MANILA, Philippines On Tuesday, January 12, the Supreme Court voted 104-1 to declare constitutional the Enhanced Defense

e Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA), the military deal signed by the Philippines and the United States in
2014.
The SC agreed with Malacaang in its position that EDCA is an executive
agreement and does not need the Senate's concurrence.
The EDCA gives US troops, planes, and ships increased rotational
presence in Philippine military bases, and allows Washington to build
facilities to store fuel and equipment there.
In declaring the EDCA constitutional, the SC noted the President's power to
enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities if it aims to implement an existing law or treaty, and if it is not
the very instrument that allows the presence and entry of these foreign
troops.
The High Court said that constitutional restrictions governing the entry of
foreign troops or facilities refer only to the initial entry. The Visiting Forces
Agreement a treaty ratified by the Senate in 1999 already allowed the
entry of US troops.
"Once entry is authorized, the subsequent acts are thereafter subject only
to the limitations provided by the rest of the Constitution and Philippine
law, and not to the Section 25 requirement of validity through a treaty.
The VFA has already allowed the entry of troops in the Philippines," the
court said.

It added, "The admission and presence of US military and civilian personnel in

Philippine territory are already allowed under the VFA, the treaty supposedly
being implemented by EDCA. What EDCA has effectively done, in fact, is
merely provide the mechanism to identify the locations in which US personnel
may perform allowed activities pursuant to the VFA. As the implementing
agreement, it regulates and limits the presence of US personnel in the
country."
The court also said that the military deal is consistent with the purpose and
framework of the VFA and the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the
Philippines and the US.
Concerning the creation of "agreed locations," or areas where US personnel
will be allowed to perform "activities approved by the Philippines," the SC
noted that the Philippine government retains primary responsibility and
sovereignty over these locations.
"Hence, Philippine law remains in force therein, and it cannot be said
that jurisdiction has been transferred to the US," the court said.
The SC also said there was no basis to fears that the Philippines may be
targeted by enemies of the United States, because the "agreed locations" in
the Philippines cannot be considered US territory or bonafide US military
facilities.
In the event that an agreed location comes under attack, the SC said that the
Philippines has ample legal protection under international law "that would
ensure its territorial integrity and national security."
{"Therefore, there is no basis to invalidate EDCA on fears that it increases the
threat to our national security. If anything, EDCA increases the likelihood that,

in an event requiring a defensive response, the Philippines will be prepared

alongside the US to defend its islands and insure its territorial integrity
pursuant to a relationship built on the MDT and VFA," it added.}
'EDCA necessary to defend PH'
In his separate concurring opinion, SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
argued that the EDCA was necessary to attain the purpose of the two
countries' MDT, which aimed to "declare publicly and formally their
sense of unity and their common determination to defend themselves
against external armed attack."
He cited the looming threat of China's military power in the contested West
Philippine Sea (South China Sea), which Beijing claims through its 9-dash line
despite the protests of other neighboring countries. The Philippines has
brought the dispute to an international court for arbitration.
In his 10-page opinion, Carpio outlined a brief history of China's actions in the
South China Sea, such as claiming Mischief Reef in 1995 and Scarborough
Shoal in 2012. It also built artificial islands supposedly for civilian purposes,
but the SC justice noted that the islands' configuration suggested an air and
naval base surrounding Philippine-occupied islands in the disputed Spratly
Islands.
To successfully defend the Philippines against the possibility of armed
aggression, Carpio said the prepositioning of war materials is essential.
"This is what the EDCA is all about the prepositioning in strategic locations
of war materials to successfully resist any armed aggression. Such
prepositioning will also publicly telegraph to the enemy that any armed
aggression would be repelled," Carpio said.

He added, "The enemy must know that we possess the capability, that is, the
war materials, to defend the country against armed aggression. Otherwise,
without such capability, we telegraph to the enemy that further seizure of
Philippine islands, rocks and reefs in the South China Sea would be a walk in
the park, just like China's seizure of Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal."
The SC justice said China is expected to "aggressively enforce" its claim over
the South China Sea using its contested 9-dash line. The Philippines, he said,
stands to lose 381,000 sq km of its exclusive economic zone in the West
Philippine Sea.
"The Philippines, acting by itself, cannot hope to deter militarily China from
enforcing its 9-dashed lines claim in the West Philippine Sea...Military and
security analysts are unanimous that there is only one power on earth that can
deter militarily China from enforcing its 9-dashed lines claim, and that power is
the United States," Carpio said.
"Without the EDCA, the MDT remains a toothless paper tiger. With the EDCA,
the MDT acquires a real and ready firepower to deter any armed aggression
against Philippine public vessels or aircrafts operating in the West Philippine
Sea," he added.

