RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, et.al vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et. al.

G.R. No. 212426. January 12, 2016

Facts:

Petitioners question the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic
of the Philippines and the United States of America (U.S.) alleging that the instrument violated multiple constitutional
provisions. In reply, respondents argue that petitioners lack standing to bring the suit. To support the legality of their
actions, respondents invoke the 1987 Constitution, treaties, and judicial precedents.

EDCA authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain "Agreed Locations" in the
country. It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive's understanding that to do so was no longer
necessary. Accordingly, in June 2014, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the U.S. Embassy exchanged
diplomatic notes confirming the completion of all necessary internal requirements for the agreement to enter into force
in the two countries.

According to the Philippine government, the conclusion of EDCA was the result of intensive and comprehensive
negotiations in the course of almost two years. After eight rounds of negotiations, the Secretary of National Defense and
the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines signed the agreement on 28 April 2014.President Benigno S. Aquino III ratified
EDCA on 6 June 2014. The OSG clarified during the oral arguments that the Philippine and the U.S. governments had yet
to agree formally on the specific sites of the Agreed Locations mentioned in the agreement.

Petitioners then filed two petitions for certiorari questioning the constitutionality of EDCA arguing that it should have
been in the form of a treaty concurred in by the Senate, not an executive agreement.

Months after the oral arguments were concluded and the parties ordered to file their respective memoranda, the
Senators adopted Senate Resolution No. (SR) 105 which expresses that for EDCA to become valid and effective, it must
first be transmitted to the Senate for deliberation and concurrence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the essential requisites for judicial review are present.

2. Whether the petitioners have legal standing to maintain the suits as legislators.
3. Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.
4. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, as well as with existing laws and
treaties.

HELD:

1. Yes. Since the power of judicial review involves the delicate exercise of examining the validity or constitutionality
of an act of a coequal branch of government, this Court must continually exercise restraint to avoid the risk of
supplanting the wisdom of the constitutionally appointed actor with that of its own. It may invoke the power
only when the following four stringent requirements are satisfied: (a) there is an actual case or controversy; (b)
petitioners possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality is raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d)
the issue of constitutionality is the lis mota of the case.

Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution, is clear that the presence of foreign military forces in the country
shall only be allowed by virtue of a treaty concurred in by the Senate. Hence, the performance of an official act
by the Executive Department that led to the entry into force of an executive agreement was sufficient to satisfy
the actual case or controversy requirement.

2. No. In a legislators' suit, those Members of Congress who are challenging the official act have standing only to
the extent that the alleged violation impinges on their right to participate in the exercise of the powers of the
institution of which they are members. Legislators have the standing "to maintain inviolate the prerogatives,
powers, and privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question the validity of
any official action, which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators." As legislators, they must clearly
show that there was a direct injury to their persons or the institution to which they belong. As correctly argued
by respondent, the power to concur in a treaty or an international agreement is an institutional prerogative
granted by the Constitution to the Senate, not to the entire Legislature.

3. Despite the President's roles as defender of the State and sole authority in foreign relations, the 1987
Constitution expressly limits his ability in instances when it involves the entry of foreign military bases, troops or
facilities. The initial limitation is found in Section 21 of the provisions on the Executive Department: "No treaty or
international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members
 of the Senate." The role of the President as the executor of the law includes the duty to defend the State, for
which purpose he may use that power in the conduct of foreign relations. The plain meaning of the Constitution
prohibits the entry of foreign military bases, troops or facilities, except by way of a treaty concurred in by the
Senate - a clear limitation on the President's dual role as defender of the State and as sole authority in foreign
relations. Hence, the constitutionally restricted authority pertains to the entry of the bases, troops, or facilities,
and not to the activities to be done after entry.

Although the Chief Executive wields the exclusive authority to conduct our foreign relations, this power must
still be exercised within the context and the parameters set by the Constitution, as well as by existing domestic
and international laws.

4. EDCA is consistent with the content, purpose, and framework of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA. The
practice of resorting to executive agreements in adjusting the details of a law or a treaty that already deals with
the presence of foreign military forces is not at all unusual in this jurisdiction.

In order to keep the peace in its archipelago in this region of the world, and to sustain itself at the same time
against the destructive forces of nature, the Philippines will need friends. Who they are, and what form the
friendships will take, are for the President to decide. The only restriction is what the Constitution itself expressly
prohibits. It appears that this overarching concern for balancing constitutional requirements against the dictates
of necessity was what led to EDCA.

As it is, EDCA is not constitutionally infirm. As an executive agreement, it remains consistent with existing laws
and treaties that it purports to implement.