Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

1 Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Philippine Constitutional Law


Digests
A site for digests of landmark Constitutional Law cases in the Philippines.

Home Privacy Policy Musings on Law All That Matters

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000

DECISION
(En Banc)

BUENA, J.:

I. THE FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America entered into an
agreement called the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a
treaty by the Philippine government and was ratified by then-President Joseph Estrada with
the concurrence of 2/3 of the total membership of the Philippine Senate.

The VFA defines the treatment of U.S. troops and personnel visiting the
Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits, and further defines the rights
of the U.S. and the Philippine governments in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement
of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.

Petitioners argued, inter alia, that the VFA violates 25, Article XVIII of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be Blog Archive
allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate . . . and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State. 2012 (26)
July (8)
II. THE ISSUE Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-
3820, July 18, 195...
Was the VFA unconstitutional? In re Garcia, G.R. No. _____, August
15, 1961
III. THE RULING Tatad v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 124360, Nov...
[The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that the petitioners did not Angara v. Electoral Commission,
commit grave abuse of discretion, and sustained the constitutionality of the VFA.] G.R. No. L-45081, ...
Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570,
NO, the VFA is not unconstitutional. October 10, 2000...
Taada, et al., v. Angara, et al., G.R.
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the No. 118295...
country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-
a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by 2662, March 26, 19...
congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R.
(c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state. No. 122156, Febr...

There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the April (1)
VFA. The concurrence handed by the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance March (3)
with the provisions of the Constitution . . . the provision in [in 25, Article XVIII] requiring
February (11)
ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary since
Congress has not required it. January (3)

2011 (11)
xxx xxx xxx

This Court is of the firm view that the phrase recognized as a treaty means that Followers
the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To require
the other contracting state, the United States of America in this case, to submit the VFA to
the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict
meaning to the phrase.

Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the Constitution are to be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which case the
significance thus attached to them prevails. Its language should be understood in the sense
they have in common use.
About Me
Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an
Edgardo Luardo Jr.
executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as
Follow 50
binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an
agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty. View my complete profile

xxx xxx xxx

The records reveal that the United States Government, through Ambassador Labels
Thomas C. Hubbard, has stated that the United States government has fully committed to 2011 bar exam results (1)
living up to the terms of the VFA. For as long as the United States of America accepts or 20th century fox v. CA (1)
acknowledges the VFA as a treaty, and binds itself further to comply with its obligations 3 readings on separate days (1)
under the treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the Constitution.
349 pepsi crowns case (1)
abadilla 5 (1)
Posted by Edgardo Luardo Jr. at 3:31 PM
actual case or controversy (1)
+1 Recommend this on Google alibi (1)
Labels: bayan v. zamora, foreign military troops in the phils., treaty, visiting forces agreement angara v. electoral commission (1)
Location: Lapu-Lapu City, Philippines ARMM elections (1)
arnault v. nazareno (1)
arroyo v. de lima (1)
1 comment:
bar exams (1)
bayan v. zamora (1)
Carlos Miguel De Villa September 10, 2014 at 3:38 PM
cacho-olivares v. ermita (1)
Thanks for sharing this post! For great legal advice, you can visit NDV Law, home of the chavez v. gonzales and ntc (1)
top lawyers in Manila.
checkpoints case (1)
Reply china bank v. CA (1)
columbia pictures v. flores (1)
combinations and restraint of trade (1)
Enter your comment... comprehensive agrarian reform program
(2)
constitutionality of checkpoints (2)
contempt power of senate (1)
control test (1)
Comment as: Google Account
custodial investigation (1)
david v. arroyo (1)
Publish Preview decision in in re charges of plagiarism v.
justice del castillo (1)
delegation of power (1)
dissent of justice ma. lourdes sereno (1)
economic protectionism (1)
election synchronization (1)
equity structure in public utilities (1)
Links to this post exclusionary rule (1)
Create a Link filipino first policy (2)
foreign military troops in the phils. (1)
fortun v. arroyo (1)
freedom of expression (1)
freedom of religion (1)
freedom of speech (1)
freedom of the press (3)
gamboa v. teves (1)
general warrant (1)
globalization (1)
GMA TRO (1)
grosjean v. american press (1)
hacienda luisita (2)
hello garci (1)
HLI v. PARC decision july 5 2011 (1)
HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011 (1)
holdover of elected ARMM officials (1)
iglesia ni cristo v. CA (1)
impeachment of cj corona (1)
implied powers (1)
in re garcia (1)
incompatible offices (1)
incorporation clause (2)
ineligibility of the President to run for re-
election (1)
inherent powers (1)
investigation in aid of legislation (1)
Newer Post Home Older Post
jose midas marquez (1)
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) justice mariano del castillo (2)
justice sereno's dissent in in re charges
of plagiarism vs. justice del castillo (1)
kida v. senate (1)
kuroda v. jalandoni (1)
laserna v. ddb (1)
liban v. gordon (1)
lis mota (1)
lumanog v. people (1)
maguindanao massacre (1)
mandatory drug testing (1)
manila hotel (1)
manila prince hotel v. gsis (1)
martial law (1)
meaning of the term capital in Sec. 11
Art. XII of the Constitution (1)
monopolies (1)
moot and academic cases (1)
national patrimony (1)
new york times v. U.S. (1)
office search (1)
oil deregulation (1)
one title-one subject (1)
p.s. bank v. senate impeachment court
(1)
people v. exala (1)
Philippine National Red Cross (1)
pimentel v. comelec (1)
piracy (1)
plagiarism (3)
police lineup (1)
pollo v. david (1)
pormento v. estrada (1)
power to promulgate rules of procedure
(1)
presentation of master tape in piracy
cases (1)
president's power to appoint ARMM
OICs (1)
prior restraint (3)
privacy of communications and
correspondence (1)
probable cause for issuance of warrant
of arrest (1)
probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant (1)
RA 9165 (1)
requisites of judicial review (2)
resolution in in re charges of plagiarism
v. justice del castillo (1)
review/censorship of religious tv
programs (1)
right against self-incrimination (1)
right against unreasonable search and
seizure (2)
right of privacy (1)
right to travel (1)
roberts v. CA (1)
search and seizure (4)
search warrant (1)
secrecy of foreign currency deposits (1)
self-executing provision (1)
sjs v. ddb (1)
speedy disposition of cases (1)
stock distribution option (2)
stop-and-frisk (1)
suspension of privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus (1)
taada v. angara (1)
tatad v. executive secretary (1)
terry search (1)
terry v. ohio (1)
treaty (3)
TRO vs. senate impeachment court (1)
university of cebu college of law (1)
valid form of warrantless search (1)
valmonte v. de villa (2)
vinuya v. executive secretary (2)
visiting forces agreement (1)
warrant of arrest (1)
warrantless arrests (1)
warrantless search and seizure (1)
world trade organization (1)

