ABAYA vs. EBDANE

Facts:

The Government of Japan and the Philippines, through their respective representatives, namely, Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Republic of the Philippines, and Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Domingo L. Siazon, had reached an understanding concerning Japanese loans to be extended to the Philippines. These loans were aimed to promote our country’s economic stabilization and development efforts.

The assailed resolution recommended the award to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres (Codon)-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road, with the length of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.The DPWH caused the publication of the “Invitation to Prequalify and to Bid” for the implementation of the CP I project, in two leading national newspapers, namely, the Manila Times and Manila Standard on November 22 and 29, and December 5, 2002.

The bid goes to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation was corrected from the original P993,183,904.98 (with variance of 34.45% from the ABC) to P952,564,821.71 (with variance of 28.95% from the ABC) based on their letter clarification dated April 21, 2004.

The petitioners anchor the instant petition on the contention that the award of the contract to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation violates RA 9184, particularly Section 31.

The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement is neither an international nor an executive agreement that would bar the application of RA 9184. They point out that to be considered a treaty, an international or an executive agreement, the parties must be two sovereigns or States whereas in the case of Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, the parties are the Philippine Government and the JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese Government.

Issue :

Whether or not the the loan agreement violates RA 9184.

Ruling:

The court ruled in favor of the respondents.

Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. executive agreements, They sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated “agreements” or “protocols”.

LIM vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Facts:

Personnel from the Armed Forces of the United States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in “Balikatan 02-1.” It is a simulation of military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States since 1951. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces through joint training with its American counterparts. The “Balikatan” is the largest training exercise directly supporting the MDT’s objectives. It is this treaty in which the VFA adverts and the obligations thereunder seeks to reaffirm.

On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.

Issue:

Whether “Balikatan 02-1” activities covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement?

Ruling:

The VFA permits United States personnel to engage on an impermanent basis, in “activities.” The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that United States personnel must “abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties’ intentions. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside the context.

Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that .’Balikatan 02-1,” a “mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training exercise,” falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement.

BAYAN vs. ZAMORA

Facts:

On August 30, 1951, the Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty to further strengthen their defense and security relationship. Under the said treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft.

On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended the presence of US military bases in the Philippines.

On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).This resulted to a series of conferences and negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.

On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting through respondent Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines,the Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President and the VFA, for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.

Petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners – as legislators, non-governmental organizations, citizens and taxpayers – assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute to herein respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the agreement.

Petitioner contends, under they provision cited, the “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met: a) it must be a treaty,b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and c) recognized as such by the other contracting state.

Issue:

Whether or not VFA governed by provisions of Section 21 of Article VII or Section 25 of Article XVIII of the Constitution.

Ruling:

The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senate by the other contracting state”.

The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.