Supreme Court upholds

EDCA
Published January 12, 2016 2:14pm
Updated January 12, 2016 8:47pm
By MARK MERUEAS, GMA News

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Enhanced

Defense Cooperation Agreement between the Philippines and the
United States.
In its first en banc session for the year, the high tribunal affirmed
the validity of the pact that provided for the increased rotational
presence of US troops in the country.
The EDCA was upheld by a vote of 10 in favor, four against and one
taking no part.
Those who dissented to the majority ruling were associate justices
Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo Brion, Estela Perlas-Bernabe,
and Marvic Leonen.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio has written a concurring
opinion while De Castro, Brion, and Leonen wrote their respective
dissenting opinions.
Under the agreement negotiated by President Benigno Aquino III's
government, the US will be allowed to build structures, store as well
as pre-position weapons, defense supplies and materiel, station
troops, civilian personnel and defense contractors, transit and
station vehicles, vessels, and aircraft for a period of 10 years.
The constitutionality of the pact was upheld amid an ongoing
dispute between the Philippines and China due to overlapping
claims in the South China Sea.
It also comes just as the foreign and defense chiefs of the
Philippines and the United States will hold a meeting in Washington
next week. The two sides will discuss all fronts of the two countries
relations, specifically economic, political, security and defense
issues.

The US has also expressed its opposition to China's claims in the

disputed waters, citing the need for freedom of navigation in the
area.
China's claims, based on a unilateral nine-dash-line map, is now the
subject of a Philippine case before the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in The Hague.
Not a treaty
SC spokesman Theodore Te said the high court upheld the
agreement's constitutionality "on the ground of Article 18, Section
25 of the Constitution, which allows the President to enter in an
executive agreement on foreign military bases if it is not an
instrument that allows foreign military bases or it aims to implement
existing law or treaty holding that EDCA is one such agreement."
"As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive
agreement, it remains consistent with existing laws and treaties that
it purports to implement," said the SC in a ruling penned by Chief
Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
The SC ruled that the President had the power to enter into
executive agreements, which the tribunal said are "different from
treaties. This is well-recognized and long upheld by the court."
The high court stressed that the defense pact "is not the instrument
that allows troops to enter, as the Visiting Forces Agreement has
already done that."
The tribunal disagreed with the Senate's position that the EDCA
should have first been submitted to the Senate in the form of a
treaty for concurrence by at least two-thirds of all its members.

"The EDCA provides for arrangements to implement existing treaties

allowing entry of foreign military troops or facilities under the VFA
and the [Mutual Defense Treaty], and thus may be in the form of an
executive agreement solely within the powers of the President and
not requiring Senate concurrence under Article XVIII, Sec. 25," read
the decision.
The SC said no court can tell the President to desist from choosing
an executive agreement over a treaty to embody an international
agreement.
"Rather, in view of the vast constitutional powers and prerogatives
granted to the President in the field of foreign affairs, the task of the
Court is to determine whether the international agreement is
consistent with the applicable limitations," it added.
The SC said the President has the option to choose the form of an
agreement other than through a treaty, provided that the
agreement dealing with foreign military bases, troops or facilities is
not the principal agreement that first allowed the entry or presence
in the Philippines.
Likewise, the executive agreement must be consistent with the
Constitution, as well as with existing laws and treaties.
The SC said the respondents in the case succeeded in "discharging
the burden to show that [the EDCA] is a mere implementation of
existing laws and treaties concurred in by the Senate."
Will boost PHL defense capability
The 10-year agreement, signed in 2014 but not implemented due to
legal challenges, will see more US troops and warships rotate
through the Philippines, and the hosts will receive help in building
military facilities.

Reacting to the SC decision, Malacaang reiterated that the defense

pact would boost the country's defense capability as well as the
government's humanitarian and relief assistance capabilities.
Iyong EDCA ay itinuturing ng pamahalaan na isang mahalagang
bahagi 'nung imprastruktura para palakasin ang ating Sandatahang
Lakas, said Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr.
Hindi lamang para sa pagtatanggol sa bansa o hindi lamang ukol sa
seguridad ng bansa kung hindi rin sa kapabilidad nito na
makapaghatid ng humanitarian and relief assistance sa panahon ng
kalamidad, he added.
The Philippines negotiated the accord to help the country improve
its military capabilities and draw the United States closer, partly to
counter a fast-expanding Chinese presence in disputed parts of the
South China Sea.
US President Barack Obama also pushed hard for the EDCA as part
of his so-called strategic "pivot" to Asia that has involved
strengthening the American military presence in the region. It was a
main topic of conversation between Obama and Aquino in last
November's bilateral meeting in Manila.
However, the EDCA faced immediate legal challenges from groups
opposed to US military involvement in the Philippines, a US colony
from 1898 to 1946.
The Philippines hosted two of the largest overseas US military bases
until 1992, the year after the Philippine Senate voted to end the
leases in the face of strong anti-US sentiment.
Philippine military chief General Hernando Iriberri immediately
welcomed Tuesday's ruling, saying the accord would help the

country address short-term "capability gaps" and modernise its

armed forces.
Iriberri also emphasized the pact would help the Philippines
"maintain maritime security", a term commonly used when referring
to efforts to contain China's expansion in the sea.
Shortly after the high tribunal's announcement, the US Embassy in
Manila also released a statement lauding the development.
"The US welcomes the Supreme Courts decision to uphold the
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which will
further strengthen the U.S.-Philippine bilateral relationship," the
statement read.
"EDCA is a mutually beneficial agreement that will enhance our
ability to provide rapid humanitarian assistance and help build
capacity for the Armed Forces of the Philippines. We look forward to
working closely with our Philippine partners on the implementation
of this agreement," it added.
Petitions vs. EDCA
The SC denied the petitions filed separately by former senators Rene
Saguisag and Wigberto Taada, and by another group composed of
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and incumbent and former members
of the House of Representatives.
In their petition, Saguisag and Taada both claimed EDCA's terms
and provisions were lopsided in favor of the Americans.
The second batch of petitioners, meanwhile, said the EDCA went
against the Philippines' national interest, is disadvantageous to
Filipinos, and is mainly motivated by the US strategic re-balancing

towards Asia and is therefore in the service of US security and

economic interests.
The petitioners warned that the EDCA would grant the US carte
blanche power to establish and operate de facto military bases
anywhere on Philippine soil, minus the cost of paying for one.
They also said the agreement would be a mere implementation of
policies enshrined in the PHL-US Mutual Defense Treaty a treaty
whose constitutionality is being challenged for the first time before
the high court with Saguisag and Taada's petition.
Weakest armed forces
Filipino and US embassy officials declined to give details on Tuesday
as to how quickly the pact would be implemented, or specifics such
as which bases would be used by the Americans.
But Filipino officials previously said the United States would be
offered access to key bases, including those facing the South China
Sea that would allow rapid deployment into the waters.
The Philippines and the United States are already bound by a mutual
defense treaty signed in 1951 and a visiting forces agreement
signed in 1998.
The Philippines, which has one of Asia's weakest armed forces, has
for decades heavily relied on US military aid for weapons and
training.
And thousands of American troops pass through the country for
regular war games that are authorised under the 1998 agreement.
US navy ships also often make port calls.

But in recent years the tensions with China have seen Aquino's
government seek even greater US military and diplomatic support.
China claims almost all of the South China Sea, despite conflicting
claims from the Philippines as well as Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and
Brunei.
In April 2012, after a tense stand-off with Philippine ships, Chinese
vessels took control of a shoal just 220 kilometres (135 miles) off the
main Philippine island of Luzon.
The Philippines has since become the most vocal critic of China's
efforts to claim the waters, including its strategy of turning islets
into artificial islands that can host military facilities.
With its own armed forces unable to counter China, the Philippines
had no choice but to draw in the United States and its allies such as
Japan, according to security analyst Rodolfo Mendoza.
"Our only option is partnership with the US and other allies,"
Mendoza told Agence France=Presse. with Kathrina Charmaine
Alvarez/NB/RSJ/JST, GMA News with Agence France-Presse
- See more at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/550882/news/nation/supremecourt-upholds-edca#sthash.6yiZELTQ.dpuf

The high court ruled that EDCA is an executive agreement that does not
need Senate concurrence.
It explained that the Constitution allows the president to enter into an
executive agreement that allows the presence of foreign troops or facilities
as long as the deal carries out an existing law or treaty.

EDCA carries out the provisions of the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement and
1951 Mutual Defense Treaty.
The SC also said the president's power to enter into executive agreements
is "well-recognized and long upheld by the high court."
The majority agreed the president must have broader authority and wider
discretion in the conduct of external affairs.
No less than Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno penned the decision,
which was concurred by nine other justices.
Those who dissented include Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-De
Castro, Arturo Brion, Marvic Leonen, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
Being the former solicitor general, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza took
no part in the decision.

Government, US embassy welcome SC decision

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) welcomed the ruling of the high
court, saying "the decision bodes well for deepening our defense
cooperation with a key ally."
"As part of our shared goals with the U.S. under this agreement, we look
forward to further enhancing interoperability, addressing short-term
capability gaps, promoting long term modernization of our forces, helping
maintain maritime security and maritime domain awareness, and human
assistance and disaster relief (HADR) capabilities," the statement from the
AFP added.
Malacaang also welcomed the decision of the SC.

"This ruling boosts the on-going AFP modernization program and paves the
way for upgrading our military equipment and capability for national
defense as well as for humanitarian assistance and disaster response,"
said Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma.
The U.S. Embassy for its part said that "the EDCA is a mutually beneficial
agreement that will enhance our ability to provide rapid humanitarian
assistance and help build capacity for the Armed Forces of the Philippines."

Critics: Sad day for Philippine sovereignty

While proponents of EDCA rejoiced over the SC decision, critics said that
today is a "sad day for Philippine sovereignty."
The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) said it will consider filing a
motion for reconsideration before the high court.
"We shall immediately consult with our lawyers regarding a possible motion
for reconsideration, especially since the SC vote was not unanimous. We
shall continue to expose and oppose U.S. military intervention in the
Philippines," said BAYAN Secretary General Renato Reyes Jr.
"The Filipino people must now resolutely oppose the return of U.S. bases
and all the social ills associated with these bases," added Reyes.
Instead of being a treaty, the SC said EDCA was an executive agreement that merely aims to
implement already existing treaties ratified by the Senate: the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT)
and the 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it remains consistent with
existing laws and treaties that it purports to implement, stated the dispositive portion of the decision
penned by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno.
Associate Justices Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen dissented, while Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza inhibited.
A full copy of the decision, as well as one concurring opinion and three dissenting opinions, is yet to be
released as of this reporting.
NOT THE INSTRUMENT
In effect, Mr. Te said the SC disagreed with Senate Resolution No. 105. Adopted on Nov. 10, 2015, the

Senate resolution said EDCA must be submitted to the chamber as a treaty for concurrence of twothirds of its members.
But the SC said Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution allows President Benigno S. C.
Aquino III to enter into an executive agreement and not necessarily a treaty, if the pact merely aims
to implement existing laws and treaties.
In ruling that EDCA was not a treaty, the high court noted that it was not the instrument that
allowed US troops or facilities to enter the country, as the VFA already did so back in 1999.
The EDCA provides for arrangements to implement existing treaties allowing entry of foreign military
troops or facilities under the VFA and the MDT, and thus may be in the form of an executive agreement
solely within the powers of the President and not requiring Senate concurrence..., the court said.
The high court pointed out that Mr. Aquino can exercise his prerogative to choose which form
international deals can take, and that no court can order him not to choose an executive agreement
over a treaty.
Authorities from both the Philippines and the United States welcomed the ruling. The Department of
Foreign Affairs said in a statement that with the SC ruling, the two governments can now proceed in
finalizing the arrangements for its full implementation.
The US Embassy in Manila in its statement said the decision will further strengthen the US-Philippine
bilateral relationship, a point affirmed by the Malacaang.
In his statement, Communications Secretary Herminio B. Coloma, Jr. recalled Mr. Aquinos words that
the EDCA will introduce the Armed Forces of the Philippines to the most modern equipment... and
have a generational leap in our abilities. He added that the EDCA will enhance the countrys disaster
response capabilities.
AFP Chief Gen. Hernando Delfin Carmelo A. Iriberri in a text message said this decision bodes well for
deepening our defense cooperation with a key ally. He said the military look[s] forward to
addressing short-term gaps and long-term modernization of the countrys forces, and help maintain
maritime security and maritime domain awareness.
For his part, Defense department spokesman Peter Paul Ruben G. Galvez said: With this development
that builds upon our mutual defense treaty, we look forward to advancing our defense modernization
and strengthening Maritime Security and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief capabilities.
Likewise, this puts us in a better position to improve our interoperability with the US and increase our
Armed Forces capacities.
In an interview with Reuters, security expert Rommel C. Banlaoi said the EDCA will strengthen the
alliance between Manila and Washington beyond Mr. Aquinos administration.
EDCA will be Aquinos legacy for the next administration that is bound to implement it, Mr. Banlaoi
said. It can boost US leverage in balancing China, particularly in the context of the growing US-China
power struggle in the South China Sea.
The new pact, however, is only intended to be in place for 10 years from 2014, an AFP report noted.
EDCA CRITICS TO APPEAL
The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), the left-wing umbrella group that led one of the two
petitions, said the issuance of the ruling was another sad day for Philippine sovereignty as the SC
upheld the validity of the EDCA.
Secretary-General Renato M. Reyes, Jr. said the petitioners will immediately consult with our lawyers
to launch an appeal through a motion for reconsideration, noting the SCs vote was not unanimous.
Another petitioner, the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), said in a statement that EDCA only further violates

Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, further endangers Filipino lives and properties, and
further imperils the environment.
The KMU statement also recalled the bloody Mamasapano incident last year, which it said involved US
military presence.
Mr. Reyes maintained the EDCA is not the solution to the problem of Chinas incursions, not when the
EDCA also violates PH sovereignty.
Saying the US only wanted to use the country as a launching pad for military intervention and power
projection in the region, he said: Neither will the EDCA lead to AFP modernization, much the same
way that the 1947 US Bases Agreement did not develop our armed forces.
Mr. Reyes said the SCs decision is a de facto reversal of the Senates historic 1991 vote rejecting a
treaty to extend the life of US bases in the country.
Notably, two of the senators in that vote, Rene A. V. Saguisag and Wigberto E. Taada, led in filing the
other petition, the first to contest EDCA.
Lawyer Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr., who joined the senators in their petition, said in a statement that
the SC ruling created a constitutional crisis between the Senate and the Court.
Aside from disclosing plans to appeal, Mr. Roque urged the Senate to exercise its political powers
through the power of impeachment as the high court breach[ed]... [its] duty to uphold the
supremacy of the Constitution.
EDCA was signed by Defense Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin and US Ambassador Philip S. Goldberg on
April 28, 2014, a few hours before US President Barack H. Obama arrived for his state visit. The
agreement would allow the US to construct facilities and preposition various defense and disaster
response equipment in designated areas within a few AFP bases to be agreed upon by both
countries, according to gov.ph. -- with Alden M. Monzon, AFP and Reuters

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago also criticized the decision, saying the high court failed to rise above its
problematic ruling on the VFA.
The Supreme Court contradicts the power of the Senate. The Constitution clearly states that without
Senate concurrence, no treaty can become law. Now, the court is saying that the executive may call
agreements by another name in order to bypass the Senate, the lawmaker said.
Leonen opened his dissent with the line Para kayong mga birhen na naniniwala sa pag-ibig ng isang
puta (You are all like virgins who believe in the love of a whore) quoted from the movie Heneral Luna.
The scene showed General Antonio Luna rebuking those who believed that the US would respect
Philippine independence.
History will now record that in 2016, it is this Supreme Court that said yes to the EDCA. This decision
now darkens the colors of what is left of our sovereignty as defined in our Constitution. The majoritys take
is the aftermath of squandered opportunity, the youngest magistrate lamented.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Leonen concluded his 58-page dissent saying the majority succeeded in emasculating the Constitution,
effectively erasing the blood, sweat and tears shed by Filipino martyrs.
I register more than my disagreement. I mourn that this court has allowed this government to acquiesce
into collective subservience to the Executive power, contrary to the spirit of our basic law, he lamented.
De Castro opined that EDCA is entirely a new treaty that needs Senate concurrence as required under
Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution.
She believes the agreement that allows the construction of permanent buildings for US troops, bunkering
of vessels, maintenance of vehicles and the storage and prepositioning of defense materiel proves the
permanent nature of stay of the American forces in the country.
While it is true that the Philippines cannot stand alone and will need friends within and beyond this region
of the world, still we cannot offend our Constitution and bargain away our sovereignty, De Castro
reasoned in her 28-page dissent.
Brion said in his 65-page separate dissenting opinion that EDCA widened the scope of VFA and the
Treaty of 1951. He suggested to have it suspended and to give the executive branch 90 days to get a
concurrence. If the President fails to do so, then the majority ruling would be affirmed.
To accord a lesser respect for our own Constitution is to invite Americas disrespect for the Philippines as
a co-equal, sovereign and independent nation, Brion stressed.
Although critical of the decision, Santiago said the Senate has to abide by the decision as she urged her
colleagues to reiterate their position that the government must renegotiate or abrogate EDCA. With
Christina Mendez

From the Department of Foreign Affairs

1. What is the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)?

The EDCA is an agreement between the Philippines and the United States which is
envisioned to advance the implementation of the Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty
(MDT).
2. What purpose does the EDCA serve?
The EDCA is designed to promote the following between the Philippines and its defense
treaty ally the United States:

Interoperability
Capacity building towards AFP modernization
Strengthening AFP for external defense
Maritime security
Maritime domain awareness
Humanitarian assistance and disaster response (HADR)

3. How will these objectives be achieved?

We are currently holding joint training exercises, such as the Balikatan, and undertaking
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief cooperation activities, i.e., during the
aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan).
To improve on the above, we intend to undertake additional cooperation by way of (1)
Construction of facilities and infrastructure upgrades; and (2) Storage and
prepositioning of defense and HADR equipment, supplies and material.
4. Where will the construction and prepositioning take place?
These will take place in designated areas within a few AFP bases to be agreed upon by
both Parties.
5. What principles were adhered to in ensuring that the national interests are
protected and advanced?
Upon the instructions of the President, we observed the following principles:

Strict compliance with the Philippine Constitution, laws and jurisprudence;

Utmost respect for Philippine sovereignty;
Requirement for Philippine consent for all activities;
No permanent presence or base by US troops in the Philippines;
Full Philippine control over facilities to be used;
Mutuality of benefits;
Non-exclusivity of use of the designated areas for US armed forces;
Enhancement of AFP capabilities through joint training exercises;

Prohibition of nuclear weapons; and,

US commitment for long-term AFP capability build-up.

6. What are the main features of EDCA?

Consistent with the Presidents guidelines, the agreement has the following main
features:

Clear provision that the US would not establish a permanent military presence or
base in the Philippines;
US access to and use of designated areas in AFP owned and controlled facilities
(Agreed Locations) will be at the invitation of the Philippine Government;
Prior consent of the Philippines, through the Mutual Defense Board (MDB) and
Security Engagement Board (SEB), with regard to US access and use of Agreed
Locations which may be listed in an annex and further described in implementing
arrangements;
Philippines retention of primary responsibility for security of the Agreed
Locations;
Access of the AFP base commander to the entire area of the Agreed Locations;
Philippine ownership of buildings and infrastructure once constructed by US
military;
Sharing and joint use of facilities in the Agreed Locations, including those built by
the US military;
Value of prepositioned materiel in the enhancement of AFP defense capabilities
and possible transfer or purchase of materiel determined to be excess;
Prohibition of entry to the Philippines of nuclear weapons, and reference to
respective obligations of both Parties under the Chemical Weapons Convention
and the Biological Weapons Convention;
Strong commitment by both Parties in protecting the environment, human health
and safety;
Preference for Philippine suppliers of goods, products and service in US military
procurement; and,
Regular consultation on the implementation of the agreement.

7. How does the Philippine Government envision defense cooperation with the
US?
The Philippines will strengthen its capabilities for external and territorial defense by
continuing to work with its treaty ally in a mutually beneficial way in line with what is
allowed by the Philippine Constitution.
8. What other benefits will the Philippines derive from EDCA?

