Scribd
Upload
41 views1 page

Arthur D. Lim vs. Hon. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 151445) Case Digest

Arthur Lim and Paulino Ersando filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of "Balikatan-02-1", a joint military exercise between the Philippines and US. They argued it was not authorized by the Mutual Defense Treaty or Visiting Forces Agreement. SANLAKAS and PARTIDO intervened, claiming members would be affected. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mutual Defense Treaty and Visiting Forces Agreement gave legitimacy to the Balikatan exercise so long as US forces did not engage in combat on Philippine territory, which the exercise terms prohibited. With no current violation, the petitions were dismissed.

Uploaded by

Marifel Lagare
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
41 views1 page

Arthur D. Lim vs. Hon. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 151445) Case Digest

Arthur Lim and Paulino Ersando filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of "Balikatan-02-1", a joint military exercise between the Philippines and US. They argued it was not authorized by the Mutual Defense Treaty or Visiting Forces Agreement. SANLAKAS and PARTIDO intervened, claiming members would be affected. The Supreme Court ruled that the Mutual Defense Treaty and Visiting Forces Agreement gave legitimacy to the Balikatan exercise so long as US forces did not engage in combat on Philippine territory, which the exercise terms prohibited. With no current violation, the petitions were dismissed.

Uploaded by

Marifel Lagare
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ARTHUR D. LIM vs. HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (G.R.

No. 151445) Case Digest

Facts:

Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition attacking the
constitutionality of “Balikatan-02-1”. They were subsequently joined by SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG
MANGGAGAWA, both party-list organizations, who filed a petition-in-intervention. Lim and Ersando filed
suits in their capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers. SANLAKAS and PARTIDO on the other hand,
claimed that certain members of their organization are residents of Zamboanga and Sulu, and hence will
be directly affected by the operations being conducted in Mindanao.

The petitioners alleged that “Balikatan-02-1” is not covered by the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between
the Philippines and the United States. Petitioners posited that the MDT only provides for mutual military
assistance in case of armed attack by an external aggressor against the Philippines or the US. Petitioners
also claim that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does not authorize American Soldiers to engage in
combat operations in Philippine Territory.

Issue:

Is the “Balikatan-02-1” inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution?

Ruling:

The MDT is the core of the defense relationship between the Philippines and the US and it is the VFA which
gives continued relevance to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave legitimacy to the current Balikatan
exercise.

The constitution leaves us no doubt that US Forces are prohibited from engaging war on Philippine territory.
This limitation is explicitly provided for in the Terms of Reference of the Balikatan exercise. The issues that
were raised by the petitioners was only based on fear of future violation of the Terms of Reference.

Based on the facts obtaining, the Supreme court find that the holding of “Balikatan-02-1” joint military
exercise has not intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call for the correction on its part.

The petition and the petition-in-intervention is DISMISSED.

You might also like