BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan), petitioner v.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, respondent

G. R. No. 138570
October 10, 2000.
FACTS:
- On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the United States of America forged a military bases agreement which
formalized, among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by the US military personnel.
- To further strengthen their defense and security relationship, the Philippines and the US entered into a Mutual
Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951.
- Under the treaty, the parties agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public
vessels and aircraft
- In 1991, with the expiration of RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the periodic military exercises between the two
countries were held in abeyance. However, the defense and security relationship continued pursuant to the Mutual
Defense Treaty.
- On July 18, 1997 the United States panel exchanged notes with the Philippine panel to discussed, among others,
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.
- Pres. Joseph Estrada ratified the VFA on October 5, 1998 and on May 27, 1999, the senate approved it by (2/3)
votes.
- The VFA provides for the mechanism for regulating the circumstances and conditions under which US armed forces
and defense personnel may be present in the Philippines.
- 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 allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred
in by the Senate . . . and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

ISSUE:
WON the Visiting Forces Agreement is Unconstitutional.
HELD:
[The petition was dismissed, held that the petitioners did not commit grave abuse of discretion, and
sustained the constitutionality of the VFA.]
NO, the VFA is not unconstitutional.
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following
conditions are sufficiently met,
(a) it must be under a treaty;
(b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of
the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and
(c) Recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the VFA. The concurrence handed by
the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution . . . the provision in [in
25, Article XVIII] requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being unnecessary
since Congress has not required it.
This 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 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.
Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because,
under international law, an executive agreement is as 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.
The records reveal that the United States Government, through Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard, has stated that the
United States government has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. For as long as the United States of
America accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a treaty, and binds itself further to comply with its obligations under the
treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the Constitution.