In addition to interoperability, maritime security, maritime domain awareness, capacity

building and more expeditious HADR, the Agreement will further benefit the Philippines
economically through the provision of jobs and other economic opportunities in the
construction activities in the Agreed Locations and procurement of local goods and
supplies by the US military and personnel.
9. What is the reason behind the change in the title of the agreement from
Increased Rotational Presence Framework Agreement to Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement?
The change in the title reflects the desire of the Philippines and the US for a more
comprehensive agreement that covers the full range of enhanced defense cooperation,
including developing maritime security, maritime domain awareness and humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief capabilities. Increased rotational presence is just one
modality of enhanced defense cooperation.
10. Is EDCA constitutional?
Yes. EDCA provides that the access and use of AFP facilities by the US military will be
at the invitation of the Philippines and with full respect for the Philippine Constitution
and Philippine laws.
The constitutional provision which prohibits the establishment of foreign military
bases or facilities in the country except under a treaty duly concurred in by the
Senate does not apply to EDCA.
The defining features of foreign military bases extraterritoriality, exclusivity in use
and foreign ownership will not be applicable in the Agreed Locations.
On the other hand, the entry of US military troops for military exercises and other
approved activities is already allowed under the PH-US Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) which is a treaty concurred in by the Senate and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The provisions of EDCA, an executive agreement, are consistent with the Philippine
Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence.
11. Does EDCA mean the return of US bases in the Philippines?
The Agreement is very clear on this matter and specifies in the Preamble the Parties
understanding for the US not to establish a permanent military presence or base in the
territory of the Philippines.
EDCA does not authorize the establishment of US bases. It allows the US military
access to Agreed Locations.

12. Does EDCA give the US military blanket authority to build facilities in AFP
military bases? Will the Philippines have access to these facilities? Who will own
them?
Under EDCA, before constructions and other activities can be undertaken, prior consent
of the Philippines will have to be secured through the Mutual Defense Board (MDB) and
Security Engagement Board (SEB) which were established under the MDT and the
VFA. The AFP base commander will have access to the entire area of the facilities
shared with the US military. The Philippines will also own any building and similar
infrastructure that will be built by the US military.
13. Will EDCA also provide a blanket authority for all activities of the US troops in
the future?
No. Activities to be undertaken under EDCA will have to be approved by the Philippines
through the MDB and SEB.
14. How long will EDCA be in effect?
EDCA will have an initial term of 10 years. There will be regular bilateral consultations
on the implementation of the Agreement.
15. How many US personnel will be allowed into the Philippines under this
Agreement?
The number of visiting US personnel will depend on the scale and the frequency of the
activities to be approved by both Parties.
There will be no stationing of US personnel under EDCA. US personnel will come on
temporary and rotational basis in relation to activities that will be held in AFP facilities.
16. Will the entry of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons
be allowed under the EDCA?
EDCA clearly provides that the materials the US military may bring into the country
shall not include nuclear weapons, in compliance with the Philippine Constitution.
EDCA also reaffirms the two countries respective obligations under the Convention on
Chemical Weapons and Convention on Biological Weapons.
17. Which AFP bases will be shared with and used by the US under EDCA?
The designated areas in a limited number of AFP bases that will be shared and jointly
used with the US will be specified in an annex and agreed implementing arrangements.
Given the mutuality of benefits to be derived from the Agreement (such as making
available defense and HADR equipment, supplies and materiel for the benefit of the
Philippines), the areas will be made available to US forces without rental. In addition,

the buildings and other infrastructure to be constructed by the US military will be owned
by the Philippines.
18. How will the Philippines benefit from the prepositioning of US military
equipment?
EDCA recognizes the value of prepositioning and storing equipment, supplies and
materiel to the enhancement of the AFPs defense capabilities.
Moreover, prepositioned materiel will allow for timely responses in the event of disasters
natural or otherwise. This is well recognized by the Philippines and the United States.
As stated in Article IV para 2, The Parties share a recognition of the benefits that such
prepositioning could have for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
19. How will EDCA improve humanitarian assistance and disaster relief?
As shown in the aftermath of Typhoon Yolanda, the need for timely delivery of relief
assistance is critical.
Under EDCA, activities aimed at increasing and strengthening the Parties individual
and collective HADR capabilities will be facilitated and strengthened through
prepositioned materiel and closer cooperation with the US.
20. Does EDCA address concerns on environmental protection and human health
and safety?
Yes. This is a landmark and defining feature of EDCA.
This agreement has robust provisions on environmental protection, human health and
safety, including the adoption of a preventative approach to environmental protection,
the application of environmental compliance standards that reflect the more protective
of Philippines, US or applicable international agreement standards, immediate action to
contain and address environmental contamination resulting from spills, and other
measures.
21. How does EDCA relate to the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT)?
The MDT obligated the Philippines and the United States to maintain and develop their
individual and collective defense capabilities.
EDCA is therefore within the ambit and in furtherance of the MDT.
22. How does EDCA relate to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)?

