Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
EN BANC
BAGONG
ALYANSANG
MAKABAYAN
(BAYAN),
represented by its Secretary General,
RENATO M. REYES, JR., et al.,
Petitioners,
- versus -
DEPARTMENT
SECRETARY
GAZMIN, et al.,
OF
DEFENSE
VOLTAIRE
Respondents.
x:------------------------------------------------x
RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, et al.,
Petitioners,
- versus -
EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., et al.,
Respondents.
'.8:------------------------------------------------:x
KILUSANG
MAYO
UNO,
represehted by its Chahpersoh,
ELMER LABOG, et ;il.,
Petitioners-in-Intervention.
x:------------------------------------------------:x
RENE A.Q. SAGUISAG, JR.,
Petitioner-in-Intervention.
:x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------:x
Consolidated Co1runetlt
CONSOLIDATED COMMENT
The Enhanced D~fhnse Cooperation Agreement is an implementing devise far
the &public's general commitments under the Mutual Defense Treaty and its specific
com111ittJJents under the Visiting F'orces Agreement. The President as Con1mander-inChief; Chief Executive, and Chief Architect of.foreign polit!J has .the tonstitutional
aHtho1#y and du!J lo maintain the integn!J ef the nati'onafterritory, promote national
secuti!J~ secure ~tJeace and prevent hostilities. The .formulation and execution of the
detailr ofa national deje11Se poliqy require the highestpossiblejudicial deference.
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
respectfully state:
RELEVANT FACTS
1.
The Mutual Defense Trea[y. On 30August1951, the Republic of
the Philippines ~tnd the United States of America (US) entered into the
Mutual Defense Treaty (1'v1D'I) which stipulates that the parties shall
"maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist
armed attack." 1 The MDT, concurred in by the Philippine Senate on 12
May 1952,2 locates the parties~ obligations within their commitments
under the Charter of the United Nations (UN). Article I of the MDT
provides:
The Parties undert'<tke, as set fotth in the Charter of the United
Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be
.involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their
international relations from the th.teat .or use of 01-ce in any manner
inCDnsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
2.
The Visiting Forces Agreement. To implement the MDT and the
objective of both parties "to strengthen their present effo1ts to collective
defense for the presei-vation of peace and security;':; the Republic of the
Philippines and the US entered into the Visiting Forces Agreement (VPA)
on 10 February 1998. The VFA was concurred in by the Philippine Senate
on 27 May 1999.i~ It lays down the te1ms and conditions under which US
pers<)nnelS and fadlities6 may be present in the Philippines. Under the
VFA, the Philippines and the US have partidpated in the annual Balikatan
exercises, which involve the training of Philippine troops to enhance
1
_...................
----------------~~
..............-
~~-----------------~
Consolidated Comment
3.
'The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. 'I'o implement the
MDT and the VF.A, 8 the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement
(EDCA) was signed by Department of National Defense (DND)
Secretary Voltaire Gazmin for the Philippines and by US Ambassador to
the Philippines Philip Goldberg for the US on 28 April 2014.
4.
Two petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, i.e. the
BAYAi'\J Petition in G.R. No. 212444 and the Saguisag Petition in G ..R.
No. 212426, seek to declare the EDCA unconstitutional and to prohibit
its implementation. In a Resolution dated 03 June 2014, the Honorable
Court ordered the consolidation of these petitions and required
respondents to comment.
5.
Subsequently~ petitions-in-intervention were flied by .Kilusang
Mayo Uno, et al. and Rene A.Q. Saguisag, Jr. On 08 July 2014, the
Honorable Court resolved to require respondents to comment on the
petitions-in-intetvention) \.vithout giving due coutse to the said petitions.
6.
Considering that the petitions involve common questions of
law, respondents filed a Motion to File a Consolidated Comment on 12
August 2014. On the same date, respondents moved for an additional
extension of time to file the Consolidated Comment because the OSG has
not yet received a copy of the petition-in-intervention filed by Rene A.Q.
