Bayan vs Zamora

7/17/2019 Bayan vs Zamora

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bayan-vs-zamora-568e4091b820f 1/22

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 138570. October 10, 2000]

BAYAN (Bagong Alyanang !a"abayan#, a $%N& 'A !O')!)N*,B+-O *O!A !+//A!)NA (+glea lna +neenente#,B+-O )/!)R BO/OAN (%nte 4rc4 o6 4rt o6 t4e 4l.#,R. R)YNA/O /)GAA, !, &+/%ANG !A!B%B%&+ NG+/++NA, &+/%ANG !AYO %NO, GABR+)/A, RO/ABOR, ant4e %B/+ +N*)R)* /A )N*)R, petitioners,vs. )9)%*+') )R)*ARY RONA/O :A!ORA, OR)+GN

AA+R )R)*ARY O!+NGO +A:ON, ))N))R)*ARY OR/ANO !)RAO, BR+G. G)N. A/)9AN)RAG%+RR), )NA*) R)+)N* !AR)/O )RNAN, )NA*ORRAN&/+N R+/ON, )NA*OR B/A O/), )NA*ORROO/O B+A:ON, an )NA*OR RAN+O *A*A,respondents.

[G.R. No. 138572. October 10, 2000]

-+/++N) ON*+*%*+ON AO+A*+ON, +N.(-+/ONA#,)9);%+)/ B. GAR+A, A!AOGA* +N+ONG, A!+/O /. AB+O,AN RA!ON A. GON:A/), petitioners, vs. -ON. RONA/O B.:A!ORA, a )<ect=e ecretary, -ON. OR/ANO !)RAO,a ecretary o6 Natonal e6ene, an -ON. O!+NGO /.+A:ON, $R., a ecretary o6 oregn A66ar, respondents.

[G.R. No. 138587. October 10, 2000]

*)O+*O *. G%+NGONA, $R., RA%/ . ROO, an )RG+O R.O!)>A +++, petitioners, vs. $O)- ). )*RAA, RONA/O B.:A!ORA, O!+NGO /. +A:ON, $R., OR/ANO B. !)RAO,



!AR)/O B. )RNAN, RAN&/+N !. R+/ON, B/A . O/)an ROO/O G. B+A:ON,respondents.

[G.R. No. 138?80. October 10, 2000]

+N*)GRA*) BAR O *-) -+/++N), Rereente by t Natonalreent, $oe Agla Gralon, petitioners, vs. $O)-)$)R+*O )*RAA, n 4 caacty a reent, Reblc o6 t4e 4lne, an -ON. O!+NGO +A:ON, n 4 caacty aecretary o6 oregn A66ar,respondents.

[G.R. No. 138?@8. October 10, 2000]

$O'+*O R. A/ONGA, +GB)R*O *A>AA, :)NA+A ;%):ONA')N)>A, RO/ANO +!B%/AN, AB/+*O '. AN+A, !A.OORRO +. +O&NO, AGA+*O A. A;%+NO, $O&)R . ARROYO,RAN+O . R+')RA $R., R)N) A.'. AG%+AG,&+/OBAYAN, !O')!)N* O A**ORN)Y ORBRO*-)R-OO, +N*)GR+*Y AN NA*+ONA/+!, +N.

(!AB+N+#, petitioners, vs. *-) )9)%*+') )R)*ARY, *-))R)*ARY O OR)+GN AA+R, *-) )R)*ARY ONA*+ONA/ ))N), )NA*) R)+)N* !AR)/O B.)RNAN, )NA*OR B/A . O/), )NA*OR ROO/O G.B+A:ON, AN A// O*-)R )RON A*+NG *-)+R ON*RO/,%)R'++ON, +R)*+ON, AN +N*R%*+ON +N R)/A*+ON*O *-) '++*+NG OR) AGR))!)N* ('A#, respondents.

) + + O N

B%)NA, J.

Confronting the Court for resolution in the instant consolidated petitions for certiorariand prohibition are issues relating to, and borne by, an agreement forged in the turn of the last century between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of

America the !isiting "orces Agreement#

$he antecedents unfold#



%n &arch '(, ')(*, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a&ilitary Bases Agreement which formali+ed, among others, the use of installations in thePhilippine territory by United States military personnel# $o further strengthen their defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the United States entered into a&utual efense $reaty on August -., ')/'# Under the treaty, the parties agreed to

respond to any e0ternal armed attac1 on their territory, armed forces, public 2essels,and aircraft#3'4

5n 2iew of the impending e0piration of the RPUS &ilitary Bases Agreement in '))',the Philippines and the United States negotiated for a possible e0tension of the militarybases agreement# %n September '6, '))', the Philippine Senate re7ected the proposedRPUS $reaty of "riendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would ha2ee0tended the presence of US military bases in the Philippines# 384 9ith the e0piration of the RPUS &ilitary Bases Agreement, the periodic military e0ercises conductedbetween the two countries were held in abeyance# Notwithstanding, the defense andsecurity relationship between the Philippines and the United States of Americacontinued pursuant to the &utual efense $reaty#

%n :uly ';, '))*, the United States panel, headed by US efense eputy AssistantSecretary for Asia Pacific <urt Campbell, met with the Philippine panel, headed by"oreign Affairs Undersecretary Rodolfo Se2erino :r#, to e0change notes on =thecomplementing strategic interests of the United States and the Philippines in the AsiaPacific region#> Both sides discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the!isiting "orces Agreement ?!"A for bre2ity@# Negotiations by both panels on the !"A ledto a consolidated draft te0t, which in turn resulted to a final series of conferences andnegotiations3-4 that culminated in &anila on :anuary '8 and '-, '));# $hereafter, thenPresident "idel !# Ramos appro2ed the !"A, which was respecti2ely signed by publicrespondent Secretary Sia+on and Unites States Ambassador $homas ubbard on

"ebruary '., '));#%n %ctober /, '));, President :oseph E# Estrada, through respondent Secretary of

"oreign Affairs, ratified the !"A# 3(4

%n %ctober 6, '));, the President, acting through respondent E0ecuti2e SecretaryRonaldo amora, officially transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines,3/4 the 5nstrumentof Ratification, the letter of the President 364 and the !"A, for concurrence pursuant toSection 8', Article !55 of the ');* Constitution# $he Senate, in turn, referred the !"A toits Committee on "oreign Relations, chaired by Senator Blas "# %ple, and its Committeeon National efense and Security, chaired by Senator Rodolfo # Bia+on, for their 7ointconsideration and recommendation# $hereafter, 7oint public hearings were held by the

two Committees#

3*4

%n &ay -, '))), the Committees submitted Proposed Senate Resolution No#((-3;4 recommending the concurrence of the Senate to the !"A and the creation of aDegislati2e %2ersight Committee to o2ersee its implementation# ebates then ensued#

%n &ay 8*, '))), Proposed Senate Resolution No# ((- was appro2ed by theSenate, by a twothirds ?8-@ 2ote 3)4 of its members# Senate Resolution No# ((- was thenrenumbered as Senate Resolution No# ';#3'.4

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/oct2000/138570.htm#_edn1
























%n :une ', '))), the !"A officially entered into force after an E0change of Notesbetween respondent Secretary Sia+on and United States Ambassador ubbard#

$he !"A, which consists of a Preamble and nine ?)@ Articles, pro2ides for themechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which US Armed"orces and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines, and is Fuoted in its full

te0t, hereunderG

“Article I

Definitions

“As used in this Agreement, ‘United States personnel’ means United States

military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with

activities approved y the Philippine !overnment"

“#ithin this definition$

='# $he term Hmilitary personnelI refers to military members of the United States Army,Na2y, &arine Corps, Air "orce, and Coast uard#

=8# $he term Hci2ilian personnelI refers to indi2iduals who are neither nationals of, nor ordinary residents in the Philippines and who are employed by the United Statesarmed forces or who are accompanying the United States armed forces, such asemployees of the American Red Cross and the United Ser2ices %rgani+ation#

“Article II

%espect for &aw

“It is the duty of the United States personnel to respect the laws of the %epulic of the Philippines and to astain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this

agreement, and, in particular, from any political activity in the Philippines" 'he

!overnment of the United States shall ta(e all measures within its authority to

ensure that this is done"

“Article III

)ntry and Departure

“*" 'he !overnment of the Philippines shall facilitate the admission of United

States personnel and their departure from the Philippines in connection withactivities covered y this agreement"

“+" United States military personnel shall e eempt from passport and visa

regulations upon entering and departing the Philippines"



“-" 'he following documents only, which shall e presented on demand, shall e

re.uired in respect of United States military personnel who enter the

Philippines$

“/a0 personal identity card issued y the appropriate United States authority

showing full name, date of irth, ran( or grade and service numer /ifany0, ranch of service and photograph1

“/0 individual or collective document issued y the appropriate United States

authority, authori2ing the travel or visit and identifying the individual or

group as United States military personnel1 and

“/c0 the commanding officer of a military aircraft or vessel shall present a

declaration of health, and when re.uired y the cogni2ant representative of

the !overnment of the Philippines, shall conduct a .uarantine inspection

and will certify that the aircraft or vessel is free from .uarantinalediseases" Any .uarantine inspection of United States aircraft or United

States vessels or cargoes thereon shall e conducted y the United States

commanding officer in accordance with the international health

regulations as promulgated y the #orld 3ealth 4rgani2ation, and

mutually agreed procedures"

“5" United States civilian personnel shall e eempt from visa re.uirements ut

shall present, upon demand, valid passports upon entry and departure of the

Philippines"

“6" If the !overnment of the Philippines has re.uested the removal of any United

States personnel from its territory, the United States authorities shall e

responsile for receiving the person concerned within its own territory or

otherwise disposing of said person outside of the Philippines"

“Article I7

Driving and 7ehicle %egistration

“*" Philippine authorities shall accept as valid, without test or fee, a driving permit

or license issued y the appropriate United States authority to United States personnel for the operation of military or official vehicles"

“+" 7ehicles owned y the !overnment of the United States need not e

registered, ut shall have appropriate mar(ings"

“Article 7



8riminal 9urisdiction

“*" Su:ect to the provisions of this article$

?a@ Philippine authorities shall ha2e 7urisdiction o2er United States personnel with

respect to offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under thelaw of the Philippines#

?b@ United States military authorities shall ha2e the right to e0ercise within thePhilippines all criminal and disciplinary 7urisdiction conferred on them by themilitary law of the United States o2er United States personnel in the Philippines#

=8# ?a@ Philippine authorities e0ercise e0clusi2e 7urisdiction o2er United Statespersonnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the securityof the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, but notunder the laws of the United States#

?b@ United States authorities e0ercise e0clusi2e 7urisdiction o2er United Statespersonnel with respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the securityof the United States, punishable under the laws of the United States, but notunder the laws of the Philippines#

?c@ "or the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph - of this article, an offenserelating to security meansG

/*0 treason1

/+0 saotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national

defense"

=-# 5n cases where the right to e0ercise 7urisdiction is concurrent, the following rulesshall applyG

?a@ Philippine authorities shall ha2e the primary right to e0ercise 7urisdiction o2er alloffenses committed by United States personnel, e0cept in cases pro2ided for inparagraphs '?b@, 8 ?b@, and - ?b@ of this Article#

?b@ United States military authorities shall ha2e the primary right to e0ercise 7urisdiction o2er United States personnel sub7ect to the military law of the UnitedStates in relation to#

?'@ offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses solely against the property or person of United States personnelJ and

?8@ offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of officialduty#

?c@ $he authorities of either go2ernment may reFuest the authorities of the other go2ernment to wai2e their primary right to e0ercise 7urisdiction in a particular case#

?d@ Recogni+ing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintaingood order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon



reFuest by the United States, wai2e their primary right to e0ercise 7urisdictione0cept in cases of particular importance to the Philippines# 5f the o2ernment of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular importance, it shallcommunicate such determination to the United States authorities within twenty?8.@ days after the Philippine authorities recei2e the United States reFuest#

?e@ 9hen the United States military commander determines that an offense chargedby authorities of the Philippines against United states personnel arises out of anact or omission done in the performance of official duty, the commander will issuea certificate setting forth such determination# $his certificate will be transmitted tothe appropriate authorities of the Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of paragraph -?b@?8@ of this Article# 5nthose cases where the o2ernment of the Philippines belie2es the circumstancesof the case reFuire a re2iew of the duty certificate, United States militaryauthorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately# Philippineauthorities at the highest le2els may also present any information bearing on its2alidity# United States military authorities shall ta1e full account of the Philippineposition# 9here appropriate, United States military authorities will ta1e

disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases, and notify theo2ernment of the Philippines of the actions ta1en#

?f@ 5f the go2ernment ha2ing the primary right does not e0ercise 7urisdiction, it shallnotify the authorities of the other go2ernment as soon as possible#

?g@ $he authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and theUnited States ha2e the right to e0ercise 7urisdiction#

=(# 9ithin the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines andUnited States shall assist each other in the arrest of United States personnel in thePhilippines and in handling them o2er to authorities who are to e0ercise 7urisdictionin accordance with the pro2isions of this article#

=/# United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of thearrest or detention of United States personnel who are sub7ect of Philippine primaryor e0clusi2e 7urisdiction# Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United Statesmilitary authorities of the arrest or detention of any United States personnel#

=6# $he custody of any United States personnel o2er whom the Philippines is toe0ercise 7urisdiction shall immediately reside with United States military authorities,if they so reFuest, from the commission of the offense until completion of all 7udicialproceedings# United States military authorities shall, upon formal notification by thePhilippine authorities and without delay, ma1e such personnel a2ailable to thoseauthorities in time for any in2estigati2e or 7udicial proceedings relating to the offensewith which the person has been charged in e0traordinary cases, the Philippineo2ernment shall present its position to the United States o2ernment regardingcustody, which the United States o2ernment shall ta1e into full account# 5n thee2ent Philippine 7udicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the UnitedStates shall be relie2ed of any obligations under this paragraph# $he oneyear period will not include the time necessary to appeal# Also, the oneyear period willnot include any time during which scheduled trial procedures are delayed becauseUnited States authorities, after timely notification by Philippine authorities to arrangefor the presence of the accused, fail to do so#



=*# 9ithin the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authoritiesshall assist each other in the carrying out of all necessary in2estigation into offensesand shall cooperate in pro2iding for the attendance of witnesses and in thecollection and production of e2idence, including sei+ure and, in proper cases, thedeli2ery of ob7ects connected with an offense#

=;# 9hen United States personnel ha2e been tried in accordance with the pro2isions of this Article and ha2e been acFuitted or ha2e been con2icted and are ser2ing, or ha2e ser2ed their sentence, or ha2e had their sentence remitted or suspended, or ha2e been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same offense in thePhilippines# Nothing in this paragraph, howe2er, shall pre2ent United States militaryauthorities from trying United States personnel for any 2iolation of rules of disciplinearising from the act or omission which constituted an offense for which they weretried by Philippine authorities#

=)# 9hen United States personnel are detained, ta1en into custody, or prosecuted byPhilippine authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards establishedby the law of the Philippines# At the minimum, United States personnel shall beentitledG

?a@ $o a prompt and speedy trialJ

?b@ $o be informed in ad2ance of trial of the specific charge or charges made againstthem and to ha2e reasonable time to prepare a defenseJ

?c@ $o be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross e0amine suchwitnessesJ

?d@ $o present e2idence in their defense and to ha2e compulsory process for obtaining witnessesJ

?e@ $o ha2e free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the samebasis as nationals of the PhilippinesJ

?f@ $o ha2e the ser2ice of a competent interpreterJ and

?g@ $o communicate promptly with and to be 2isited regularly by United Statesauthorities, and to ha2e such authorities present at all 7udicial proceedings# $heseproceedings shall be public unless the court, in accordance with Philippine laws,e0cludes persons who ha2e no role in the proceedings#

='.# $he confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnelshall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and UnitedStates authorities# United States Personnel ser2ing sentences in the Philippinesshall ha2e the right to 2isits and material assistance#

=''# United States personnel shall be sub7ect to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary

7urisdiction, and shall not be sub7ect to the 7urisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts#

“Article 7I

8laims

='# E0cept for contractual arrangements, including United States foreign military salesletters of offer and acceptance and leases of military eFuipment, both go2ernments



wai2e any and all claims against each other for damage, loss or destruction toproperty of each otherIs armed forces or for death or in7ury to their military andci2ilian personnel arising from acti2ities to which this agreement applies#

=8# "or claims against the United States, other than contractual claims and those towhich paragraph ' applies, the United States o2ernment, in accordance with

United States law regarding foreign claims, will pay 7ust and reasonablecompensation in settlement of meritorious claims for damage, loss, personal in7uryor death, caused by acts or omissions of United States personnel, or otherwiseincident to the noncombat acti2ities of the United States forces#

“Article 7II

Importation and )portation

='# United States o2ernment eFuipment, materials, supplies, and other propertyimported into or acFuired in the Philippines by or on behalf of the United Statesarmed forces in connection with acti2ities to which this agreement applies, shall befree of all Philippine duties, ta0es and other similar charges# $itle to such property

shall remain with the United States, which may remo2e such property from thePhilippines at any time, free from e0port duties, ta0es, and other similar charges#$he e0emptions pro2ided in this paragraph shall also e0tend to any duty, ta0, or other similar charges which would otherwise be assessed upon such property after importation into, or acFuisition within, the Philippines# Such property may beremo2ed from the Philippines, or disposed of therein, pro2ided that disposition of such property in the Philippines to persons or entities not entitled to e0emption fromapplicable ta0es and duties shall be sub7ect to payment of such ta0es, and dutiesand prior appro2al of the Philippine o2ernment#

=8# Reasonable Fuantities of personal baggage, personal effects, and other property for the personal use of United States personnel may be imported into and used in the

Philippines free of all duties, ta0es and other similar charges during the period of their temporary stay in the Philippines# $ransfers to persons or entities in thePhilippines not entitled to import pri2ileges may only be made upon prior appro2al of the appropriate Philippine authorities including payment by the recipient of applicable duties and ta0es imposed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines#$he e0portation of such property and of property acFuired in the Philippines byUnited States personnel shall be free of all Philippine duties, ta0es, and other similar charges#

“Article 7III

;ovement of 7essels and Aircraft

='# Aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces may enter the Philippinesupon appro2al of the o2ernment of the Philippines in accordance with proceduresstipulated in implementing arrangements#

=8# !essels operated by or for the United States armed forces may enter thePhilippines upon appro2al of the o2ernment of the Philippines# $he mo2ement of 2essels shall be in accordance with international custom and practice go2erningsuch 2essels, and such agreed implementing arrangements as necessary#



=-# !ehicles, 2essels, and aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forcesshall not be sub7ect to the payment of landing or port fees, na2igation or o2er flightcharges, or tolls or other use charges, including light and harbor dues, while in thePhilippines# Aircraft operated by or for the United States armed forces shall obser2elocal air traffic control regulations while in the Philippines# !essels owned or operated by the United States solely on United States o2ernment noncommercial

ser2ice shall not be sub7ect to compulsory pilotage at Philippine ports#

“Article I<

Duration and 'ermination

“'his agreement shall enter into force on the date on which the parties have

notified each other in writing through the diplomatic channel that they have

completed their constitutional re.uirements for entry into force" 'his agreement

shall remain in force until the epiration of *=> days from the date on which

either party gives the other party notice in writing that it desires to terminate the

agreement"?

Via these consolidated3''4 petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners aslegislators, nongo2ernmental organi+ations, citi+ens and ta0payers assail theconstitutionality of the !"A and impute to herein respondents gra2e abuse of discretionin ratifying the agreement#

9e ha2e simplified the issues raised by the petitioners into the followingG

+

Do petitioners have legal standing as concerned citi2ens, tapayers, or legislators

to .uestion the constitutionality of the 7@A

++

Is the 7@A governed y the provisions of Section +*, Article 7II or of Section +6,

Article <7III of the 8onstitution

+++

Does the 7@A constitute an adication of Philippine sovereignty

a# Are Philippine courts depri2ed of their 7urisdiction to hear and try offenses committedby US military personnelK

b# 5s the Supreme Court depri2ed of its 7urisdiction o2er offenses punishable byreclusion perpetua or higherK

+'

Does the 7@A violate$





a# the eFual protection clause under Section ', Article 555 of the ConstitutionK

b# the Prohibition against nuclear weapons under Article 55, Section ;K

c# Section 8; ?(@, Article !5 of the Constitution granting the e0emption from ta0es andduties for the eFuipment, materials supplies and other properties imported into or acFuired in the Philippines by, or on behalf, of the US Armed "orcesK

LOCUS STANDI

At the outset, respondents challenge petitionerIs standing to sue, on the ground thatthe latter ha2e not shown any interest in the case, and that petitioners failed tosubstantiate that they ha2e sustained, or will sustain direct in7ury as a result of theoperation of the !"A#3'84 Petitioners, on the other hand, counter that the 2alidity or in2alidity of the !"A is a matter of transcendental importance which 7ustifies their standing#3'-4

A party bringing a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law, act, or statute mustshow =not only that the law is in2alid, but also that he has sustained or in is inimmediate, or imminent danger of sustaining some direct in7ury as a result of itsenforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way#> e mustshow that he has been, or is about to be, denied some right or pri2ilege to which he islawfully entitled, or that he is about to be sub7ected to some burdens or penalties byreason of the statute complained of#3'(4

5n the case before us, petitioners failed to show, to the satisfaction of this Court, thatthey ha2e sustained, or are in danger of sustaining any direct in7ury as a result of theenforcement of the !"A# As ta0payers, petitioners ha2e not established that the !"A

in2ol2es the e0ercise by Congress of its ta0ing or spending powers#3'/4

%n this point, itbears stressing that a ta0payerIs suit refers to a case where the act complained of directly in2ol2es the illegal disbursement of public funds deri2ed from ta0ation# 3'64 $hus,in Bugnay Const. & Developent Corp. vs. Laron 3'*4, we heldG

“ it is eigent that the tapayerBplaintiff sufficiently show that he would e

enefited or in:ured y the :udgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real party

in interest" Cefore he can invo(e the power of :udicial review, he must specifically

prove that he has sufficient interest in preventing the illegal ependiture of money

raised y taation and that he will sustain a direct in:ury as a result of the enforcement

of the .uestioned statute or contract" It is not sufficient that he has merely a generalinterest common to all memers of the pulic"?

Clearly, inasmuch as no public funds raised by ta0ation are in2ol2ed in this case,and in the absence of any allegation by petitioners that public funds are being misspentor illegally e0pended, petitioners, as ta0payers, ha2e no legal standing to assail thelegality of the !"A#















Similarly, Representati2es 9igberto $aLada, Agapito AFuino and :o1er Arroyo, aspetitionerslegislators, do not possess the reFuisite locus standi to maintain the presentsuit# 9hile this Court, in !"il. Constitution Asso#iation vs. $on. Salvador %nriue',3';4 sustained the legal standing of a member of the Senate and the ouse of Representati2es to Fuestion the 2alidity of a presidential 2eto or a condition imposed on

an item in an appropriation bull, we cannot, at this instance, similarly uphold petitionersIstanding as members of Congress, in the absence of a clear showing of any directin7ury to their person or to the institution to which they belong#

Beyond this, the allegations of impairment of legislati2e power, such as thedelegation of the power of Congress to grant ta0 e0emptions, are more apparent thanreal# 9hile it may be true that petitioners pointed to pro2isions of the !"A whichallegedly impair their legislati2e powers, petitioners failed howe2er to sufficiently showthat they ha2e in fact suffered direct in7ury#

5n the same 2ein, petitioner 5ntegrated Bar of the Philippines ?5BP@ is stripped of standing in these cases# As aptly obser2ed by the Solicitor eneral, the 5BP lac1s the

legal capacity to bring this suit in the absence of a board resolution from its Board of o2ernors authori+ing its National President to commence the present action# 3')4

Notwithstanding, in 2iew of the paramount importance and the constitutionalsignificance of the issues raised in the petitions, this Court, in the e0ercise of its sounddiscretion, brushes aside the procedural barrier and ta1es cogni+ance of the petitions,as we ha2e done in the early %ergen#y !o(ers Cases,38.4 where we had occasion toruleG

“ ordinary citi2ens and tapayers were allowed to .uestion the constitutionality

of several eecutive orders issued y President uirino although they were involving

only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the pulic" 'he 8ourt

dismissed the o:ection that they were not proper parties and ruled that

‘transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be

settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of

procedure.’ #e have since then applied the eception in many other

cases" /Association of Small &andowners in the Philippines, Inc" v" Sec" of Agrarian

%eform, *E6 S8%A -5-0"? /Underscoring Supplied0

$his principle was reiterated in the subseFuent cases of )on'ales vs. CO*%L%C ,38'4 Da'a vs. Singson,3884 and Bas#o vs. !"il. Auseent and )aing Corporation,38-4 where we emphatically heldG

“8onsidering however the importance to the pulic of the case at ar, and in (eeping

with the 8ourt’s duty, under the *F=E 8onstitution, to determine whether or not the

other ranches of the government have (ept themselves within the limits of the

8onstitution and the laws and that they have not aused the discretion given to them,

the 8ourt has rushed aside technicalities of procedure and has ta(en cogni2ance of

this petition" ?















Again, in the more recent case of +ilosayan vs. )uingona, Jr.,38(4 thisCourt ruledthat in cases of transcendental importance, t4e ort Cay rela< t4e tanngreDreCent an alloE a t to roer e=en E4ere t4ere no rect nFry tot4e arty claCng t4e rg4t o6 Fcal re=eE#

Although courts generally a2oid ha2ing to decide a constitutional Fuestion based on

the doctrine of separation of powers, which en7oins upon the departments of thego2ernment a becoming respect for each othersI acts,38/4 this Court ne2erthelessresol2es to ta1e cogni+ance of the instant petitions#

A!!LICABL% CONSTITUTIONAL !-OISION

%ne focal point of inFuiry in this contro2ersy is the determination of which pro2isionof the Constitution applies, with regard to the e0ercise by the senate of its constitutionalpower to concur with the !"A# Petitioners argue that Section 8/, Article M!555 is

applicable considering that the !"A has for its sub7ect the presence of foreign militarytroops in the Philippines#Respondents, on the contrary, maintain that Section 8', Article!55 should apply inasmuch as the !"A is not a basing arrangement but an agreementwhich in2ol2es merely the temporary 2isits of United States personnel engaged in 7ointmilitary e0ercises#

$he ');* Philippine Constitution contains two pro2isions reFuiring the concurrenceof the Senate on treaties or international agreements# Section 8', Article !55, whichherein respondents in2o1e, readsG

“Go treaty or international agreement shall e valid and effective unless concurred in

y at least twoBthirds of all the ;emers of the Senate"?

Section 8/, Article M!555, pro2idesG

“After the epiration in *FF* of the Agreement etween the %epulic of the

Philippines and the United States of America concerning ;ilitary Cases, foreign

military ases, troops, or facilities shall not e allowed in the Philippines ecept under

a treaty duly concurred in y the senate and, when the 8ongress so re.uires, ratified

y a ma:ority of the votes cast y the people in a national referendum held for that

purpose, and recogni2ed as a treaty y the other contracting State"?

Section 8', Article !55 deals with treatise or international agreements in general, inwhich case, the concurrence of at least twothirds ?8-@ of all the &embers of the Senateis reFuired to ma1e the sub7ect treaty, or international agreement, 2alid and binding onthe part of the Philippines# $his pro2ision lays down the general rule on treatise or international agreements and applies to any form of treaty with a wide 2ariety of sub7ectmatter, such as, but not limited to, e0tradition or ta0 treatise or those economic innature# All treaties or international agreements entered into by the Philippines,







regardless of sub7ect matter, co2erage, or particular designation or appellation, reFuiresthe concurrence of the Senate to be 2alid and effecti2e#

5n contrast, Section 8/, Article M!555 is a special pro2ision that applies to treatieswhich in2ol2e the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in thePhilippines# Under this pro2ision, the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the

reFuisites to render compliance with the constitutional reFuirements and to consider theagreement binding on the Philippines#Section 8/, Article M!555 further reFuires that=foreign military bases, troops, or facilities> may be allowed in the Philippines only by2irtue of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, ratified by a ma7ority of the 2otes castin a national referendum held for that purpose if so reFuired by Congress, andrecogni+ed as such by the other contracting state#

5t is our considered 2iew that both constitutional pro2isions, far from contradictingeach other, actually share some common ground# $hese constitutional pro2isions bothembody phrases in the negati2e and thus, are deemed prohibitory in mandate andcharacter# 5n particular, Section 8' opens with the clause =No treaty 0 0 0,> and Section

8/ contains the phrase =shall not be allowed#> Additionally, in both instances, theconcurrence of the Senate is indispensable to render the treaty or internationalagreement 2alid and effecti2e#

To our ind, t"e /a#t t"at t"e !resident re/erred t"e 0A to t"e Senate under Se#tion 12, Arti#le II, and t"at t"e Senate e3tended its #on#urren#e under t"esae provision, is iaterial. 0or in eit"er #ase, ("et"er under Se#tion 12,

Arti#le II or Se#tion 14, Arti#le 5III, t"e /undaental la( is #rystalline t"at t"e#on#urren#e o/ t"e Senate is andatory to #oply (it" t"e stri#t #onstitutional reuireents.

%n the whole, the !"A is an agreement which defines the treatment of United

States troops and personnel 2isiting the Philippines# 5t pro2ides for the guidelines togo2ern such 2isits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the UnitedStates and the Philippine go2ernment in the matter of criminal 7urisdiction, mo2ement of 2essel and aircraft, importation and e0portation of eFuipment, materials and supplies#

Undoubtedly, Section 8/, Article M!555, which specifically deals with treatiesin2ol2ing foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, should apply in the instant case# $oa certain e0tent and in a limited sense, howe2er, the pro2isions of section 8', Article !55will find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of determining thenumber of 2otes reFuired to obtain the 2alid concurrence of the Senate, as will befurther discussed hereunder#

5t is a finelyimbedded principle in statutory construction that a special pro2ision or law pre2ails o2er a general one# Le3 spe#ialis derogat generali. $hus, where there isin the same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which, in its mostcomprehensi2e sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operati2e, and the general enactment must be ta1en to affect onlysuch cases within its general language which are not within the pro2ision of theparticular enactment#3864

5n Leveri'a vs. Interediate Appellate Court ,38*4 we enunciatedG







“ that another asic principle of statutory construction mandates that general

legislation must give way to a special legislation on the same su:ect, and generally e

so interpreted as to emrace only cases in which the special provisions are not

applicale /Sto" Domingo vs" de los Angeles, FH S8%A *-F0, that a specific statute

prevails over a general statute /De 9esus vs" People, *+> S8%A EH>0 and that where

two statutes are of e.ual theoretical application to a particular case, the one designedtherefor specially should prevail /#il #ilhensen Inc" vs" Caluyot, =- S8%A -=0"?

&oreo2er, it is specious to argue that Section 8/, Article M!555 is inapplicable tomere transient agreements for the reason that there is no permanent placing of structure for the establishment of a military base# %n this score, the Constitution ma1esno distinction between =transientI and =permanent># Certainly, we find nothing in Section8/, Article M!555 that reFuiresforeign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed peranently in the Philippines#

5t is a rudiment in legal hermenuetics that when no distinction is made by law, the

Court should not distinguish Ui le3 non distinguit ne# nos distinguire deeos.

5n li1e manner, we do not subscribe to the argument that Section 8/, Article M!555 isnot controlling since no foreign military bases, but merely foreign troops and facilities,are in2ol2ed in the !"A# Notably, a perusal of said constitutional pro2ision re2eals thatthe proscription co2ers =foreign military bases, troops, or facilities#> Stated differently,this prohibition is not limited to the entry of troops and facilities without any foreignbases being established# $he clause does not refer to =foreign military bases,troops, or facilities> collecti2ely but treats them as separate and independentsub7ects# $he use of comma and the dis7uncti2e word =or > clearly signifiesdisassociation and independence of one thing from the others included in theenumeration,38;4 such that, the pro2ision contemplates three different situations amilitary treaty the sub7ect of which could be either ?a@ foreign bases, ?b@ foreign troops,or ?c@ foreign facilities any of the three standing alone places it under the co2erage of Section 8/, Article M!555#

$o this end, the intention of the framers of the Charter, as manifested during thedeliberations of the ');6 Constitutional Commission, is consistent with thisinterpretationG

=&R# &AA&B%N# 5 7ust want to address a Fuestion or two to Commissioner Bernas#

$his formulation spea1s of three thingsG foreign military bases, troops or facilities# &y firstFuestion isG +6 t4e contry oe enter nto c4 "n o6 a treaty, Ct t co=er t4e

t4reebae, troo or 6aclteor col t4e treaty entere nto co=er only one or tEo

"R# BERNAS# e6ntely, t can co=er only one. 4et4er t co=er only one or t co=ert4ree, t4e reDreCent Ell be t4e aCe.

&R# &AA&B%N# +n ot4er Eor, t4e 4lne go=ernCent can enter nto a treatyco=erng not bae bt Cerely troo

"R# BERNAS# Ye#





&R# &AA&B%N# 5 cannot find any reason why the go2ernment can enter into a treatyco2ering only troops#

"R# BERNAS# 9hy notK Probably if we stretch our imagination a little bit more, we will findsome# 9e 7ust want to co2er e2erything#>38)4 ?Underscoring Supplied@

&oreo2er, military bases established within the territory of another state is no longer 2iable because of the alternati2es offered by new means and weapons of warfare suchas nuclear weapons, guided missiles as well as huge sea 2essels that can stay afloat inthe sea e2en for months and years without returning to their home country# $hesemilitary warships are actually used as substitutes for a landhome base not only of military aircraft but also of military personnel and facilities# Besides, 2essels are mobileas compared to a landbased military headFuarters#

At this 7uncture, we shall then resol2e the issue of whether or not the reFuirementsof Section 8/ were complied with when the Senate ga2e its concurrence to the !"A#

Section 8/, Article M!555 disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in thecountry, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: ?a@ it must be under a treatyJ ?b@ the treaty must be ly concrre n by t4e enate and, when soreFuired by congress, ratified by a ma7ority of the 2otes cast by the people in a nationalreferendumJ and ?c@ recognHe a a treaty by the other contracting state#

$here is no dispute as to the presence of the first two reFuisites in the case of the!"A# $he concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No# '; is inaccordance with the pro2isions of the Constitution, whether under the generalreFuirement in Section 8', Article !55, or the specific mandate mentioned in Section 8/,

Article M!555, the pro2ision in the latter article reFuiring ratification by a ma7ority of the2otes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary since Congress has not reFuiredit#

As to the matter of 2oting, ecton 21, Artcle '++ particularly reFuires that a treatyor international agreement, to be 2alid and effecti2e, must be concrre n by at leattEot4r o6 all t4e CeCber o6 t4e enate. %n the other hand, Section 8/, ArticleM!555 simply pro2ides that the treaty be Ily concrre n by t4e enate#J

Applying the foregoing constitutional pro2isions, a twothirds 2ote of all themembers of the Senate is clearly reFuired so that the concurrence contemplated by lawmay be 2alidly obtained and deemed present# 9hile it is true that Section 8/, ArticleM!555 reFuires, among other things, that the treatythe !"A, in the instant casebe =dulyconcurred in by the Senate,> it is 2ery true howe2er that said pro2ision must be relatedand 2iewed in light of the clear mandate embodied in Section 8', Article !55, which in

more specific terms, reFuires that the concurrence of a treaty, or internationalagreement, be made by a two thirds 2ote of all the members of the Senate# 5ndeed,Section 8/, Article M!555 must not be treated in isolation to section 8', Article, !55#

As noted, the =concurrence reFuirement> under Section 8/, Article M!555 must beconstrued in relation to the pro2isions of Section 8', Article !55# 5n a more particular language, the concurrence of the Senate contemplated under Section 8/, Article M!555means that at least twothirds of all the members of the Senate fa2orably 2ote to concur with the treatythe !"A in the instant case#





Under these circumstances, the charter pro2ides that the Senate shall be composedof twentyfour ?8(@ Senators#3-.4 9ithout a tinge of doubt, twothirds ?8-@ of this figure, or not less than si0teen ?'6@ members, fa2orably acting on the proposal is anunFuestionable compliance with the reFuisite number of 2otes mentioned in Section 8'of Article !55# $he fact that there were actually twentythree ?8-@ incumbent Senators at

the time the 2oting was made,3-'4

will not alter in any significant way the circumstancethat more than twothirds of the members of the Senate concurred with the proposed!"A, e2en if the twothirds 2ote reFuirement is based on this figure of actual members?8-@# 5n this regard, the fundamental law is clear that twothirds of the 8( Senators, or atleast '6 fa2orable 2otes, suffice so as to render compliance with the strict constitutionalmandate of gi2ing concurrence to the sub7ect treaty#

a2ing resol2ed that the first two reFuisites prescribed in Section 8/, Article M!555are present, we shall now pass upon and del2e on the reFuirement that the !"A shouldbe recogni+ed as a treaty by the United States of America#

Petitioners content that the phrase =recogni+ed as a treaty,> embodied in section 8/,

Article M!555, means that the !"A should ha2e the ad2ice and consent of the UnitedStates Senate pursuant to its own constitutional process, and that it should not beconsidered merely an e0ecuti2e agreement by the United States#

In opposition, respondents argue t"at t"e letter o/ United States Aassador $uard stating t"at t"e 0A is inding on t"e United States )overnent is#on#lusive, on t"e point t"at t"e 0A is re#ogni'ed as a treaty y t"e United States o/ Aeri#a. A##ording to respondents, t"e 0A, to e inding, ust only e a##epted as a treaty y t"e United States.

*4 ort o6 t4e 6rC =eE t4at t4e 4rae 6re#ogni'ed as a treaty7 Ceant4at t4e ot4er contractng arty a##epts or a#8no(ledges t4e agreeCent a a

treaty.[32]

*o reDre t4e ot4er contractng tate, t4e %nte tate o6 ACerca nt4 cae, to bCt t4e 'A to t4e %nte tate enate 6or concrrence rantto t onttton,[33] to accor trct Ceanng to t4e 4rae.

9ellentrenched is the principle that the words used in the Constitution are to begi2en their ordinary meaning e0cept where technical terms are employed, in which casethe significance thus attached to them pre2ails# 5ts language should be understood inthe sense they ha2e in common use# 3-(4

&oreo2er, it is inconseFuential whether the United States treats the !"A only as ane0ecuti2e agreement because, under international law, an e0ecuti2e agreement is asbinding as a treaty#3-/4 $o be sure, as long as the !"A possesses the elements of an

agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be ta1en eFually as atreaty#

A treaty, as defined by the !ienna Con2ention on the Daw of $reaties, is =aninternational instrument concluded between States in written form and go2erned byinternational law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more relatedinstruments, and whate2er its particular designation#> 3-64 $here are many other termsused for a treaty or international agreement, some of which areG act, protocol,agreement, compromis d’ arbitrage, concordat, con2ention, declaration, e0change of notes,

















pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi # All writers, from ugo rotius onward, ha2epointed out that the names or titles of international agreements included under thegeneral term treaty ha2e little or no legal significance# Certain terms are useful, but theyfurnish little more than mere description#3-*4

Article 8?8@ of the !ienna Con2ention pro2ides that =the pro2isions of paragraph '

regarding the use of terms in the present Con2ention are without pre7udice to the use of those terms, or to the meanings which may be gi2en to them in the internal law of theState#>

$hus, in international law, there is no difference between treaties and e0ecuti2eagreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiatingfunctionaries ha2e remained within their powers# 3-;4 5nternational law continues to ma1eno distinction between treaties and e0ecuti2e agreementsG they are eFually bindingobligations upon nations#3-)4

5n our 7urisdiction, we ha2e recogni+ed the binding effect of e0ecuti2e agreementse2en without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress# 5n Coissioner o/

Custos vs. %astern Sea Trading,3(.4 we had occasion to pronounceG

“ the right of the )ecutive to enter into inding agreements without the

necessity of suse.uent congressional approval has een confirmed by long

usage" @rom the earliest days of our history we have entered into eecutive

agreements covering such su:ects as commercial and consular relations, mostB

favoredBnation rights, patent rights, trademar( and copyright protection, postal and

navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims" The validity of these has never

been seriously questioned by our courts"

=0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

“@urthermore, the United States Supreme 8ourt has epressly recogni2ed the validity

and constitutionality of eecutive agreements entered into without Senate

approval" (39 Columbia Law Review, pp. 73!7"# ($ee, also, %.$. vs. Curtis

&right 'port Corporation, )99 %.$. 3*", + L. ed. )- %.$. vs. elmont, 3*

%.$. 3)", + L. ed. 3"- %.$. vs. /in0, 3 %.$. )*3, +1 L. ed. 791- 2anic vs. %.$.

++ 4. )d. )++- 5ale Law 6ournal, ol. pp. 9*!9*1- California Law Review,

ol. ), pp. 17*!17- 8yde on nternational Law :revised 'dition;, ol. ), pp.

"*, "1!"+- willoughby on the %.$. Constitution Law, ol. :)d ed.;, pp.

37!"*- <oore, nternational Law =igest, ol. , pp. )*!)+- 8ac0worth,nternational Law =igest, ol. , pp. 39*!"*7#. (talics $upplied#> /)mphasis

4urs0

$he deliberations of the Constitutional Commission which drafted the ');*Constitution is enlightening and highlyinstructi2eG











=!R. !AA!BONG# %f course it goes without saying that as far as ratification of the other state is concerned, that is entirely their concern under their own laws#

R. B)RNA# es, but we will accept whate2er they say# 5f they say that we ha2e donee2erything to ma1e it a treaty, then as far as we are concerned, we will accept it as atreaty#>3('4

$he records re2eal that the United States o2ernment, through Ambassador $homas C# ubbard, has stated that the United States go2ernment has fully committedto li2ing up to the terms of the !"A#3(84 "or as long as the united States of Americaaccepts or ac1nowledges the !"A as a treaty, and binds itself further to comply with itsobligations under the treaty, there is indeed mar1ed compliance with the mandate of theConstitution#

9orth stressing too, is that the ratification, by the President, of the !"A and theconcurrence of the Senate should be ta1en as a clear an uneFui2ocal e0pression of our nationIs consent to be bound by said treaty, with the concomitant duty to uphold theobligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder#

Ratification is generally held to be an e0ecuti2e act, underta1en by the head of thestate or of the go2ernment, as the case may be, through which the formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed#3(-4 A State may pro2ide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification of a treaty# $he consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is e0pressed byratification whenG ?a@ the treaty pro2ides for such ratification, ?b@ it is otherwiseestablished that the negotiating States agreed that ratification should be reFuired, ?c@the representati2e of the State has signed the treaty sub7ect to ratification, or ?d@ theintention of the State to sign the treaty sub7ect to ratification appears from the fullpowers of its representati2e, or was e0pressed during the negotiation# 3((4

5n our 7urisdiction, the power to ratify is 2ested in the President and not, as

commonly belie2ed, in the legislature# $he role of the Senate is limited only to gi2ing or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification# 3(/4

9ith the ratification of the !"A, which is eFui2alent to final acceptance, and with thee0change of notes between the Philippines and the United States of America, it nowbecomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law,to be bound by the terms of the agreement# $hus, no less than Section 8, Article 55 of theConstitution,3(64declares that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,eFuality, 7ustice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations#

As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines agrees to be bound by

generally accepted rules for the conduct of its international relations# 9hile theinternational obligation de2ol2es upon the state and not upon any particular branch,institution, or indi2idual member of its go2ernment, the Philippines is nonethelessresponsible for 2iolations committed by any branch or subdi2ision of its go2ernment or any official thereof# As an integral part of the community of nations, we are responsibleto assure that our go2ernment, Constitution and laws will carry out our internationalobligation#3(*4 ence, we cannot readily plead the Constitution as a con2enient e0cuse for noncompliance with our obligations, duties and responsibilities under international law#

















Beyond this, Article '- of the eclaration of Rights and uties of States adopted bythe 5nternational Daw Commission in ')() pro2idesG “Every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an ecuse for failure to perform this duty!" 3(;4

EFually important is Article 86 of the con2ention which pro2ides that =E2ery treaty inforce is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in goodfaith#> $his is 1nown as the principle of pacta sunt servanda which preser2es thesanctity of treaties and ha2e been one of the most fundamental principles of positi2einternational law, supported by the 7urisprudence of international tribunals# 3()4

NO )-A% ABUS% O0 DISC-%TION

5n the instant contro2ersy, the President, in effect, is hea2ily faulted for e0ercising a

power and performing a tas1 conferred upon him by the Constitutionthe power to enter into and ratify treaties# $hrough the e0pediency of Rule 6/ of the Rules of Court,petitioners in these consolidated cases impute gra=e abe o6 creton on the partof the chief E0ecuti2e in ratifying the !"A, and referring the same to the Senatepursuant to the pro2isions of Section 8', Article !55 of the Constitution#

%n this particular matter, gra2e abuse of discretion implies such capricious andwhimsical e0ercise of 7udgment as is eFui2alent to lac1 of 7urisdiction, or, when thepower is e0ercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personalhostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an e2asion of positi2e dutyen7oined or to act at all in contemplation of law# 3/.4

By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as headof State, is the sole organ and authority in the e0ternal affairs of the country# 5n manyways, the President is the chief architect of the nationIs foreign policyJ his =dominance inthe field of foreign relations is ?then@ conceded#> 3/'4 9ielding 2ast powers an influence,his conduct in the e0ternal affairs of the nation, as :efferson describes, is = eecutive

altogether #O3/84

As regards the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, theConstitution 2ests the same in the President, sub7ect only to the concurrence of at leasttwothirds 2ote of all the members of the Senate# 5n this light, the negotiation of the !"Aand the subseFuent ratification of the agreement are e0clusi2e acts which pertain solelyto the President, in the lawful e0ercise of his 2ast e0ecuti2e and diplomatic powers

granted him no less than by the fundamental law itself# #nto the field of negotiation theSenate cannot intrude, and $ongress itself is powerless to invade it #3/-4 ConseFuently,the acts or 7udgment calls of the President in2ol2ing the !"Aspecifically the acts of ratification and entering into a treaty and those necessary or incidental to the e0ercise of such principal acts sFuarely fall within the sphere of his constitutional powers and thus,may not be 2alidly struc1 down, much less calibrated by this Court, in the absence of clear showing of gra2e abuse of power or discretion#















5t is the CourtIs considered 2iew that the President, in ratifying the !"A and insubmitting the same to the Senate for concurrence, acted within the confines and limitsof the powers 2ested in him by the Constitution# It is o/ no oent t"at t"e!resident, in t"e e3er#ise o/ "is (ide latitude o/ dis#retion and in t"e "onest elie/ t"at t"e 0A /alls (it"in t"e ait o/ Se#tion 12, Arti#le II o/ t"e

Constitution, re/erred t"e 0A to t"e Senate /or #on#urren#e under t"ea/oreentioned provision. Certainly, no ause o/ dis#retion, u#" less a grave, patent and ("isi#al ause o/ 9udgent, ay e iputed to t"e !resident in "isa#t o/ rati/ying t"e 0A and re/erring t"e sae to t"e Senate /or t"e purpose o/ #oplying (it" t"e #on#urren#e reuireent eodied in t"e /undaental la(. 5ndoing so, the President merely performed a constitutional tas1 and e0ercised aprerogati2e that chiefly pertains to the functions of his office# E2en if he erred insubmitting the !"A to the Senate for concurrence under the pro2isions of Section 8' of

Article !55, instead of Section 8/ of Article M!555 of the Constitution, still, the Presidentmay not be faulted or scarred, much less be ad7udged guilty of committing an abuse of discretion in some patent, gross, and capricious manner#

"or while it is conceded that Article !555, Section ', of the Constitution hasbroadened the scope of 7udicial inFuiry into areas normally left to the politicaldepartments to decide, such as those relating to national security, it has not altogether done away with political Fuestions such as those which arise in the field of foreignrelations#3/(4 $he igh $ribunalIs function, as sanctioned by Article !555, Section ', “ismerely %to& check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its 'urisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view! #n theabsence of a showing( %of& grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of 'urisdiction,there is no occasion for the $ourt to eercise its corrective power(#t has no power tolook into what it thinks is apparent error!" 3//4

As to the power to concur with treaties, the constitution lodges the same with theSenate alone# $hus, once the Senate3/64 performs that power, or e0ercises its prerogati2ewithin the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution, the concurrence cannot, in li1emanner, be 2iewed to constitute an abuse of power, much less gra2e abusethereof# Corollarily, the Senate, in the e0ercise of its discretion and acting within thelimits of such power, may not be similarly faulted for ha2ing simply performed a tas1conferred and sanctioned by no less than the fundamental law#

"or the role of the Senate in relation to treaties is essentially legislati2e in characterJ3/*4 the Senate, as an independent body possessed of its own erudite mind, has theprerogati2e to either accept or re7ect the proposed agreement, and whate2er action itta1es in the e0ercise of its wide latitude of discretion, pertains to the wisdom rather than

the legality of the act# 5n this sense, the Senate parta1es a principal, yet delicate, role in1eeping the principles of separation of powers and of checks and balances ali2e and 2igilantlyensures that these cherished rudiments remain true to their form in a democraticgo2ernment such as ours# $he Constitution thus animates, through this treatyconcurring power of the Senate, a healthy system of chec1s and balancesindispensable toward our nationIs pursuit of political maturity and growth# $rue enough,rudimentary is the principle that matters pertaining to the wisdom of a legislati2e act arebeyond the ambit and pro2ince of the courts to inFuire#











5n fine, absent any clear showing of gra2e abuse of discretion on the part of respondents, this Court as the final arbiter of legal contro2ersies and staunch sentinelof the rights of the people is then without power to conduct an incursion and meddlewith such affairs purely e0ecuti2e and legislati2e in character and nature# "or theConstitution no less, maps out the distinct boundaries and limits the metes and bounds

within which each of the three political branches of go2ernment may e0ercise thepowers e0clusi2ely and essentially conferred to it by law#

-)R)OR), in light of the foregoing disFuisitions, the instant petitions are hereby5S&5SSE#

O OR)R).

Documents

Bayan vs Zamora