BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) VS ZAMORA

G.R. No. 1378570

October 10, 2000
Facts:
On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and USA forged a Military Basess Agreement which
formalized the use of installations in the Philippine territory by US military personnel. They also
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.
As the RP-US Military Bases Agreement is about expire, RP and US negotiated for a possible
extension. The Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation
and Security, which would extend the presence of US military bases in the Philippines. With the
expiration of the Military Bases Agreement, the periodic military exercises conducted between
the two countries were held in abeyance.
The US panel and Philippine panel exchanged notes on the complementing strategic
interests of the US and Philippines in the Asia-Pacific region. Negotiations led to a consolidated
draft text which resulted to a final series of conferences and negotiations. President Fidel Ramos
approved the VFA, which was signed by public respondent Secretary Siazon and US
Ambassador Thomas Hubbard. President Joseph Estrada, through Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
ratified the VFA.
The President, through the Executive Secretary, officially transmitted to the Senate, the
Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President, and the VFA for concurrence. The Senate
referred the VFA to its Committee on Foreign Relations and Committee on National Defense and
Security and joint public hearings were held. A Senate Resolution recommended the concurrence
of the Senate to the VFA. The Proposed Senate Resolution was approved by a 2/3 vote. The VFA
officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes between Secretary Siazon and US
Ambassador Hubbard. The VFA provides for the mechanisms for regulating the circumstances
and conditions under which US Armed Forces and defense personnel may be present in the
Philippines.
Petitioners then assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute to respondents grave abuse of
discretion in ratifying the agreement.
Issues:
1. Whether or not petitioners have legal standing
2. Whether or not the VFA is governed by Sec. 21, Art. VII or of Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the
Constitution
Held:
1. No. Petitioners failed to show that they have sustained, or are in danger of sustaining any
direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the VFA. As taxpayers, petitioners have not
established that the VFA involves the exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending
power. However, the Court may relax the standing requirements and allow a suit to
prosper even where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial
review.

2. Section 25, Article XVIII should apply in this case. However, Sec. 21, Article VII will
find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of determining the
number of votes required to obtain concurrence of Senate.
Sec. 21, Article VII deals with treaties or international agreements in general, in which
case, the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the Members of the Senate is required to make
the subject treaty, or international agreement, valid and binding on the part of the
Philippines. All treaties or international agreements entered into by the Philippines,
regardless of subject matter, coverage, or particular designation or appellation, requires
the concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.
Sec. 25, Article XVIII, is a special provision that applies to treaties which involve the
presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the Philippines. Under this
provision, the concurrence of Senate is only one of the requisites to render compliance
with the constitutional requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the
Philippines.
However, Sec. 25 disallows foreign military bases, troops or facilities in the country,
unless the following conditions are 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 VFA. The last requisite means that the other party accepts or acknowledges
the agreement as a treaty. The records reveal that the US has fully committed to living up
to the terms of the VFA. For as long as the US 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.
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. In international law, there is no
difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states
concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers.