G.R. No.

138570 October 10, 2000

TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., RAUL S. ROCO, and SERGIO R.
BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan), a JUNK VFA MOVEMENT, OSMEÑA III, petitioners,
BISHOP TOMAS MILLAMENA (Iglesia Filipina Independiente), vs.
BISHOP ELMER BOLOCAN (United Church of Christ of the Phil.), DR. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, RONALDO B. ZAMORA, DOMINGO L. SIAZON,
REYNALDO LEGASCA, MD, KILUSANG MAMBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, JR., ORLANDO B. MERCADO, MARCELO B. FERNAN, FRANKLIN M.
KILUSANG MAYO UNO, GABRIELA, PROLABOR, and the PUBLIC DRILON, BLAS F. OPLE and RODOLFO G. BIAZON, respondents.
INTEREST LAW CENTER, petitioners,
vs. x-----------------------x
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SECRETARY DOMINGO SIAZON, DEFENSE SECRETARY ORLANDO G.R. No. 138680 October 10, 2000
MERCADO, BRIG. GEN. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, SENATE PRESIDENT
MARCELO FERNAN, SENATOR FRANKLIN DRILON, SENATOR BLAS INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its National
OPLE, SENATOR RODOLFO BIAZON, and SENATOR FRANCISCO President, Jose Aguila Grapilon, petitioners,
TATAD, respondents. vs.
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, in his capacity as President, Republic of
x-----------------------x the Philippines, and HON. DOMINGO SIAZON, in his capacity as
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, respondents.
G.R. No. 138572 October 10, 2000
x-----------------------x
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC.(PHILCONSA),
EXEQUIEL B. GARCIA, AMADOGAT INCIONG, CAMILO L. SABIO, AND G.R. No. 138698 October 10, 2000
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioners,
vs. JOVITO R. SALONGA, WIGBERTO TAÑADA, ZENAIDA QUEZON-
HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, as Executive Secretary, HON. AVENCEÑA, ROLANDO SIMBULAN, PABLITO V. SANIDAD, MA.
ORLANDO MERCADO, as Secretary of National Defense, and HON. SOCORRO I. DIOKNO, AGAPITO A. AQUINO, JOKER P. ARROYO,
DOMINGO L. SIAZON, JR., as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, FRANCISCO C. RIVERA JR., RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, KILOSBAYAN,
respondents. MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND
NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), petitioners,
x-----------------------x vs.
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
G.R. No. 138587 October 10, 2000 THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SENATE PRESIDENT

1
MARCELO B. FERNAN, SENATOR BLAS F. OPLE, SENATOR RODOLFO which, in effect, would have extended the presence of US military
G. BIAZON, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING THEIR CONTROL, bases in the Philippines.2 With the expiration of the RP-US Military
SUPERVISION, DIRECTION, AND INSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO THE Bases Agreement, the periodic military exercises conducted
VISITING FORCES AGREEMENT (VFA), respondents. between the two countries were held in abeyance.
Notwithstanding, the defense and security relationship between the
DECISION Philippines and the United States of America continued pursuant to
the Mutual Defense Treaty.
BUENA, J.:
On July 18, 1997, the United States panel, headed by US Defense
Confronting the Court for resolution in the instant consolidated Deputy Assistant Secretary for Asia Pacific Kurt Campbell, met with
petitions for certiorari and prohibition are issues relating to, and the Philippine panel, headed by Foreign Affairs Undersecretary
borne by, an agreement forged in the turn of the last century Rodolfo Severino Jr., to exchange notes on "the complementing
between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of strategic interests of the United States and the Philippines in the
America -the Visiting Forces Agreement. Asia-Pacific region." Both sides discussed, among other things, the
possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA for
The antecedents unfold. brevity). Negotiations by both panels on the VFA led to a
consolidated draft text, which in turn resulted to a final series of
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of conferences and negotiations3 that culminated in Manila on
America forged a Military Bases Agreement which formalized, January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, then President Fidel V. Ramos
among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by public
United States military personnel. To further strengthen their respondent Secretary Siazon and Unites States Ambassador Thomas
defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the United Hubbard on February 10, 1998.
States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951.
Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through
armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels, and respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA.4
aircraft.1
On October 6, 1998, the President, acting through respondent
In view of the impending expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to the
Agreement in 1991, the Philippines and the United States Senate of the Philippines,5 the Instrument of Ratification, the letter
negotiated for a possible extension of the military bases agreement. of the President6 and the VFA, for concurrence pursuant to Section
On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The Senate, in turn, referred
proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security the VFA to its Committee on Foreign Relations, chaired by Senator