TopBlogs.com.ph

Feedjit
Live Traffic Feed
A visitor from Philippines
viewed "Philippine
Constitutional Law Digests:
Bayan v. from
A visitor Zamora, G.R. No.
Philippines
138570, October 10, 2000" 1
viewed "Philippine
min ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Datu Michael Abas Kida v.
Senate of the Philippines, et al.,
A
G.R.visitor
No. from
196271, SanOctober
Juan, Manila
18,
viewed "Philippine
2011" 6 mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
G.R.
A visitor
No. from
122156, Philippines
February 3,
1997" 10
viewed "Philippine
mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
G.R.
A visitor
No. from
122156, Philippines
February 3,
1997" 20
viewed "Philippine
mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Datu Michael Abas Kida v.
Senate of the Philippines, et al.,
A
G.R.visitor
No. from
196271, SanOctober
Juan, Manila
18,
viewed "Philippine
2011" 21 mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
G.R.
A visitor
No. from
122156, Philippines
February 3,
1997" 33
viewed "Philippine
mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v.
Presidential Agrarian Reform
A visitor(PARC),
Council from Philippines
et al., G.R.
viewed "Philippine
No. 171101, July 5, 2011" 36
Constitutional
mins ago Law Digests:
Datu Michael Abas Kida v.
Senate of the Philippines, et al.,
A
G.R.visitor
No. from
196271, Philippines
October 18,
viewed "Philippine
2011" 1 hr 11 mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Briccio Ricky A. Pollo v.
Karina Constantino-David, G.R.
A
No. visitor
181881, fromOctober
Philippines
18, 2011"
viewed "Philippine
1 hr 27 mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance
Secretary Margarito Teves, et
Real-time view Get Feedjit

Philippine
Digests
A site for digests of landmark C

Home Privacy Policy

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 1

BUENA, J.:

I. THE FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines


agreement called the Visiting Forces Ag
treaty by the Philippine government and
the concurrence of 2/3 of the total memb

The VFA defines the treatme


Philippines. It provides for the guidelines
of the U.S. and the Philippine governme
of vessel and aircraft, importation and ex

Petitioners argued,
Constitution, which provides that
allowed in the Philippines except under
recognized as a treaty by the other contr
Total Pageviews

253,020

Copyright 2011-2012 by Atty. Ed. Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen