CONSTITUTONAL LAW SAGUISAG V.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY DLSU BAR OPERATIONS 2016

[GR NOS. 212426 & 212444][JANUARY 18 2016][C.J SERENO]

FACTS:

 The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement or EDCA authorizes the U.S military forces to
have access to and conduct military activities within certain “Agreed Locations” in the country. It
was not transmitted to the Senate on the Executive’s understanding that such act 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.
 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; however, 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.
 Two petitions for certiorari were filed before the Court assailing the constitutionality of EDCA on the
ground that it should have been passed in the form of a treaty with the concurrence of the Senate,
and not as an executive agreement. On November 10 2015, the Senators adopted Senate
Resolution (SR) No. 105 which expresses the “strong sense” of the Senators that such Agreement
must have been deliberated and concurred by the Senate to be valid and binding. Respondents ,
on the other hand, contend that petitioners lack the requires standing to assail the onstitutionality
of EDCA

ISSUE/S: (a) WoN essential requisites to exercise judicial review are present
(b) WoN EDCA is constitutional

HELD: (a) Yes; (b)

RATIO: (a) i. Actual Controversy – The OSG contends that the Senators have not been deprived the
opportunity invoke the privileges of the institution they are representing. The Senators have already
expressed their sentiments by adopting SR No. 105. Through this Resolution, the Senate has taken a
position contrary to that of the OSG. As the body tasked to participate in foreign affairs by ratifying treaties,
it belief that EDCA infringes upon its constitutional role indicates that an actual controversy exists.
 For actual controversy to exist, what is essential is the ripeness for adjudication of the matter at
hand. The case must involve definite and concrete issues involving real parties with conflicting legal
rights and legal claims admitting of specific relief through a decree conclusive in nature. Through
the exchange of diplomatic notes, the Executive Department performed the last act required under
Art. XII(1) of EDCA. Hence, such performance of an executive act which leads to the effectivity of
an executive agreement is sufficient to satisfy this requisite

ii. Standing – The petitions cannot be qualified as a citizens’, taxpayers’, or legislators’ suit therefore, the
lack the requisite of legal standing. However, the Court will relax on this procedural technicality as
petitioners raise issues involving matters of transcendental importance. The DFA has already confirmed to
the U.S. Embassy that "all internal requirements of the Philippines have already been complied with. ” It
behooves the Court in this instance to take a liberal stance towards the rule on standing and to determine
forthwith whether there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Executive Department.

(b) Executive power is codified not only in the Constitution, but also in the Administrative Code. Hence, the
duty to faithfully execute the laws of the land is inherent in the executive power and is intimately related to
other executive functions. Congress cannot limit or take over the President's power to adopt implementing
rules and regulations for a law it has enacted. This mandate is self-executory. This implies that the manner
of the President’s execution of the law, even if not expressly granted by law, is justified by necessity and
limited by law, since the President must take necessary and proper steps to carry into execution the law. It
is the President’s prerogative to do whatever is legal and necessary for the Philippine defense interests.

 The power of the President to enter into binding executive agreements without the concurrence of
the Senate is already well-established in our jurisprudence. As the sole organ of our foreign
CONSTITUTONAL LAW SAGUISAG V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY DLSU BAR OPERATIONS 2016
[GR NOS. 212426 & 212444][JANUARY 18 2016][C.J SERENO]

relations and the constitutionally assigned chief architect of foreign policy, the President is vested
with exclusive power to conduct and manage the country’s interface with other states and
governments. Executive agreements may dispense with the requirement of Senate concurrenc e
because of the legal mandate with which they are concluded. As culled from the afore-quot ed
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, past Supreme Court Decisions, and works of noted
scholars, executive agreements merely involve arrangements on the implementation of existing
policies, rules, laws, or agreements. They are concluded (1) to adjust the details of a treaty; (2)
pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of the Legislature; or (3) in the exercise of the President's
independent powers under the Constitution.

DOCTRINE: As the sole organ of our foreign relations and the constitutionally assigned chief architect of
foreign policy, the President is vested with exclusive power to conduct and manage the country’s interfac e
with other states and governments.