2
Blas F. Ople, and its Committee on National Defense and Security,
chaired by Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon, for their joint consideration "Within this definition:
and recommendation. Thereafter, joint public hearings were held by
the two Committees.7 "1. The term ‘military personnel’ refers to military members of the
United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast
On May 3, 1999, the Committees submitted Proposed Senate Guard.
Resolution No. 4438 recommending the concurrence of the Senate
to the VFA and the creation of a Legislative Oversight Committee to "2. The term ‘civilian personnel’ refers to individuals who are
oversee its implementation. Debates then ensued. neither nationals of, nor ordinary residents in the Philippines and
who are employed by the United States armed forces or who are
On May 27, 1999, Proposed Senate Resolution No. 443 was accompanying the United States armed forces, such as employees
approved by the Senate, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote9 of its members. of the American Red Cross and the United Services Organization.
Senate Resolution No. 443 was then re-numbered as Senate
Resolution No. 18.10 "Article II
Respect for Law
On June 1, 1999, the VFA officially entered into force after an
Exchange of Notes between respondent Secretary Siazon and "It is the duty of the United States personnel to respect the laws of
United States Ambassador Hubbard. the Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity
inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and, in particular,
The VFA, which consists of a Preamble and nine (9) Articles, from any political activity in the Philippines. The Government of the
provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and United States shall take all measures within its authority to ensure
conditions under which US Armed Forces and defense personnel that this is done.
may be present in the Philippines, and is quoted in its full text,
hereunder: "Article III
Entry and Departure
"Article I
Definitions "1. The Government of the Philippines shall facilitate the admission
of United States personnel and their departure from the Philippines
"As used in this Agreement, ‘United States personnel’ means United in connection with activities covered by this agreement.
States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines
in connection with activities approved by the Philippine "2. United States military personnel shall be exempt from passport
Government. and visa regulations upon entering and departing the Philippines.

3
 within its own territory or otherwise disposing of said person
"3. The following documents only, which shall be presented on outside of the Philippines.
demand, shall be required in respect of United States military
personnel who enter the Philippines: "Article IV

"(a) personal identity card issued by the appropriate United States Driving and Vehicle Registration
authority showing full name, date of birth, rank or grade and service
number (if any), branch of service and photograph; "1. Philippine authorities shall accept as valid, without test or fee, a
driving permit or license issued by the appropriate United States
"(b) individual or collective document issued by the appropriate authority to United States personnel for the operation of military or
United States authority, authorizing the travel or visit and official vehicles.
identifying the individual or group as United States military
personnel; and "2. Vehicles owned by the Government of the United States need
not be registered, but shall have appropriate markings.
"(c) the commanding officer of a military aircraft or vessel shall
present a declaration of health, and when required by the cognizant "Article V
representative of the Government of the Philippines, shall conduct a Criminal Jurisdiction
quarantine inspection and will certify that the aircraft or vessel is
free from quarantinable diseases. Any quarantine inspection of "1. Subject to the provisions of this article:
United States aircraft or United States vessels or cargoes thereon
shall be conducted by the United States commanding officer in (a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States
accordance with the international health regulations as personnel with respect to offenses committed within the Philippines
promulgated by the World Health Organization, and mutually and punishable under the law of the Philippines.
agreed procedures.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise
"4. United States civilian personnel shall be exempt from visa within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction
requirements but shall present, upon demand, valid passports upon conferred on them by the military law of the United States over
entry and departure of the Philippines. United States personnel in the Philippines.

"5. If the Government of the Philippines has requested the removal "2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
of any United States personnel from its territory, the United States United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses
authorities shall be responsible for receiving the person concerned

4
relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws (2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance
of the Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States. of official duty.

(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over (c) The authorities of either government may request the
United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses authorities of the other government to waive their primary right to
relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.
laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.
(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military
(c) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this authorities to maintain good order and discipline among their
article, an offense relating to security means: forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United
States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in
(1) treason; cases of particular importance to the Philippines. If the Government
of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular
(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United
defense. States authorities within twenty (20) days after the Philippine
authorities receive the United States request.
"3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent,
the following rules shall apply: (e) When the United States military commander determines that an
offense charged by authorities of the Philippines against United
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise states personnel arises out of an act or omission done in the
jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United States personnel, performance of official duty, the commander will issue a certificate
except in cases provided for in paragraphs 1(b), 2 (b), and 3 (b) of setting forth such determination. This certificate will be transmitted
this Article. to the appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute
sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of
(b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to paragraph 3(b)(2) of this Article. In those cases where the
exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the Government of the Philippines believes the circumstances of the
military law of the United States in relation to. case require a review of the duty certificate, United States military
authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately.
(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United Philippine authorities at the highest levels may also present any
States or offenses solely against the property or person of United information bearing on its validity. United States military authorities
States personnel; and shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate,
United States military authorities will take disciplinary or other

5
action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify the investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with
Government of the Philippines of the actions taken. which the person has been charged in extraordinary cases, the
Philippine Government shall present its position to the United
(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise States Government regarding custody, which the United States
jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other government Government shall take into full account. In the event Philippine
as soon as possible. judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the United
States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The
(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall one-year period will not include the time necessary to appeal. Also,
notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the the one-year period will not include any time during which
authorities of the Philippines and the United States have the right to scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States
exercise jurisdiction. authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to
arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.
"4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of
the Philippines and United States shall assist each other in the arrest "7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and
of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handling them Philippine authorities shall assist each other in the carrying out of all
over to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance necessary investigation into offenses and shall cooperate in
with the provisions of this article. providing for the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and
production of evidence, including seizure and, in proper cases, the
"5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine delivery of objects connected with an offense.
authorities of the arrest or detention of United States personnel
who are subject of Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction. "8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance
Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military with the provisions of this Article and have been acquitted or have
authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or
personnel. have had their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been
pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in the
"6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent
Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities from trying United States
United States military authorities, if they so request, from the personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the act
commission of the offense until completion of all judicial or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried
proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon formal by Philippine authorities.
notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make
such personnel available to those authorities in time for any

6
"9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, States Personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the
or prosecuted by Philippine authorities, they shall be accorded all right to visits and material assistance.
procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At
the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled: "11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in
Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction, and shall not be subject to
(a) To a prompt and speedy trial; the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.

(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or "Article VI

charges made against them and to have reasonable time to prepare Claims
a defense;
"1. Except for contractual arrangements, including United States
(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross foreign military sales letters of offer and acceptance and leases of
examine such witnesses; military equipment, both governments waive any and all claims
against each other for damage, loss or destruction to property of
(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory each other’s armed forces or for death or injury to their military and
process for obtaining witnesses; civilian personnel arising from activities to which this agreement
applies.
(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own
choice on the same basis as nationals of the Philippines; "2. For claims against the United States, other than contractual
claims and those to which paragraph 1 applies, the United States
(f) To have the service of a competent interpreter; and Government, in accordance with United States law regarding
foreign claims, will pay just and reasonable compensation in
(g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by settlement of meritorious claims for damage, loss, personal injury or
United States authorities, and to have such authorities present at all death, caused by acts or omissions of United States personnel, or
judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public unless the otherwise incident to the non-combat activities of the United States
court, in accordance with Philippine laws, excludes persons who forces.
have no role in the proceedings.
"Article VII
"10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of Importation and Exportation
United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on
by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United "1. United States Government equipment, materials, supplies, and
other property imported into or acquired in the Philippines by or on

7
behalf of the United States armed forces in connection with "1. Aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces may
activities to which this agreement applies, shall be free of all enter the Philippines upon approval of the Government of the
Philippine duties, taxes and other similar charges. Title to such Philippines in accordance with procedures stipulated in
property shall remain with the United States, which may remove implementing arrangements.
such property from the Philippines at any time, free from export
duties, taxes, and other similar charges. The exemptions provided in "2. Vessels operated by or for the United States armed forces may
this paragraph shall also extend to any duty, tax, or other similar enter the Philippines upon approval of the Government of the
charges which would otherwise be assessed upon such property Philippines. The movement of vessels shall be in accordance with
after importation into, or acquisition within, the Philippines. Such international custom and practice governing such vessels, and such
property may be removed from the Philippines, or disposed of agreed implementing arrangements as necessary.
therein, provided that disposition of such property in the Philippines
to persons or entities not entitled to exemption from applicable "3. Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft operated by or for the United
taxes and duties shall be subject to payment of such taxes, and States armed forces shall not be subject to the payment of landing
duties and prior approval of the Philippine Government. or port fees, navigation or over flight charges, or tolls or other use
charges, including light and harbor dues, while in the Philippines.
"2. Reasonable quantities of personal baggage, personal effects, and Aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces shall
other property for the personal use of United States personnel may observe local air traffic control regulations while in the Philippines.
be imported into and used in the Philippines free of all duties, taxes Vessels owned or operated by the United States solely on United
and other similar charges during the period of their temporary stay States Government non-commercial service shall not be subject to
in the Philippines. Transfers to persons or entities in the Philippines compulsory pilotage at Philippine ports.
not entitled to import privileges may only be made upon prior
approval of the appropriate Philippine authorities including "Article IX
payment by the recipient of applicable duties and taxes imposed in Duration and Termination
accordance with the laws of the Philippines. The exportation of such
property and of property acquired in the Philippines by United "This agreement shall enter into force on the date on which the
States personnel shall be free of all Philippine duties, taxes, and parties have notified each other in writing through the diplomatic
other similar charges. channel that they have completed their constitutional requirements
for entry into force. This agreement shall remain in force until the
"Article VIII expiration of 180 days from the date on which either party gives the
Movement of Vessels and Aircraft other party notice in writing that it desires to terminate the
agreement."

8
Via these consolidated11 petitions for certiorari and prohibition,
petitioners - as legislators, non-governmental organizations, citizens a. the equal protection clause under Section 1, Article III of the
and taxpayers - assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute to Constitution?
herein respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the
agreement. b. the Prohibition against nuclear weapons under Article II, Section
8?
We have simplified the issues raised by the petitioners into the
following: c. Section 28 (4), Article VI of the Constitution granting the
exemption from taxes and duties for the equipment, materials
I supplies and other properties imported into or acquired in the
Philippines by, or on behalf, of the US Armed Forces?
Do petitioners have legal standing as concerned citizens, taxpayers,
or legislators to question the constitutionality of the VFA? LOCUS STANDI

II At the outset, respondents challenge petitioner’s standing to sue,

on the ground that the latter have not shown any interest in the
Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Article VII or of case, and that petitioners failed to substantiate that they have
Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution? sustained, or will sustain direct injury as a result of the operation of
the VFA.12 Petitioners, on the other hand, counter that the validity
III or invalidity of the VFA is a matter of transcendental importance
which justifies their standing.13
Does the VFA constitute an abdication of Philippine sovereignty?
A party bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law, act,
a. Are Philippine courts deprived of their jurisdiction to hear and try or statute must show "not only that the law is invalid, but also that
offenses committed by US military personnel? he has sustained or in is in immediate, or imminent danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not
b. Is the Supreme Court deprived of its jurisdiction over offenses merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way." He must
punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher? show that he has been, or is about to be, denied some right or
privilege to which he is lawfully entitled, or that he is about to be
IV subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute
complained of.14
Does the VFA violate:

9
In the case before us, petitioners failed to show, to the satisfaction at this instance, similarly uphold petitioners’ standing as members
of this Court, that they have sustained, or are in danger of of Congress, in the absence of a clear showing of any direct injury to
sustaining any direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the their person or to the institution to which they belong.
VFA. As taxpayers, petitioners have not established that the VFA
involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending Beyond this, the allegations of impairment of legislative power, such
powers.15 On this point, it bears stressing that a taxpayer’s suit as the delegation of the power of Congress to grant tax exemptions,
refers to a case where the act complained of directly involves the are more apparent than real. While it may be true that petitioners
illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.16 Thus, pointed to provisions of the VFA which allegedly impair their
in Bugnay Const. & Development Corp. vs. Laron17 , we held: legislative powers, petitioners failed however to sufficiently show
that they have in fact suffered direct injury.
"x x x it is exigent that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that
he would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the In the same vein, petitioner Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is
avails of the suit as a real party in interest. Before he can invoke the stripped of standing in these cases. As aptly observed by the
power of judicial review, he must specifically prove that he has Solicitor General, the IBP lacks the legal capacity to bring this suit in
sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money the absence of a board resolution from its Board of Governors
raised by taxation and that he will sustain a direct injury as a result authorizing its National President to commence the present
of the enforcement of the questioned statute or contract. It is not action.19
sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all
members of the public." Notwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the
constitutional significance of the issues raised in the petitions, this
Clearly, inasmuch as no public funds raised by taxation are involved Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushes aside the
in this case, and in the absence of any allegation by petitioners that procedural barrier and takes cognizance of the petitions, as we have
public funds are being misspent or illegally expended, petitioners, as done in the early Emergency Powers Cases,20 where we had
taxpayers, have no legal standing to assail the legality of the VFA. occasion to rule:

Similarly, Representatives Wigberto Tañada, Agapito Aquino and "x x x ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the
Joker Arroyo, as petitioners-legislators, do not possess the requisite constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President
locus standi to maintain the present suit. While this Court, in Phil. Quirino although they were involving only an indirect and general
Constitution Association vs. Hon. Salvador Enriquez,18 sustained the interest shared in common with the public. The Court dismissed the
legal standing of a member of the Senate and the House of objection that they were not proper parties and ruled that
Representatives to question the validity of a presidential veto or a ‘transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands
condition imposed on an item in an appropriation bull, we cannot, that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we

10
must, technicalities of procedure.’ We have since then applied the One focal point of inquiry in this controversy is the determination of
exception in many other cases. (Association of Small Landowners in which provision of the Constitution applies, with regard to the
the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)." exercise by the senate of its constitutional power to concur with the
(Underscoring Supplied) VFA. Petitioners argue that Section 25, Article XVIII is applicable
considering that the VFA has for its subject the presence of foreign
This principle was reiterated in the subsequent cases of Gonzales vs. military troops in the Philippines. Respondents, on the contrary,
COMELEC,21 Daza vs. Singson,22 and Basco vs. Phil. Amusement maintain that Section 21, Article VII should apply inasmuch as the
and Gaming Corporation,23 where we emphatically held: VFA is not a basing arrangement but an agreement which involves
merely the temporary visits of United States personnel engaged in
"Considering however the importance to the public of the case at joint military exercises.
bar, and in keeping with the Court’s duty, under the 1987
Constitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring
the government have kept themselves within the limits of the the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international
Constitution and the laws and that they have not abused the agreements. Section 21, Article VII, which herein respondents
discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities invoke, reads:
of procedure and has taken cognizance of this petition. x x x"
"No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
Again, in the more recent case of Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr.,24 unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
thisCourt ruled that in cases of transcendental importance, the Senate."
Court may relax the standing requirements and allow a suit to
prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming Section 25, Article XVIII, provides:
the right of judicial review.
"After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Although courts generally avoid having to decide a constitutional Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America
question based on the doctrine of separation of powers, which concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities
enjoins upon the departments of the government a becoming shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly
respect for each others’ acts,25 this Court nevertheless resolves to concurred in by the senate and, when the Congress so requires,
take cognizance of the instant petitions. 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
APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION other contracting State."

11
Section 21, Article VII deals with treatise or international indispensable to render the treaty or international agreement valid
agreements in general, in which case, the concurrence of at least and effective.
two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members of the Senate is required to
make the subject treaty, or international agreement, valid and To our mind, the fact that the President referred the VFA to the
binding on the part of the Philippines. This provision lays down the Senate under Section 21, Article VII, and that the Senate extended
general rule on treatise or international agreements and applies to its concurrence under the same provision, is immaterial. For in
any form of treaty with a wide variety of subject matter, such as, either case, whether under Section 21, Article VII or Section 25,
but not limited to, extradition or tax treatise or those economic in Article XVIII, the fundamental law is crystalline that the concurrence
nature. All treaties or international agreements entered into by the of the Senate is mandatory to comply with the strict constitutional
Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage, or particular requirements.
designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of the Senate
to be valid and effective. On the whole, the VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment
of United States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It
In contrast, Section 25, Article XVIII is a special provision that applies provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military
to treaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases, personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and
troops or facilities in the Philippines. Under this provision, the the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
concurrence of the Senate is only one of the requisites to render movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of
compliance with the constitutional requirements and to consider equipment, materials and supplies.
the agreement binding on the Philippines. Section 25, Article XVIII
further requires that "foreign military bases, troops, or facilities" Undoubtedly, Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with
may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly treaties involving foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, should
concurred in by the Senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in apply in the instant case. To a certain extent and in a limited sense,
a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by however, the provisions of section 21, Article VII will find
Congress, and recognized as such by the other contracting state. applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of
determining the number of votes required to obtain the valid
It is our considered view that both constitutional provisions, far concurrence of the Senate, as will be further discussed hereunder.
from contradicting each other, actually share some common
ground. These constitutional provisions both embody phrases in the It is a finely-imbedded principle in statutory construction that a
negative and thus, are deemed prohibitory in mandate and special provision or law prevails over a general one. Lex specialis
character. In particular, Section 21 opens with the clause "No treaty derogat generali. Thus, where there is in the same statute a
x x x," and Section 25 contains the phrase "shall not be allowed." particular enactment and also a general one which, in its most
Additionally, in both instances, the concurrence of the Senate is comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the

12
former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the Notably, a perusal of said constitutional provision reveals that the
general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its proscription covers "foreign military bases, troops, or facilities."
general language which are not within the provision of the Stated differently, this prohibition is not limited to the entry of
particular enactment.26 troops and facilities without any foreign bases being established.
The clause does not refer to "foreign military bases, troops, or
In Leveriza vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,27 we enunciated: facilities" collectively but treats them as separate and independent
subjects. The use of comma and the disjunctive word "or" clearly
"x x x that another basic principle of statutory construction signifies disassociation and independence of one thing from the
mandates that general legislation must give way to a special others included in the enumeration,28 such that, the provision
legislation on the same subject, and generally be so interpreted as contemplates three different situations - a military treaty the
to embrace only cases in which the special provisions are not subject of which could be either (a) foreign bases, (b) foreign troops,
applicable (Sto. Domingo vs. de los Angeles, 96 SCRA 139), that a or (c) foreign facilities - any of the three standing alone places it
specific statute prevails over a general statute (De Jesus vs. People, under the coverage of Section 25, Article XVIII.
120 SCRA 760) and that where two statutes are of equal theoretical
application to a particular case, the one designed therefor specially To this end, the intention of the framers of the Charter, as
should prevail (Wil Wilhensen Inc. vs. Baluyot, 83 SCRA 38)." manifested during the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission, is consistent with this interpretation:
Moreover, it is specious to argue that Section 25, Article XVIII is
inapplicable to mere transient agreements for the reason that there "MR. MAAMBONG. I just want to address a question or two to
is no permanent placing of structure for the establishment of a Commissioner Bernas.
military base. On this score, the Constitution makes no distinction
between "transient’ and "permanent". Certainly, we find nothing in This formulation speaks of three things: foreign military bases,
Section 25, Article XVIII that requires foreign troops or facilities to troops or facilities. My first question is: If the country does enter
be stationed or placed permanently in the Philippines. into such kind of a treaty, must it cover the three-bases, troops or
facilities-or could the treaty entered into cover only one or two?
It is a rudiment in legal hermenuetics that when no distinction is
made by law, the Court should not distinguish- Ubi lex non distinguit FR. BERNAS. Definitely, it can cover only one. Whether it covers only
nec nos distinguire debemos. one or it covers three, the requirement will be the same.

In like manner, we do not subscribe to the argument that Section MR. MAAMBONG. In other words, the Philippine government can
25, Article XVIII is not controlling since no foreign military bases, but enter into a treaty covering not bases but merely troops?
merely foreign troops and facilities, are involved in the VFA.

13
FR. BERNAS. Yes. 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
MR. MAAMBONG. I cannot find any reason why the government Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the provisions of the
can enter into a treaty covering only troops. Constitution, whether under the general requirement in Section 21,
Article VII, or the specific mandate mentioned in Section 25, Article
FR. BERNAS. Why not? Probably if we stretch our imagination a little XVIII, the provision in the latter article requiring ratification by a
bit more, we will find some. We just want to cover everything."29 majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being
(Underscoring Supplied) unnecessary since Congress has not required it.

Moreover, military bases established within the territory of another As to the matter of voting, Section 21, Article VII particularly
state is no longer viable because of the alternatives offered by new requires that a treaty or international agreement, to be valid and
means and weapons of warfare such as nuclear weapons, guided effective, must be concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
missiles as well as huge sea vessels that can stay afloat in the sea members of the Senate. On the other hand, Section 25, Article XVIII
even for months and years without returning to their home country. simply provides that the treaty be "duly concurred in by the
These military warships are actually used as substitutes for a land- Senate."
home base not only of military aircraft but also of military personnel
and facilities. Besides, vessels are mobile as compared to a land- Applying the foregoing constitutional provisions, a two-thirds vote
based military headquarters. of all the members of the Senate is clearly required so that the
concurrence contemplated by law may be validly obtained and
At this juncture, we shall then resolve the issue of whether or not deemed present. While it is true that Section 25, Article XVIII
the requirements of Section 25 were complied with when the requires, among other things, that the treaty-the VFA, in the instant
Senate gave its concurrence to the VFA. case-be "duly concurred in by the Senate," it is very true however
that said provision must be related and viewed in light of the clear
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or mandate embodied in Section 21, Article VII, which in more specific
facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are terms, requires that the concurrence of a treaty, or international
sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty agreement, be made by a two -thirds vote of all the members of the
must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by Senate. Indeed, Section 25, Article XVIII must not be treated in
congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a isolation to section 21, Article, VII.
national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting state. As noted, the "concurrence requirement" under Section 25, Article
XVIII must be construed in relation to the provisions of Section 21,
Article VII. In a more particular language, the concurrence of the

14
Senate contemplated under Section 25, Article XVIII means that at States Government is conclusive, on the point that the VFA is
least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate favorably vote to recognized as a treaty by the United States of America. According to
concur with the treaty-the VFA in the instant case. respondents, the VFA, to be binding, must only be accepted as a
treaty by the United States.
Under these circumstances, the charter provides that the Senate
shall be composed of twenty-four (24) Senators.30 Without a tinge This Court is of the firm view that the phrase "recognized as a
of doubt, two-thirds (2/3) of this figure, or not less than sixteen (16) treaty" means that the other contracting party accepts or
members, favorably acting on the proposal is an unquestionable acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.32 To require the other
compliance with the requisite number of votes mentioned in contracting state, the United States of America in this case, to
Section 21 of Article VII. The fact that there were actually twenty- submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence
three (23) incumbent Senators at the time the voting was made,31 pursuant to its Constitution,33 is to accord strict meaning to the
will not alter in any significant way the circumstance that more than phrase.
two-thirds of the members of the Senate concurred with the
proposed VFA, even if the two-thirds vote requirement is based on Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the
this figure of actual members (23). In this regard, the fundamental Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where
law is clear that two-thirds of the 24 Senators, or at least 16 technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus
favorable votes, suffice so as to render compliance with the strict attached to them prevails. Its language should be understood in the
constitutional mandate of giving concurrence to the subject treaty. sense they have in common use.34

Having resolved that the first two requisites prescribed in Section Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the
25, Article XVIII are present, we shall now pass upon and delve on VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international
the requirement that the VFA should be recognized as a treaty by law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.35 To be sure,
the United States of America. as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under
international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a
Petitioners content that the phrase "recognized as a treaty," treaty.
embodied in section 25, Article XVIII, means that the VFA should
have the advice and consent of the United States Senate pursuant A treaty, as defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of
to its own constitutional process, and that it should not be Treaties, is "an international instrument concluded between States
considered merely an executive agreement by the United States. in written form and governed by international law, whether
embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
In opposition, respondents argue that the letter of United States instruments, and whatever its particular designation."36 There are
Ambassador Hubbard stating that the VFA is binding on the United many other terms used for a treaty or international agreement,

15
some of which are: act, protocol, agreement, compromis d’ navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity
arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of notes, of these has never been seriously questioned by our courts.
pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi. All writers, from Hugo
Grotius onward, have pointed out that the names or titles of "x x x x x x x x x
international agreements included under the general term treaty
have little or no legal significance. Certain terms are useful, but they "Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has expressly
furnish little more than mere description.37 recognized the validity and constitutionality of executive
agreements entered into without Senate approval. (39 Columbia
Article 2(2) of the Vienna Convention provides that "the provisions Law Review, pp. 753-754) (See, also, U.S. vs. Curtis Wright Export
of paragraph 1 regarding the use of terms in the present Convention Corporation, 299 U.S. 304, 81 L. ed. 255; U.S. vs. Belmont, 301 U.S.
are without prejudice to the use of those terms, or to the meanings 324, 81 L. ed. 1134; U.S. vs. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 86 L. ed. 796; Ozanic
which may be given to them in the internal law of the State." vs. U.S. 188 F. 2d. 288; Yale Law Journal, Vol. 15 pp. 1905-1906;
California Law Review, Vol. 25, pp. 670-675; Hyde on International
Thus, in international law, there is no difference between treaties Law [revised Edition], Vol. 2, pp. 1405, 1416-1418; willoughby on
and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states the U.S. Constitution Law, Vol. I [2d ed.], pp. 537-540; Moore,
concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained International Law Digest, Vol. V, pp. 210-218; Hackworth,
within their powers.38 International law continues to make no International Law Digest, Vol. V, pp. 390-407). (Italics Supplied)"
distinction between treaties and executive agreements: they are (Emphasis Ours)
equally binding obligations upon nations.39
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission which drafted
In our jurisdiction, we have recognized the binding effect of the 1987 Constitution is enlightening and highly-instructive:
executive agreements even without the concurrence of the Senate
or Congress. In Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading,40 "MR. MAAMBONG. Of course it goes without saying that as far as
we had occasion to pronounce: ratification of the other state is concerned, that is entirely their
concern under their own laws.
"x x x the right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements
without the necessity of subsequent congressional approval has FR. BERNAS. Yes, but we will accept whatever they say. If they say
been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history that we have done everything to make it a treaty, then as far as we
we have entered into executive agreements covering such subjects are concerned, we will accept it as a treaty."41
as commercial and consular relations, most-favored-nation rights,
patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and The records reveal that the United States Government, through
Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard, has stated that the United States

16
government has fully committed to living up to the terms of the Philippines and the United States of America, it now becomes
VFA.42 For as long as the united States of America accepts or obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the principles of
acknowledges the VFA as a treaty, and binds itself further to comply international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement. Thus,
with its obligations under the treaty, there is indeed marked no less than Section 2, Article II of the Constitution,46 declares that
compliance with the mandate of the Constitution. the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
Worth stressing too, is that the ratification, by the President, of the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity
VFA and the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as a clear with all nations.
an unequivocal expression of our nation’s consent to be bound by
said treaty, with the concomitant duty to uphold the obligations and As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines agrees to be
responsibilities embodied thereunder. bound by generally accepted rules for the conduct of its
international relations. While the international obligation devolves
Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by upon the state and not upon any particular branch, institution, or
the head of the state or of the government, as the case may be, individual member of its government, the Philippines is nonetheless
through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed.43 responsible for violations committed by any branch or subdivision of
A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of its government or any official thereof. As an integral part of the
ratification of a treaty. The consent of the State to be bound by a community of nations, we are responsible to assure that our
treaty is expressed by ratification when: (a) the treaty provides for government, Constitution and laws will carry out our international
such ratification, (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating obligation.47 Hence, we cannot readily plead the Constitution as a
States agreed that ratification should be required, (c) the convenient excuse for non-compliance with our obligations, duties
representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to and responsibilities under international law.
ratification, or (d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty
subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its Beyond this, Article 13 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of
representative, or was expressed during the negotiation.44 States adopted by the International Law Commission in 1949
provides: "Every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its
In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international
not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as
is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, an excuse for failure to perform this duty."48
to the ratification.45
Equally important is Article 26 of the convention which provides
With the ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to final that "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must
acceptance, and with the exchange of notes between the be performed by them in good faith." This is known as the principle

17
of pacta sunt servanda which preserves the sanctity of treaties and As regards the power to enter into treaties or international
have been one of the most fundamental principles of positive agreements, the Constitution vests the same in the President,
international law, supported by the jurisprudence of international subject only to the concurrence of at least two-thirds vote of all the
tribunals.49 members of the Senate. In this light, the negotiation of the VFA and
the subsequent ratification of the agreement are exclusive acts
NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION which pertain solely to the President, in the lawful exercise of his
vast executive and diplomatic powers granted him no less than by
In the instant controversy, the President, in effect, is heavily faulted the fundamental law itself. Into the field of negotiation the Senate
for exercising a power and performing a task conferred upon him by cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.53
the Constitution-the power to enter into and ratify treaties. Through Consequently, the acts or judgment calls of the President involving
the expediency of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, petitioners in these the VFA-specifically the acts of ratification and entering into a treaty
consolidated cases impute grave abuse of discretion on the part of and those necessary or incidental to the exercise of such principal
the chief Executive in ratifying the VFA, and referring the same to acts - squarely fall within the sphere of his constitutional powers
the Senate pursuant to the provisions of Section 21, Article VII of and thus, may not be validly struck down, much less calibrated by
the Constitution. this Court, in the absence of clear showing of grave abuse of power
or discretion.
On this particular matter, grave abuse of discretion implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to It is the Court’s considered view that the President, in ratifying the
lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is exercised in an arbitrary VFA and in submitting the same to the Senate for concurrence,
or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it acted within the confines and limits of the powers vested in him by
must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive the Constitution. It is of no moment that the President, in the
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.50 exercise of his wide latitude of discretion and in the honest belief
that the VFA falls within the ambit of Section 21, Article VII of the
By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the Constitution, referred the VFA to the Senate for concurrence under
President, as head of State, is the sole organ and authority in the the aforementioned provision. Certainly, no abuse of discretion,
external affairs of the country. In many ways, the President is the much less a grave, patent and whimsical abuse of judgment, may be
chief architect of the nation’s foreign policy; his "dominance in the imputed to the President in his act of ratifying the VFA and referring
field of foreign relations is (then) conceded."51 Wielding vast the same to the Senate for the purpose of complying with the
powers an influence, his conduct in the external affairs of the concurrence requirement embodied in the fundamental law. In
nation, as Jefferson describes, is "executive altogether."52 doing so, the President merely performed a constitutional task and
exercised a prerogative that chiefly pertains to the functions of his
office. Even if he erred in submitting the VFA to the Senate for

18
concurrence under the provisions of Section 21 of Article VII, possessed of its own erudite mind, has the prerogative to either
instead of Section 25 of Article XVIII of the Constitution, still, the accept or reject the proposed agreement, and whatever action it
President may not be faulted or scarred, much less be adjudged takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of discretion, pertains to
guilty of committing an abuse of discretion in some patent, gross, the wisdom rather than the legality of the act. In this sense, the
and capricious manner. Senate partakes a principal, yet delicate, role in keeping the
principles of separation of powers and of checks and balances alive
For while it is conceded that Article VIII, Section 1, of the and vigilantly ensures that these cherished rudiments remain true
Constitution has broadened the scope of judicial inquiry into areas to their form in a democratic government such as ours. The
normally left to the political departments to decide, such as those Constitution thus animates, through this treaty-concurring power of
relating to national security, it has not altogether done away with the Senate, a healthy system of checks and balances indispensable
political questions such as those which arise in the field of foreign toward our nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth. True
relations.54 The High Tribunal’s function, as sanctioned by Article enough, rudimentary is the principle that matters pertaining to the
VIII, Section 1, "is merely (to) check whether or not the wisdom of a legislative act are beyond the ambit and province of the
governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional courts to inquire.
limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In
the absence of a showing… (of) grave abuse of discretion amounting In fine, absent any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion on the
to lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to exercise part of respondents, this Court- as the final arbiter of legal
its corrective power…It has no power to look into what it thinks is controversies and staunch sentinel of the rights of the people - is
apparent error."55 then without power to conduct an incursion and meddle with such
affairs purely executive and legislative in character and nature. For
As to the power to concur with treaties, the constitution lodges the the Constitution no less, maps out the distinct boundaries and limits
same with the Senate alone.1âwphi1 Thus, once the Senate56 the metes and bounds within which each of the three political
performs that power, or exercises its prerogative within the branches of government may exercise the powers exclusively and
boundaries prescribed by the Constitution, the concurrence cannot, essentially conferred to it by law.
in like manner, be viewed to constitute an abuse of power, much
less grave abuse thereof. Corollarily, the Senate, in the exercise of WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the instant
its discretion and acting within the limits of such power, may not be petitions are hereby DISMISSED.
similarly faulted for having simply performed a task conferred and
sanctioned by no less than the fundamental law. SO ORDERED.

For the role of the Senate in relation to treaties is essentially Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Kapunan, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
legislative in character;57 the Senate, as an independent body Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

19
Melo, and Vitug, JJ., join the dissent of J. Puno.
Puno , J., see dissenting opinion.
Mendoza, J., in the result.
Panganiban, J., no part due to close personal and former
professional relations with a petitioner, Sen. J.R. Salonga

20