and proper steps to carry into execution the law.
FACTS:
 The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an executive
agreement that gives U.S. troops, planes and ships increased rotational presence
in Philippine military bases and allows the U.S. to build facilities to store fuel and
equipment there. It was signed against the backdrop of the Philippines' maritime
dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea.
 The US embassy and DFA exchanged diplomatic notes confirming all necessary
requirements for the agreement to take force. The agreement was signedon April
2014. President Benigno Aquino III ratified the same on June 2014. It was not
submitted to Congress on the understanding that to do so was no longer
necessary.
 Petitions for Certiorari were filed before the Supreme Court assailing the
constitutionality of the agreement. Herein petitioners now contend that it should
have been concurred by the senate as it is not an executive agreement. The Senate
issued Senate Resolution No. 105 expressing a strong sense that in order for
EDCA to be valid and binding, it must first be transmitted to the Senate for
deliberation and concurrence.
ISSUES and RULING:
1. WON the EDCA between the Philippines and the U.S. is constitutional. (YES)
 The EDCA is an executive agreement and does not need the Senate's
concurrence. As an executive agreement, it remains consistent with existing
laws and treaties that it purports to implement.
 Petitioners contend that the EDCA must be in the form of a treaty duly concurred
by Senate. They hinge their argument under the following Constitutional
provisions: Sec. 21, Art. VII: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3rdsofall the Members ofthe
Senate.” + Section 25, Article XVIII: “ xxx 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 xxx ”
 The President, however, may enter into an executive agreement on foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities, if it is not the instrument that allows the
presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities; or it merely aims to
implement an existing law or treaty.
 In Commissioner of Customs v Eastern Sea Trading: Executive Agreements
are defined as international agreements embodying adjustments of detail
carrying out well-established national policies and traditions and those involving
arrangements of a more or less temporary nature.
 Treaties are formal documents which require ratification with the approval of
two-thirds of the Senate. The right of the Executive to enter into binding
agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approva lhas
been confirmed by long usage.
 The Visiting Forces Agreement – a treaty ratified by the Senate in 1999 – already
allowed the return of US troops. EDCA is consistent with the content, purpose,
and framework of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA. The practice of
resorting to executive agreements in adjusting the details of a law or a treaty that
already deals with the presence of foreign military forces is not at all unusual in
this jurisdiction.
 In order to keep the peace in its archipelago and to sustain itself at the same time
against the destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends. Who
they are, and what form the friendships will take, are for the President to decide.
The only restriction is what the Constitution itself expressly prohibits. EDCA is
not constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it remains consistent with
existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement.
2. WON the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military
bases, troops and facilities. (YES)
 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.
 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.
 The mandate is self-executory by virtue of its being inherently executive in
nature. The import of this characteristic is that the manner of the President's
execution of the law, even if not expressly granted by the law, is justified by
necessity and limited only by law, since the President must "take necessary
and proper steps to carry into execution the law.
 In light of this constitutional duty, it is the President's prerogative to do whatever
is legal and necessary for Philippine defense interests. It is no coincidence that
the constitutional provision on the faithful execution clause was followed by that
on the President's commander-in-chief powers, which are specifically granted
during extraordinary events of lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. And this
duty of defending the country is unceasing, even in times when there is no state
of lawlesss violence, invasion, or rebellion. At such times, the President has full
powers to ensure the faithful execution of the laws.
 It would therefore be remiss for the President and repugnant to the faithful-
execution clause of the Constitution to do nothing when the call of the moment
requires increasing the military's defensive capabilities, which could include
forging alliances with states that hold a common interest with the Philippines or
bringing an international suit against an offending state.
 Despite the President's roles as defender of the State and sole authority in foreign
relations, the 1987 Constitution expressly limits his ability in instances when it
involves the entry of foreign military bases, troops or facilities. The initial
limitation is found in Section 21 of the provisions on the Executive Department:
"No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate." The specific
limitation is given by Section 25 of the Transitory Provisions. It is quite plain that
the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution intended to add to the basic
requirements of a treaty under Section 21 of Article VII – “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 cast by the people in a
national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State.” This means that both provisions must be read as additional
limitations to the President's overarching executive function in matters of defense
and foreign relations.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, we hereby DISMISS the petitions.