Lim V Exec Sec

8/12/2015 Lim vs Macapagal-Arroyo (Balikatan 02-1) : 151445 : April 11, 2002 : J.
De Leon, Jr : En Banc
ENBANC
[G.R.No.151445.April11,2002]
ARTHUR D. LIM and PAULINO R. ERSANDO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY as alter ego of HER EXCELLENCY GLORIA
MACAPAGALARROYO, and HONORABLE ANGELO REYES in his
capacityasSecretaryofNationalDefense,respondents.
SANLAKASandPARTIDONGMANGGAGAWA,petitionersintervenors,vs.
GLORIAMACAPAGALARROYO,ALBERTOROMULO,ANGELOREYES,
respondents.
DECISION
DELEON,JR.,J.:
This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a petitioninintervention,
prayingthatrespondentsberestrainedfromproceedingwiththesocalledBalikatan021andthatafter
due notice and hearing, that judgment be rendered issuing a permanent writ of injunction and/or
prohibition against the deployment of U.S. troops in Basilan and Mindanao for being illegal and in
violationoftheConstitution.
Thefactsareasfollows:
Beginning January of this year 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United States of
America started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in
Balikatan 021. These socalled Balikatan exercises are the largest combined training operations
involving Filipino and American troops. In theory, they are a simulation of joint military maneuvers
pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty,[1] a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines
andtheUnitedStatesin1951.
Priortotheyear2002,thelastBalikatanwasheldin1995.Thiswasduetothepaucityofanyformal
agreementrelativetothetreatmentofUnitedStatespersonnelvisitingthePhilippines.Inthemeantime,
the respective governments of the two countries agreed to hold joint exercises on a reduced scale. The
lackofconsensuswaseventuallycuredwhenthetwonationsconcludedtheVisitingForcesAgreement
(VFA)in1999.
The entry of American troops into Philippine soil is proximately rooted in the international anti
terrorismcampaigndeclaredbyPresidentGeorgeW.Bushinreactiontothetragiceventsthatoccurred
on September 11, 2001.On that day, three (3) commercial aircrafts were hijacked, flown and smashed
into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon building in
Washington, D.C. by terrorists with alleged links to the alQaeda (the Base), a Muslim extremist
organizationheadedbytheinfamousOsamabinLaden.Ofnocomparablehistoricalparallels,theseacts
causedbillionsofdollarsworthofdestructionofpropertyandincalculablelossofhundredsoflives.
On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for
certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.[2] They were joined
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/151445.htm 1/13
8/12/2015 Lim vs Macapagal-Arroyo (Balikatan 02-1) : 151445 : April 11, 2002 : J. De Leon, Jr : En Banc
subsequentlybySANLAKASandPARTIDONGMANGGAGAWA,bothpartylistorganizations,who
filedapetitionininterventiononFebruary11,2002.
LimandErsandofiledsuitintheircapacitiesascitizens,lawyersandtaxpayers.SANLAKASand
PARTIDO,ontheotherhand,averthatcertainmembersoftheirorganizationareresidentsofZamboanga
and Sulu, and hence will be directly affected by the operations being conducted in Mindanao. They
likewiseprayforarelaxationontherulesrelativetolocusstandicitingtheunprecedentedimportanceof
theissueinvolved.
On February 7, 2002 the Senate conducted a hearing on the Balikatan exercise wherein Vice
PresidentTeofistoT.Guingona,Jr.,whoisconcurrentlySecretaryofForeignAffairs,presentedtheDraft
TermsofReference(TOR).[3]Fivedayslater,heapprovedtheTOR,whichwequotehereunder:
I. POLICY LEVEL
1. The Exercise shall be Consistent with the Philippine Constitution and all its activities shall be in
consonance with the laws of the land and the provisions of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
2. The conduct of this training Exercise is in accordance with pertinent United Nations resolutions against
global terrorism as understood by the respective parties.
3. No permanent US basing and support facilities shall be established. Temporary structures such as those
for troop billeting, classroom instruction and messing may be set up for use by RP and US Forces during
the Exercise.
4. The Exercise shall be implemented jointly by RP and US Exercise Co-Directors under the authority of
the Chief of Staff, AFP. In no instance will US Forces operate independently during field training
exercises (FTX). AFP and US Unit Commanders will retain command over their respective forces under
the overall authority of the Exercise Co-Directors. RP and US participants shall comply with operational
instructions of the APP during the FTX.
5. The exercise shall be conducted and completed within a period of not more than six months, with the
projected participation of 660 US personnel and 3,800 RP Forces. The Chief of Staff, AFP shall direct the
Exercise Co-Directors to wind up and terminate the Exercise and other activities within the six month
Exercise period.
6. The Exercise is a mutual counter-terrorism advising, assisting and training Exercise relative to
Philippine efforts against the ASG, and will be conducted on the Island of Basilan. Further advising,
assisting and training exercises shall be conducted in Malagutay and the Zamboanga area. Related
activities in Cebu will be for support of the Exercise.
7. Only 160 US Forces organized in 12-man Special Forces Teams shall be deployed with AFP field
commanders. The US teams shall remain at the Battalion Headquarters and, when approved, Company
Tactical headquarters where they can observe and assess the performance of the APP Forces.
8. US exercise participants shall not engage in combat, without prejudice to their right of self-defense.
9. These terms of Reference are for purposes of this Exercise only and do not create additional legal
obligations between the US Government and the Republic of the Philippines.
II. EXERCISE LEVEL
1. TRAINING
a. The Exercise shall involve the conduct of mutual military assisting, advising and training of RP and US
Forces with the primary objective of enhancing the operational capabilities of both forces to combat
terrorism.
b. At no time shall US Forces operate independently within RP territory.
c. Flight plans of all aircraft involved in the exercise will comply with the local air traffic regulations.
2. ADMINISTRATION & LOGISTICS
a. RP and US participants shall be given a country and area briefing at the start of the Exercise. This
briefing shall acquaint US Forces on the culture and sensitivities of the Filipinos and the provisions of the
VFA. The briefing shall also promote the full cooperation on the part of the RP and US participants for
the successful conduct of the Exercise.
b. RP and US participating forces may share, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations, in
the use of their resources, equipment and other assets. They will use their respective logistics channels.
c. Medical evaluation shall be jointly planned and executed utilizing RP and US assets and resources.
d. Legal liaison officers from each respective party shall be appointed by the Exercise Directors.
3. PUBLIC AFFAIRS
a. Combined RP-US Information Bureaus shall be established at the Exercise Directorate in Zamboanga
City and at GHQ, AFP in Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City.
b. Local media relations will be the concern of the AFP and all public affairs guidelines shall be jointly
developed by RP and US Forces.
c. Socio-Economic Assistance Projects shall be planned and executed jointly by RP and US Forces in
accordance with their respective laws and regulations, and in consultation with community and local
government officials.
Contemporaneously, Assistant Secretary for American Affairs Minerva Jean A. Falcon and United
States Charge d Affaires Robert Fitts signed the Agreed Minutes of the discussion between the Vice
PresidentandAssistantSecretaryKelly.[4]
PetitionersLimandErsandopresentthefollowingarguments:
I
THE PHILIPPINES AND THE UNITED STATES SIGNED THE MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY
(MDT) in 1951 TO PROVIDE MUTUAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES OF EACH COUNTRY ONLY IN THE CASE OF AN ARMED
ATTACK BY AN EXTERNAL AGGRESSOR, MEANING A THIRD COUNTRY AGAINST ONE OF
THEM.
BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE ABU SAYYAF

BANDITS IN BASILAN CONSTITUTE AN EXTERNAL ARMED FORCE THAT HAS SUBJECT
THE PHILIPPINES TO AN ARMED EXTERNAL ATTACK TO WARRANT U.S. MILITARY
ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MDT OF 1951.
II
NEITHER DOES THE VFA OF 1999 AUTHORIZE AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO ENGAGE IN

COMBAT OPERATIONS IN PHILIPPINE TERRITORY, NOT EVEN TO FIRE BACK IF FIRED
UPON.