Saguisag, J1:.
7.
To date, the Honorable Court has not yet issued a resolution
on these motions. In the interest of time, respondents hereby file this
Consolidated Comment to the petitions.
PRELIMINARY AVERMENTS
8.
Lack of Standing to Assert Institutional Prerogatives.
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the EDCA on the ground that it
is a treaty that requires the concurrence of the Senate under Article XVIII,
Section 25 of the Constitution. .However, none of the petitioners is a
member of the Senate.
EDCA, Preamble.
...............--
~~-----------------Consolidated Comment
9.
The rule is that only incumbent Senators have standing to
raise the issue of Senate concurrence because it is their constitutional
function that is allegedly irnpaired. 9 The Honorable Court has ruled that
only incumbent Senators may raise this issue because they alone have
"legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges
vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate/'10 It is a
curious fact that only former Senators joined petitioners in filing these
cases. As such, they are in no position to concur in the EDCA and thus
ate not injured by the alleged lack of Senate concurrence.
10. There is also no allegation that somehow the members of the
Senate have been prevented from exercising their privileges. Absent any
evidence that Senators have been prevented from invoking the privileges
of their institution, the Honorable Court may well presume that the
Senate itself secs no need for such concurrence. Otherwise, the
Honorable Court could end up arbitrating constitutional questions and
''allocatling] constitutional boundaries 11 without a dispute upon the
instance of third parties, however well-intentioned.
11. Inappropriateness ef 'I'axpqyer Standing. Petitioners cannot also
sue as taxpayers because the EDCA is neither a tax measure, nor one
directed at the disbursement of public funds. In the absence of credible
allegation of an illegal or unconstitutional disbursement of public funds,
the Honorable Court cannot simply take at face value petitioners' bare
assertion of their right to sue as ta.xpayers. The Honorable Court should
avoid being goaded into assuming jurisdiction at the say-so of anyone who
pays taxes.
12. The Inapplicability ifthe 'Transcendental I111portance"Exception. The
mere invocation of "transcendental importancen cannot also confer
standing on petitioners. In Anak LViindanao Party-list Group v. .Executive
Secretary, 12 the Honorable Court held that "a party who assails the
constitutionality of a statute must have a direct and personal interest. lt
must show not only that the la\V' or any governmental act is invalid~ but
also that it sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct
inju11r as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that it suffers thereby
in some indefinite way." 13 Petitioners cannot use "transcendental
importance" to cure their inability to comply with the constitutional
requirement of standing. As the Honorable Court saidJ "[c]ourts do not sit
CONS'l1TUTION, At:t VII, Sec. 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless conct~tred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
rn Biraogo v. The Philippine Tnlth Commission, G.R. No. 192935, 07 December 2010.
11
A1{!;am v. Eiectora/ Commission, G.R. No .. L-45081, 15 July 1936.
12
G.R. No. 166052, 29 August 2007.
i ; Id.
Consolidated Comment
October :1955.
L> St{g11frag J?etirion, p. 36.
16
Id at 39.
ef Ed11ctJtio11,
Consolidated Comment
and 5, and those that should be held in law schools, the various media,
and on the streets, on the od1er hand.
17. In fact, it is entirely within the HonOrable Court's discretion
to rule separately (that is, in a separate resolution) on the jurisdictional
guestions presented in the vali.ous petitions in these consolidated cases.
Such decisional strategy would provide a specific occasion for the
Honorable Court to seriously taddc the qucstiort whether a decision on
the substantive questions should be had in the first place. Too many cases
have been decided on the merits by the Honorable Court that perhaps
should have been decided with a mote deliberate focus on the
jurisdictional questions.
17
Consolidated Comment
.As the Chief Executive and architect of the nation's foreign policy, the
President, through rhe DND, negotiated and ratified the ED(',A to
implement existing treaty commitments under the MDT and the VF A. As
Commander-in.,.Chief23 and protector of the Filipino peoplc,24 the
President entered into the EDCA to uphold the security interests of the
Philippines.
21.
Prematurity and ttpeculations. The EDCA provides for
separate agreements to carry out specific activities such as joint exercises,
the prepositioning of materiel, or construction activities. Under the
EDCA, every instance of defense cooperation is subject to either existing
bilatentl mechanisms or the requirement of subsequent implementing
agreements. This arrangement is consistent with the \TFA because the
VFA requires approval for specific "activities" by the Philippine
Government. This arrangement serves as the individualized consent
mechanism in favor of the Philippines to approve "activities" before they
are undertaken within its territory.
22. For example, the "Agreed Locations'' under the EDCA will
be determined through mutual agreement, to be specified either through
an annex or implementing arrangement. 25 To date, the parties have not yet
finalized the list of Agreed Locations either through an annex or a
separate agreement.
23.
25
26
27
The MDB was created through the 1958 Bohlen-Serrano Exchange of Notes to provide
continuing inter-governmental machinery fot direct lfaison and consultation between
app1'opriatc Philippine and United States authorities on military matters of mutual concern
so as to develop and improve~ through continuing military cooperation, the common
defense of the two countries. The cteafion of the MDB was provided by the Mutual Defense
Treaty between the Philippines and the United States. It is co-chaired by the AFP Chief of
Staff
and
the
US
Pacific
Command
Commander.
See
http;/ /www.vfacom.ph/ content/article/FAQs.
28
Id. The SEB "vas created through the 2006 Romulo-Kenney Exchange of Notes to provide
a framework and mechanism for direct and continuing liaison and consultation on nontraditional security concerns such as, but not limited to: terrorism, tJ:ans11ational crimes,
maritime security and safety, natutal and man-made disasters, between the apptopriate
.....................
~~----------------C<.msoHdated Corpment
the venues for consultation and agreement as to the nature, quantity, and
disposition of materiel to be stored in Agreed Locations.
24. Petitioners speculate that the separate agreements under the
.EDCA will violate various Philippine laws and operate as a blank check to
broaden the coverage of the EDCA.29 These speculations cannot be the
basis of a constitutional challenge. In the first place, one has to assume
that these separate agreements will be consistent with the Constitution,
our laws, and international obligations, as is clearly stated in the EDCA.
ln the second place, whether these separate agreements will violate
Philippine laws or unlawfully expand the EDCA cannot be determined in
advance. This simply cannot be done because the EDCA has not yet been
implemented.
25. For a case to be considered tipe for adjudication, "[i]t is a
prerequisite that something had by then been accomplished or
pei-formed ... before a court may come into the picture." 30 The fact that
the EDCA provides for specific agreements to undertake defined
activities reinforces Philippine sovereignty because consent of the
Philippines is required before these activities are undcrtal~en within its
territory. This arrangement also shows that the ED('.,A is an implementing
agreement of the VFA, because it follows the framework of the VFA
requiring that any "activity" be approved by the Philippine Government.
ISSUE
\-x;'HETHER
THE
ENHANCED
DEFENSE
COOPERATION AGREEMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I.
Philippine and United States authorities; develop measures and arrangements for enhanced
cooperation in connection therewith, and appropriate common security interests of the two
soveJ:eign countries. The SEB complements the MDB.
29
BAYANPetltion, p. 28-29.
1
'' Tan v. Mmupa,gal, G.R. Nos. L-34161, 29 February 1972.
Consolidated Comment
III.
Consolidated Comment
I.
THE EDCA IS AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT ENTERED
INTO BY THE PRESIDENT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF Hrs
PRIME DUTY TO DEFEND NATIONAL SECURITY.
11
32
Consolidated Comment
'
11
:n
...
Consolidated Comment
12
G.R.:Nos.212444,212426
._
'
~"
I r1,.
~'
to_thp
i' ~
!!
--,~ -. ~-?~:');..
,;
..
:;. .. State
tJ.S~
.;?
EDCA, Art. I.
Consolidated Comment
13
G.R. :Nos.212444,212426
"1
David v. Macapa,gal-Arrqyo, G.R. Nq. 171396, 3 May 2006; IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284,
ivfanglapm~ Jttj>ra note 36.
Consolidated Comment
14
widest latitude in balancing the nation's limited options and calibrating his
responses to ensure their ma..'timum intended effect. In light of the reality
that the nuances of foreign policy and international relatfons are best left
to agencies and instrumentalities of government-all of whom under the
control of the President-with institutional capacity to plan and execute
the President's national defense policy, it stands to reason that courts
must approach this case with deference to a foreign policy decision
already made.
41. Judicial deference to decisions relating to national security is
also required by the principle of separation of powers. Consistent with
Hamilton's view, nonns articulated in a judicial decision may inadvertently
deprive the government of specific and graduated remedies to address
pressing national security concerns, because "it is impossible to foresee or
define the extent and variety of national exigencies." By constitutional
design, the Judiciary does not have the institutional capacity to appreciate
the severity and scope of a national security problem and the propriety of
the means to address it.
42. Lest we forget, the Judiciary also has the constitutional duty
to uphold national security and protect national territoty in the
performance of its judicial function. The Constitution imposes the duty to
protect and serve the people on the entire government of the
Philippines. 43 The National Defense Act provides that "[t]he pteservation
of the State is the obligation of every citizen."44 A necessary part of this
constitutional and statutory duty of the Judiciary is to exercise utmost
deference to the Executive when it undertakes national security measmes
to defend the security of the Republic.
C. The MDT, VFA and EDCA are Security Agreements.
43. The MDT, VFA and EDCA are security agreements. They
arc meant to promc.>te the common internal and external security interests
of the Philippines and the US. They were entered into by the President in
the performance of his prime duty to uphold the national security of the
Philippines.
44.
......___________________!
.--------------------------------------
Consolidated Comment
15
objective of [the MD1], the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and
mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective
capacity to resist atmed attack." Thus, the MD'f does not only
contemplate the defense against an actual armed attack, but the
undertaking of security measures to "maintain and develop ... individual
and collecdve capacity to resist atmed attack.')
II.
THE EDCA IS AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, AND
THEREFORE
DOES
NOT
REQUIRE
SENATE
CONCURRENCE.
VF.A, Preamble.
VFA, Preamble.
Consolidated Comment
~,
'
16
"the Parties geparately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will
maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist
armed attack," and within the context of the VFA.
52. In entering into the MDT, the US and the Philippines seek,
among others, to "declare publicly and .formally their sense of unity and
their common determination to defend themselves against external armed
attack" and "further strengthen their present efforts to collective defense
for the presc.rvation of peace and security pending the development of a
more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area."48 To
achieve these objectives, the MDT provides~
ARTICLE II
In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty,
the Parries separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will
maintain and develop individual and collective capacity to resist armed
attack.
47
48
MDT, Preamble.
~----------------
--------
17
Consolidated Comment
ARTICLE III
The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies,
will consult together from time to time regarding the implementation
of this Treaty and whenever in the opinion of either of them the
tcrrito.tial integrity, political independence or security of either of the
Parties is threatened by external armed att-ack in the Pacific.
53. J\s the core defense relationship between the Philippines and
the US, the MD'f seeks the enhancement of the strategic and
technological capabilities of the parties' armed forccs. 49 The specific
language of Article II above includes acts preparatory to allied defense
operations. The language of the MDT does not limit its application to
situations when either party is alreacfy under armed attack. The objective of
the MDT, as stated in Article II, is to enhance the parties' capability to
prevent or resist a possible armed attack. The underlying idea behind the
MDT is the concept of mut-ual d~fense.
54.
Consolidated Comment
18
59. Article III of the EDCA provides for the "Agreed Locations"
where the Philippines authorizes US forces and contractors to "conduct
the following activities": 51
"training; transit; support and related
activities; refueling of aircraft; bunkering of vessels; temporary
maintenance of vehicles, vessels and aircraft; temporary accommodation
of personnel; communications; prepositioning of equipment, supplies and
materiel; deploying forces and materiel; and such other activities as the
Parties may agree."52
60.
Article IV of the EDCA authorizes the prepositioning and
storing of defense equipment, supplies and materiel. Under Artide IV in
relation to Article III of the EDCA> the prepositioning of equipment,
supplies and materiel" is an "activiti' to be approved by the Philippine
Government "through bilateral security mechanisms, such as the MDB
and SEB."53 Article IV of the EDCA further states that "[t]he Parties
share a recognition of the benefits that such prepositioning could have for
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. 'The Parties also recognize the
value of such prepositioning to the enhancement of their individual and
collective defense capabilities." This again shows that the EDCA
reiterates the MDT, as implemented by the VFA.
51
Emphasis supplied.
Emphasis supplied.
53
EDCA, A1ticle IV.
52
r-
------
------
Consolidated Comment
...
\
19
,..
"'"
54
Consolidated Comment
20
After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement bet'l,veen the Republic of the Philippines and
the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, 01
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by
the Senate tmd, when the Congt:ess so ret1uites, ratified by a majority of the \rotes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State.
57
Emphasis supplied. Supm note 7 at 755.
;6
Consolidated Comm.cot
21
67. Li1JJ ruled that the teim "activities" under the VFA is broad
enough to include "patrol and surveillance to protect the nation's marine
resources," "sea search-and-rescue operations" and "disaster relief
operations" - activities that are covered by the EDCA. These activities
necessarily involve the entry and operation of US facilities within
Philippine territory.
68. The "activities'' under the VFA are meant to "strengthen
international and regional security in the Pacific area" and to promote the
"common security interests" between the US and the Philippines. Thus,
the '\i.ctivities" under the 'lFA relate to individual and common security
interests of both countries. This is because the VF A, by its own terms,
implements the MDT which is intended, among others, to "maintain and
develop [the Pa1:ties'] individual and collective cap~city to resist armed
attack."
69. The MDI' is expressed in general terms and cannot be
enforced by its own terms. By necessity, the language of both the MDT
and the VFA (and to some extent the EDCA) must be couched in general
terms considering that these are security agreements. It would be the
height of naivete to constitutionally require that any of these agreements
be articulated at the level of granular details. Both the generality of the
language and the consent mechanisms in the documents are themselves
security features that sei\re to protect our national interests.
70. At the same time, the MDT must necessarily be implemented
by subsequent agreements between the Philippines and the US such as the
VFA and the EDCA. Lim said that "li]t is the VFA which gives continued
relevance to the MDT despite the passage of years." Nicolas ruled that the
VFA is "an implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense
Treaty, [and] it was not necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for
advice and consent ... "
Consolidated Comment
22
74.
The EDCA is wholly consistent with the MDT and the VFA
because it simply reiterates the material p.mvisions of the MDT and the
VFA Vvith accompanying adjustments in detail such as the prepositioning
of equipment (Article IV), disaster relief operations (Article I and IV),
utilities and communications in the agreed locations (Article Vll), and
safeguards for the environment and human health (Article IX).
....
-------------------------------------..,
Consolidated Comment
23
III.
ASSORTED ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONS
24
Consolidated Comment
4.
All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force agairtst the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the United Nations.
xxx
xxx
xxx
In the same manner, both the Mutual Defense Treaty and the
Visiting Forces Agreement, as h1 all other treaties and international
agreements to which the Philippines is a party, must be read in the
context of the 1987 Constitution. In particular, the Mutual Defense
Treaty was concluded way before the present Charter, though it
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
79. In any case, it is simply false to argue that the MDT "adopts
war as instrument of national policy." The MDT is meant for the
6; Emphasis supplied. S11pr1111ote 7.
