Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    GR No. 138570

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States is constitutional. The petitioners had argued that the VFA violated the Philippine constitution by allowing foreign military bases without a treaty. However, the Court found that the VFA met the requirements of a treaty as it was ratified by the Philippine Senate and recognized as binding by the U.S. government. While the U.S. did not treat the VFA as a treaty, under international law an executive agreement has equal standing to a treaty. Therefore, the VFA was constitutional and the petitions were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GR No. 138570

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    78 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States is constitutional. The petitioners had argued that the VFA violated the Philippine constitution by allowing foreign military bases without a treaty. However, the Court found that the VFA met the requirements of a treaty as it was ratified by the Philippine Senate and recognized as binding by the U.S. government. While the U.S. did not treat the VFA as a treaty, under international law an executive agreement has equal standing to a treaty. Therefore, the VFA was constitutional and the petitions were dismissed.

    Original Description:

    CONSTI LAW

    Original Title

    12. GR No. 138570

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States is constitutional. The petitioners had argued that the VFA violated the Philippine constitution by allowing foreign military bases without a treaty. However, the Court found that the VFA met the requirements of a treaty as it was ratified by the Philippine Senate and recognized as binding by the U.S. government. While the U.S. did not treat the VFA as a treaty, under international law an executive agreement has equal standing to a treaty. Therefore, the VFA was constitutional and the petitions were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    GR No. 138570

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Philippines and the United States is constitutional. The petitioners had argued that the VFA violated the Philippine constitution by allowing foreign military bases without a treaty. However, the Court found that the VFA met the requirements of a treaty as it was ratified by the Philippine Senate and recognized as binding by the U.S. government. While the U.S. did not treat the VFA as a treaty, under international law an executive agreement has equal standing to a treaty. Therefore, the VFA was constitutional and the petitions were dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    138570

    Case Title:
    BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) et.al., petitioners vs. Executive Secretary et. al,
    reposdents

    Date:
    October 10, 2000

    I. 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. ISSUE

    Was the VFA unconstitutional?

    III. RULING

    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.

    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.

    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.

    The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that the petitioners did not commit grave
    abuse of discretion, and sustained the constitutionality of the VFA.

    You might also like