BAYAN vs.

ZAMORA
Facts:

The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30,
1951, To further strengthen their defense and security relationship. Under the 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.

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that, what
is requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least two-
thirds of all the members of the senate.

Issue:

Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of
the Constitution?
Ruling:

Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military
bases, troops or facilities should apply in the instant case.

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.
On December 28, 2000, the Philippines through the Charge d’ Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the
Philippine Mission to the United Nations, signed the Rome Statute which established the
International Criminal Court. Thus, herein petitioners filed the instant petition to compel the
respondents — the Office of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs —
to transmit the signed text of the treaty to the Senate of the Philippines for ratification.

Issue: Whether or not the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a
ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate for ratification the copy of the Rome Statute signed
by a member of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations even without the signature of the
President.

Held:

The Supreme Court rule in the negative.

The President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external
relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect
of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international
affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and
governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into
treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-
making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.

It should be emphasized that under the Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the
President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is
limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it
is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having
secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it