UP Law F2021 Bayan v.

Zamora
Public International Law IL v. National Law Oct 10, Buena, J.
2000

SUMMARY
The VFA is being assailed in this consolidated petition for allegedly being done in grave abuse of discretion
and in violation of the requirements set forth in the constitution regarding treaties. The court here upheld
the validity of the VFA stating that it followed the requirements laid down in Article 7 and Article 18 of the
Constitution. The specifically assailed requirement is the acknowledgement of the USA that the VFA is a
treaty. The Court held that regardless of whether the US views the VFA as executive agreement or treaty is
not important because either way, both are regarded as treaties in international law. In any case, the Court
held that once the President ratifies any treaty, the senate is powerless to reverse the same, its powers
being limited only to concurrence to the ratification.

FACTS
 These consolidated petitions involve issues relating to and borne by the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) between the US and the Philippines:
o 1945: Military Bases Agreement formalized installations by the US Military in the Philippines.
o 1951: Mutual Defense Treaty
o 1991: Philippine Senate rejected the RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Security (which
would have extended the presence of US Military in the Philippines)
 With the expiration of the Military Bases Agreement, periodic military exercise between the
countries were held in abeyance.
 This notwithstanding, the defense and security relationship between the two persisted,
pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty.
o Negotiations between the two continued all the way up to 1997 and in 1998, President Estrada,
through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
 The President, through Exec. Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, transmitted to the Senate the
Instrument of Ratification (IR), the letter of the President and the VFA, for concurrence,
pursuant to Article 7.21 of the 1987 Constitution.
 The Senate referred the VFA to its Committee on Foreign Relations and its Committee on
National Defense and Security for their joint consideration and recommendation.The
Committees then submitted proposed Senate Resolution 443 recommending the
 concurrence and the creation of a Legislative Oversight Committee. The same resolution was
approved by the senate by 2/3 vote of its members.
 1999: the VFA officially entered intof force after an Exchange of Notes between respondent
Secretary Siazon and US Amb. Hubbard.
 These petitions were filed by legislators, non-governmental organizations, citizens and taxpayers. They
assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute to herein respondents grave abuse of discretion in
ratifying the agreement.
 Issues:
o Lous standi
o Is the VFA governed by Article 7.21 or Article 18.25 of the 87 Consti? (IMPORTANT FOR SESSION
21)
o Alleged abdication of Philippine Sovereignty
 Are domestic courts deprived of jurisdiction to hear and try offense committed by US army
personnel?
 Is the SC deprived of jurisdiction?
o Constitutionality
 Violative of EQP?
  Prohibition against Nuclear Weapons in Article 8.2?
o Violative of Article 6.28(4): granting exemption from taxes for US Armed Forces?

RATIO
Whether Art 18, Sec 25 or Art 7, Sec 21 is applicable
 Petitioners argue that Article 18 sec. 25 is applicable considering that the VFA has for its subject the
presence of foreign military troops.
o Article 18.25: “After the expiration in 1991 of the agreement between the RP and the USA concerning
Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except
under a treaty 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.”.
 Respondents argue that Article 7 sec. 21 should apply inasmuch as the VFA is not a basing agreement
but an agreement which involves merely the temporary visits fo the US personnel engaged in joint
military exercises
o Article 7.21: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by
at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.”
 Article 7.21 deals with treaties or international agreements in general (2/3 of Senate is required to
make subject treaty valid and binding on the part of the Philippines). This provision lays down the
general rule on treaties or international agreements and applies to any form of treaty with a
wide variety of subject matter, such as, but not limited to extradition, tax treaties, or those economic
in nature.
o All treaties entered into by the Phils. Regardless of subject matter, coverage, or particular
designation or appellation requires 2/3 concurrence of senate to be valid and effective.
 Article 18.25 is a special provision applying to treaties involving presence of foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities.
o The concurrence of senate is only ONE of the requisites to render compliance with the
Constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines.
o Said article further requires that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities may be allowed in the
Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in by Senate, ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress and recognized as
such by the other contracting state.
 Both provisions share common ground. They are both phrased in the negative and deemed prohibitory
in mandate and character.
 Whether under article 7 or article 18, the constitution is clear: concurrence of Senate is mandatory to
comply with the strict constitutional requirements.
 It is a finely-imbedded principle in statutory construction is that a special provision or law prevails over
a general one: lex specialis derogate generali.
 Where there is in the same statute a particular enactmend and 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 taken to affect only such cases within its general language which
are not within the provision of the particular enactment.

W/N requirements in Article 18.25 were complied with

 Article 18.25 disallows foreign military bases, troops, facilities unless the following conditions are
sufficiently met:
o Must be under a treaty
o 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
o The other contracting state recognizes as a treaty, the agreement.
 There is no dispute regarding the first two requisites in the case of the VFA
o congress did not require a national referendum
o As to the matter of voting, Article 7.21 particularly rquires that a treaty, to be valid and effective,
must be concurred in by at least two third of the senate. Article 18.25 simply provides that the
treaty be duly concurred in by the senate
  Applying the foregoing provisions, a 2/3 vote of Senate is clearly required so that the
concurrence contemplated by law may be validly obtained and deemed present.
 The provisions must be related and viewed together and not in isolation.
o Regarding the acknowledgement of USA of the VFA as a treaty: the Court is of the vew 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 (USA) to submit the VFA to the US
Senate for concurrence pursuant to its constitution is to accord strict interpretation to the phrase.
 The words used in the Consti are to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are
employed. Its language should be understood in the sense they have in commun use.
 Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the USA treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because
under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. As long as the VFA possess the
elements of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty.
 Worth stressing is that the ratification by the President of the VFA and the concurrence of the Senate
should be taken as a clear and unequivocal expression of our nation’s consent to be bound by said
treaty.
o 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.
o A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty.
o The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:
 The treaty provides for such ratification
 It is otherwise established that the negotiating State agreed that ratification should be required
 The representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification
 Or the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full
powers of its prepresentative or was expressed during the negotiation.
o In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in
the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or
concurrence to the ratification.
 Ratification of the VFA (equivalent to final acceptance) and exchange of notes between RP and
USA makes it obligatory on our port to be bound by the terms of agreement.

ON INTERNATIONAL LAW v. NATIONAL LAW

[ON IL V. MUNICIPAL LAW – RELEVANT TO SESSION 22]
 Petitioners contend that the phrase "recognized as a treaty," embodied in section 25, Article XVIII,
means that the VFA should have the advice and consent of the United States Senate pursuant to its own
constitutional process, and that it should not be considered merely an executive agreement by the
United States.
o Respondents argue that the letter of United States Ambassador Hubbard stating that the VFA is
binding on the United States Government is conclusive, on the point that the VFA is recognized as
a treaty by the United States of America. According to respondents, the VFA, to be binding, must
only be accepted as a treaty by the United States.
o Court: The phrase "recognized as a treaty" means that the other contracting party accepts or
acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.
 It is inconsequential whether the USA treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because under
international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. As long as the VFA possess the
elements of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty.
 In international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their
binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained
within their powers. International law continues to make no distinction between treaties and
executive agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations.
 In our jurisdiction, the Court itself has recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even
without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress, as per Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea
Trading.
 The ratification by the President of the VFA and the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as a clear
and unequivocal expression of our nation’s consent to be bound by said treaty.
o 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.
o A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty.
o The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:
 The treaty provides for such ratification
 It is otherwise established that the negotiating State agreed that ratification should be required
 The representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification
 Or the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full
powers of its prepresentative or was expressed during the negotiation.
 In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed,
in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or
concurrence to the ratification.
 With the ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to final acceptance, and with the exchange of notes
between the Philippines and the United States of America, it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on
our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement.
o No less than Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, declares that the Philippines adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
 As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines agrees to be bound by generally accepted
rules for the conduct of its international relations. While the international obligation devolves upon
the state and not upon any particular branch, institution, or individual member of its government, the
Philippines is nonetheless responsible for violations committed by any branch or subdivision of its
government or any official thereof. As an integral part of the community of nations, we are
responsible to assure that our government, Constitution and laws will carry out our
international obligation.
o Hence, we cannot readily plead the Constitution as a convenient excuse for non-compliance with
our obligations, duties and responsibilities under international law.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED.

NOTES
1) re: locus standi
> in view of paramount importance and constitutional significance of the issues raised, the Court
brushes aside the procedural barrier and takes cognizances of the petitioners.

2) re: grave abuse of discretion

>as regards the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the constitution vests the
same in the president subject only to concurrence of Senate. Into the field of negotiation the senate cannot
intrude and congress is powerless to invade it.
> No GAD