64
Da.w1atiiitl.r f.F?(lfer Di.rtrict v. M.onteny .Foods Co!j;oration, G.R. No. 175550, 17 September 2008.
eu
Consolidated Comment
25
81. The argument that Article IV, paragraph 1 of the EDCA only
applies to prepositioned materiel and would not bar the entry of US
vessels and aircraft carrying nuclea.t weapons is specious and contradicted
by the express pwvisions of the EDCA. The EDCA is premised on "full
respect for the Philippine Constitution ~t:nd Philippine laws"66 and the
parties' obligations under international conventions against chemical and
biological weapons.
82. Activities involving the entry of vessels and aircraft will
rec1uire the approval of the Philippine Government. Such approval is
66
EDCA, Preamble.
Consolidated Comment
26
67
Consolidated Comment
27
Internal Revenue Code, the Local Government Code, and the National
Building Code, among others.
68
Nicolas v. Romulo, citing DIETER FI.ECK, ED., THE }L\NDBOOK OF THE LAW OF VISITING
FORCES (2001).
-- -----------,-.-,.--~---..,..----,...-------------------.
Consolidated Comment
28
PRAYER
\XlHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that:
1-0 111c State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide
adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
improved quality of life for all.
" The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
12 The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health
consciousness among them.
15 The State affirms labor as a primru:y social economic force. It shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare.
74
G.R. No. 118295, 02 May 1997.
5
" See a/s(I Kilosbt!Jan v..Morato, G.R. No. 118910, 17 July 1995; Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. No.
91649, 14 Mav 1991.
7
" Taiiada v. A~gara, G.R. No. 118295, 02May1997.
Consolidated Comment
29
EM~!s'.~z
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 56 723
IBP No. 953502, 01-08-14
MCLE Compliance No. lV-0010542, 12-20-12
MARIAG
As. ociate Solicitor
Roll No. 61899
IBP No. 954310, 1-9-14
MCLE Compliance No. N/A
30
Consolidated Comment
JOHN DAL
'JJ.
BALLINAN
Asso
Solicitor
Roll No. 56727
IBP Lifetime No. 08853
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009117
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 56809
IBP Lifetime No. 08851
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0009116
RAMON
ANT~ANDAN
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 63042
IBP No. 96846, 04-15-14
MCLE Compliance No. N/A
LIWAY;;,:.!!rRUIZO
Roll No. 63351
IBP No. 967967, 03-31-14
MCLE Compliance No. N/A
Copy Furnished:
HARRY L. ROQUE
ROMMEL R. BAGARES
ETHEL C. AVISADO
Roque & Butuyan Law Offices
C:ounselfor Petiti1Jners i11 G.R. No. 212426
1904 Antcl Corporate Center
121 Valcm St., Salcedo Village
Makati City
RACHEL F. PASTORES
AMYLYN B. SATO
FRANCIS ANTHONY P. PRINCIPE
SANDRA JILL S. SANTOS
CARLOS A. MONTE;MAYOR, JR.
Public Interest law Center
Counsel.for Petitioners in G.R. No. 212444
4/F Kajia Bldg., 7836 Makati .:\venue
Executive Secretaty
OCHOA, JR.
PAQUITO
N.
City
FRANCISCO
Department of Justice
Padre Faura St., Legaspi Village
Makati City
City
Defense Undersecretary
City
Ambassador LOURDES
YPARRAGUlRRE
DFA Bldg., 2330 Roxas Blvd., Pasay City
Ambassador J. EDUARDO MALAYA
DFA Bldg., 2330 Roxas Blvd., Pasay City
.!
coNSOLlDATED COMMEN'f
Page 32of32
EXPLA.NA'flON
(Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)
111is Cl)nsolidated Comnw1t is being served by register.cd mail clue to lack of sufficient
personnel in the Office of the Solicitor Gt--i1ctal to effect personal service.
RAMON~NDAN.
Associate S o!idtor