G.R. No. 138570 – 396 Phil. 623 – 342 SCRA 449 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Elements of a State – Sovereignty – Pacta Sunt Servanda – Validity of the Visiting Forces Agreement
In July 1997, the Philippines and the USA began negotiating the terms of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). In February 1998, the authorized representatives of both States signed the agreement. In October 1998, President Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA. After that, he transmitted the Instrument of Ratification to the Senate for their consent. In May 1999, by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, the Senate issued a resolution consenting to the ratification.
After that, the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) questioned the constitutionality of the VFA. It was argued that it infringed upon our sovereignty and that it failed to meet the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. VII and Sec. 25, Art. XVII. For BAYAN, since the US Senate did not ratify the VFA, then it failed to meet our Constitution’s requirements.
ISSUE: Whether or not the VFA is constitutional.
HELD: Yes. It did not infringe upon our sovereignty. Firstly, the requirements of the constitution were met. Since this treaty pertains to foreign military troops, the more applicable provision is Sec. 25, Art. XVII which provides:
After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.
Based on the cited provision, the following are the requisites before US troops in the Philippines may be allowed:
1. There must be a treaty
2. Concurred in by the Senate
* When so required by Congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum
3. recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state
BAYAN is arguing that the third requisite was not met because the US Senate did not ratify the VFA. It was only the US Ambassador who wrote a letter recognizing the VFA, hence, at most, as far as the US is concerned, the VFA was a mere executive agreement. According the Supreme Court, this argument by BAYAN has no merit. The Supreme Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To require the other contracting state, the US in this case, to submit the VFA to the US Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to the phrase. Further, it is inconsequential whether the US treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty.
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of US troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the US and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.
The ratification, by the President, of the VFA and the concurrence of the Senate should be taken as a clear and unequivocal expression of our nation’s consent to be bound by said treaty, with the concomitant duty to uphold the obligations and responsibilities embodied thereunder.
With the ratification of the VFA, it now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement. No less than Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, declares that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” This is known as the principle of pacta sunt servanda which preserves the sanctity of treaties and have been one of the most fundamental principles of positive international law, supported by the jurisprudence of international tribunals.
