D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)
BUENA,
J.:
I.
THE FACTS
The Republic
of the Philippines and the United States of America entered into an agreement
called the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a treaty by
the Philippine government and was ratified by then-President Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 of the total membership of the Philippine Senate.
The VFA defines the
treatment of U.S. troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to
govern such visits, and further defines the rights of the U.S. and the
Philippine governments in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of
vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and
supplies.
Petitioners
argued, inter alia, that the VFA
violates §25, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate . . . and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State.”
II. THE ISSUE
Was the VFA unconstitutional?
III.
THE RULING
[The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that the petitioners did
not commit grave abuse of discretion, and sustained the constitutionality of
the VFA.]
NO, the VFA
is not unconstitutional.
Section
25, 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.
There
is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the
VFA. The concurrence handed by
the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution . . . the provision in [in §25, Article XVIII] requiring
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being
unnecessary since Congress has not required it.
xxx xxx xxx
This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To require
the other contracting state, the
United States of America in this case, to submit the VFA to the United States Senate
for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to
the phrase.
Well-entrenched is the principle that the
words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except
where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus
attached to them prevails. Its
language should be understood in the sense they have in common use.
Moreover,
it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an
executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is
as binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements
of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken
equally as a treaty.
xxx xxx xxx
The
records reveal that the United States Government, through Ambassador Thomas C.
Hubbard, has stated that the United States government has fully committed to
living up to the terms of the VFA. For
as long as the United States of America accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a
treaty, and binds itself further to comply with its obligations under the
treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment