Saguisag vs Executive Secretary Issue 1: W/N the petitions as citizens suit satisfy the

Case Digest: GR 212426 Jan 12, 2016 requirements of legal standing in assailing the
Facts: constitutionality of EDCA
Petitioners, as citizens, taxpayers and former legislators, No. In assailing the constitutionality of a governmental
questioned before the SC the constitutionality of EDCA act, petitioners suing as citizens may dodge the
(Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement), an requirement of having to establish a direct and personal
agreement entered into by the executive department interest if they show that the act affects a public right.
with the US and ratified on June 6, 2014. Under the But here, aside from general statements that the
EDCA, the PH shall provide the US forces the access and petitions involve the protection of a public right, and that
use of portions of PH territory, which are called Agreed their constitutional rights as citizens would be violated,
Locations. Aside from the right to access and to use the the petitioners failed to make any specific assertion of a
Agreed Locations, the US may undertake the following particular public right that would be violated by the
types of activities within the Agreed Locations: security enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to do so, the
cooperation exercises; joint and combined training present petitions cannot be considered by the Court as
activities; humanitarian and disaster relief activities; and citizens suits that would justify a disregard of the
such other activities that as may be agreed upon by the aforementioned requirements.
parties.
Issue 2: W/N the petitioners have legal standing as
Mainly, petitioners posit that the use of executive taxpayers
agreement as medium of agreement with US violated the No. Petitioners cannot sue as taxpayers because EDCA
constitutional requirement of Art XVIII, Sec 25 since the is neither meant to be a tax measure, nor is it directed at
EDCA involves foreign military bases, troops and the disbursement of public funds.
facilities whose entry into the country should be covered
by a treaty concurred in by the Senate. The Senate, A taxpayers suit concerns a case in which the official act
through Senate Resolution 105, also expressed its complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement
position that EDCA needs congressional ratification. of public funds derived from taxation. Here, those
challenging the act must specifically show that they have itself, particularly Art XVIII, Sec 25 thereof, which
sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of provides for a stricter mechanism required before any
public money, and that they will sustain a direct injury as foreign military bases, troops or facilities may be allowed
a result of the enforcement of the assailed act. Applying in the country. Such is of paramount public interest that
that principle to this case, they must establish that EDCA the Court is behooved to determine whether there was
involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive
spending powers. A reading of the EDCA, however, would Department.
show that there has been neither an appropriation nor an
authorization of disbursement. Brion Dissent
Yes, but on a different line of reasoning. The petitioners
Issue 3: W/N the petitions qualify as legislators suit satisfied the requirement of legal standing in asserting
No. The power to concur in a treaty or an international that a public right has been violated through
agreement is an institutional prerogative granted by the the commission of an act with grave abuse of discretion.
Constitution to the Senate. In a legislators suit, the The court may exercise its power of judicial review over
injured party would be the Senate as an institution or any the act of the Executive Department in not submitting the
of its incumbent members, as it is the Senates EDCA agreement for Senate concurrence not because of
constitutional function that is allegedly being violated. the transcendental importance of the issue, but because
Here, none of the petitioners, who are former senators, the petitioners satisfy the requirements in invoking the
have the legal standing to maintain the suit. courts expanded jurisdiction. Read more
Issue 5: W/N the non-submission of the EDCA
Issue 4: W/N the SC may exercise its Power of Judicial agreement for concurrence by the Senate violates the
Review over the case Constitution
Yes. Although petitioners lack legal standing, they raise No. The EDCA need not be submitted to the Senate for
matters of transcendental importance which justify concurrence because it is in the form of a mere executive
setting aside the rule on procedural technicalities. The agreement, not a treaty. Under the Constitution, the
challenge raised here is rooted in the very Constitution President is empowered to enter into executive
agreements on foreign military bases, troops or status of these prior agreements, EDCA need not be
facilities if (1) such agreement is not the instrument that transmitted to the Senate.
allows the entry of such and (2) if it merely aims to
implement an existing law or treaty. De Castro Dissent
No. The EDCA is entirely a new treaty, separate and
EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement since it distinct from the VFA and the MDT. Whether the stay of
merely involves adjustments in detail in the the foreign troops in the country is permanent
implementation of the MTD and the VFA. These are or temporary is immaterial because the Constitution does
existing treaties between the Philippines and the U.S. not distinguish. The EDCA clearly involves the entry
that have already been concurred in by the Philippine of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the
Senate and have thereby met the requirements of the country. Hence, the absence of Senate concurrence to
Constitution under Art XVIII, Sec 25. Because of the the agreement makes it an invalid treaty