Bayan v. Zamora

TOPICS: Power of the President to enter into a treaty/international agreement, Concurring power of the Senate, VFA, pacta sunt servanda,

FACTS: 

On October 5, 1998, President Estrada ratified the Visiting Forces Agreement. The following day, Pres. Estrada officially transmitted to the Senate the instrument of ratification, the letter of the Pres., and the VFA for their concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. 

On May 27, 1999, the Senate, by a vote of 2/3, concurred the ratification of the Pres. On June 1, 1999, the VFA was officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes between Secretary Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard. The VFA 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. 

The petitioners assailed the Constitutionality of the VFA on the basis of transcendental importance, that Section 25 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution is applicable and not Section 21 of Article of VII,  

ISSUE: 

I) WON the petitioner have legal standing as citizens, taxpayers, or legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA.

II) WON VFA is governed by the provisions of Section 21, Article VII or Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution

III) WON the conditions under Section 25 are complied 

RULING

I.

No, the petitioner have no legal standing as citizens, taxpayers, or legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA.

A party bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law has to show that he has sustained or is in immediate, or imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. In this case, the petitioner failed to substantiate that they have sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of the operation of the VFA. 

Moreover, a taxpayer’s suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation. In this case,  the petitioners failed to allege that public funds are being misspent or illegally expended. 

As legislators, legal standing may be maintained if there is a clear showing of any direct injury to their person or to the institution to which they belong. In this case, the legislators failed to show direct injury. Moreover, the IBP lacks legal capacity in the absence of a board resolution from its Board of Governors authorizing the National President to commence the action.

II.

Both Section 21, Article VII and Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution are applicable and are not contradicting provisions.

Under the rules on statutory construction, where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which, in its most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language which are not within the provision of the particular enactment.

In this case, the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate which is provided under the general requirement of Article 21 is only one of the requisites under specific mandates in Section 25. Hence, Section 25 must be construed in related to the provisions of Section 21. 

III

Yes, the conditions under Section 25, Article XVIII are complied.

Section 25 of Article XVIII, disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

On the first condition: The Visiting Forces Agreement is the treaty. A treaty is an international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and whatever its particular designation. The other terms used for a treaty or international agreement are: act, protocol, agreement, compromis d' arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of notes, pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi.

On the second condition: The treaty was duly concurred in by the Senate. The fact that there were actually twenty-three (23) incumbent Senators at the time the voting was made, will not alter in any significant way the circumstance that more than two-thirds of the members of the Senate concurred with the proposed VFA, even if the two-thirds vote requirement is based on this figure of actual members (23). The provision in the latter article requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary since Congress has not required it.

On the third condition: The VFA was recognized as a treaty by the United States of America. Being recognized as a treaty means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. It inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement, without Senate approval, because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. 

------------ 

DISCUSSIONS:

The 1987 Constitution provides two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. 

Section 21, Article VII provides that, “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."

Section 25, Article XVIII provides that, "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 [1] under a treaty duly [2] 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 [3] recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State."

Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government, as the case may be, through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed. A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty. The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when: (a) the treaty provides for such ratification, (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States agreed that ratification should be required, (c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification, or (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative, or was expressed during the negotiation.

Effect of Ratification: The treaty becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement. Under the 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. 

Only the President has the Power to Enter into Treaties and International Agreements: As regards, the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the Constitution vests the same in the President, subject only to the concurrence of at least two-thirds vote of all the members of the Senate.

Treaty Concurring Power of the Senate: The role of the Senate in relation to treaties is essentially legislative in character; the Senate, as an independent body possessed of its own erudite mind, has the prerogative to either accept or reject the proposed agreement. Whatever action it takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality of the act.