The VFA lays out the terms and conditions on the entry and visit of US military
personnel for military exercises. These provisions shall likewise apply to the entry and
temporary stay of US personnel under EDCA.
23. If the above activities are within the ambit of the MDT and VFA, why is there a
need for a new agreement on enhanced defense cooperation?
In advancing the benefits that could be derived from our defense alliance with the
United States, we needed to articulate the parameters, modalities and mechanisms to a
greater degree.
24. Does EDCA address the matter on criminal jurisdiction and custody of
indicted servicemen?
With the finalization of EDCA, we can now fast track the bilateral consultations on the
implementing arrangements of the VFA.
25. Will EDCA affect bilateral relations with neighboring countries?
EDCA reaffirms the desire of both the Philippines and the United States to strengthen
international and regional security and stability, a common and shared interest of
countries in the region.
26. What will be our neighbors reaction to this Agreement?
We would hope that this Agreement will also be viewed by our neighbors as a positive
contribution towards peace and stability in the region.
27. Is it true that the negotiation was rushed in order to coincide with US
President Barack Obamas visit to the Philippines?
The pace of negotiations for EDCA was dictated by the need for full understanding and
consensus by both negotiating panels on all provisions of the Agreement. It was more
important for both parties to come up with an Agreement that would be fully and
mutually acceptable to both sides consistent with their respective laws.
28. How long did the negotiations take?
The eight rounds of negotiations and preceded by preparatory discussions took almost
two years to complete.
29. Was the Philippine Congress briefed on this Agreement?
During the course of the negotiations, the leadership of both Houses of Congress was
informed of the progress of the negotiations. We will be scheduling a full briefing for
interested members of Congress.

30. Do we have the support of the Filipino people for EDCA?

A recent Social Weather Station survey showed at least 7 out of 10 Filipinos support
measures to strengthen the countrys defense capabilities and that the Philippines may
ask its partners in achieving this objective.
Through EDCA, the Philippines will cooperate with its defense treaty ally in further
strengthening their respective individual and collective defense capabilities.
All Filipinos should unite in support for a stronger Philippines.
The EDCA is a supplemental agreement to the previous Visiting Forces
Agreement. Evan Medeiros, the U.S. National Security Council's senior director
for Asian affairs was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "This is the most
significant defense agreement that we have concluded with the Philippines in
decades."
Dissenting: Leonen insisted in his piece that the EDCA signed by

Defense Secretary voltaire Gazmin and US Ambassador to the

Philippines Philip Goldberg is not binding unless concurred in by the
Philippine Senate, as stated under Article 18, Section 25 and Article
7, Section 21 of the Constitution.
The associate justice is also of the opinion that the EDCA amended
the Visiting Forces Agreement, which allows US forces to conduct
joint military exercises with Philippine troops within the country's
territory.
"The EDCA substantially modified or amends the VFA," Leonen said,
adding that "an executive agreement cannot amend a treaty."
Malacaang had insisted that the EDCA is an executive agreement.
In his opinion, Leonen cited five points that indicate the EDCA
modified the VFA.
EDCA does not only regulate the visits of US troops, it also
allows the temporary stationing on a rotational basis of US
military personnel and its contractors

 EDCA allows pre-positioning of military materiel, including

warships, fighter planes, bombers and vessels
EDCA allows the United States to use Philippine territories to
launch military and paramilitary operations
EDCA introduces concepts "not contemplated" in the VFA or the
Mutual Defense Treaty: agreed locations, contractors, prepositioning of military materiel and operational control
Unlike the VFA, EDCA contains provisions that may affect
various statutes including jurisdiction of courts, local autonomy
and taxation