SubstantiallythesamepointsareadvancedbypetitionersSANLAKASandPARTIDO.
InhisComment,theSolicitorGeneralpointstoinfirmitiesinthepetitionsregarding,interalia,Lim
andErsandosstandingtofilesuit,theprematurityoftheaction,aswellastheimproprietyofavailingof
certioraritoascertainaquestionoffact.Anenttheirlocusstandi,theSolicitorGeneralarguesthatfirst,
theymaynotfilesuitintheircapacitiesastaxpayersinasmuchasithasnotbeenshownthatBalikatan02
1 involves the exercise of Congress taxing or spending powers. Second, their being lawyers does not
invest them with sufficient personality to initiate the case, citing our ruling in Integrated Bar of the
Philippines v. Zamora.[5] Third, Lim and Ersando have failed to demonstrate the requisite showing of
directpersonalinjury.Weagree.
Itisalsocontendedthatthepetitionersareindulginginspeculation.TheSolicitorGeneralisofthe
viewthatsincetheTermsofReferenceareclearastotheextentanddurationofBalikatan021,theissues
raisedbypetitionersarepremature,astheyarebasedonlyonafearoffutureviolationoftheTermsof
Reference.Evenpetitionersresorttoaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariisassailedonthegroundthatthe
writmayonlyissueonthebasisofestablishedfacts.
Apartfromthesethresholdissues,theSolicitorGeneralclaimsthatthereisactuallynoquestionof
constitutionalityinvolved.Thetrueobjectoftheinstantsuit,itissaid,istoobtainaninterpretationofthe
VFA. The Solicitor General asks that we accord due deference to the executive determination that
Balikatan 021 is covered by the VFA, considering the Presidents monopoly in the field of foreign
relationsandherroleascommanderinchiefofthePhilippinearmedforces.
Given the primordial importance of the issue involved, it will suffice to reiterate our view on this
pointinarelatedcase:
Notwithstanding, in view of the paramount importance and the constitutional significance of the
issues raised in the petitions, this Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushes aside the
procedural barrier and takes cognizance of the petitions, as we have done in the early Emergency
Powers Cases, where we had occasion to rule:
x x x ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of several
executive orders issued by President Quirino although they were involving only an indirect and
general interest shared in common with the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they
were not proper parties and ruled that transcendental importance to the public of these cases
demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must,
technicalities of procedure. We have since then applied the exception in many other cases.
[citation omitted]
This principle was reiterated in the subsequent cases of Gonzales vs. COMELEC, Daza vs. Singson,
and Basco vs. Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corporation, where we emphatically held:
Considering however the importance to the public of the case at bar, and in keeping with the
Courts duty, under the 1987 Constitution, to determine whether or not the other branches of the
government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws that they
have not abused the discretion given to them, the Court has brushed aside technicalities of
procedure and has taken cognizance of this petition. xxx
Again, in the more recent case of Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr., this Court ruled that in cases of
transcendental importance, 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.
Although courts generally avoid having to decide a constitutional question based on the doctrine of
separation of powers, which enjoins upon the departments of the government a becoming respect for each
others acts, this Court nevertheless resolves to take cognizance of the instant petitions.[6]
Hence,wetreatwithsimilardispatchthegeneralobjectiontothesupposedprematurityoftheaction.
At any rate, petitioners' concerns on the lack of any specific regulation on the latitude of activity US
personnelmayundertakeandthedurationoftheirstayhasbeenaddressedintheTermsofReference.
TheholdingofBalikatan021mustbestudiedintheframeworkofthetreatyantecedentstowhich
the Philippines bound itself. The first of these is the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT, for brevity). The
MDThasbeendescribedasthecoreofthedefenserelationshipbetweenthePhilippinesanditstraditional
ally, the United States. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed
forces through joint training with its American counterparts the Balikatan is the largest such training
exercise directly supporting the MDTs objectives. It is this treaty to which the VFA adverts and the
obligationsthereunderwhichitseekstoreaffirm.
ThelapseoftheUSPhilippineBasesAgreementin1992andthedecisionnottorenewitcreateda
vacuum in USPhilippine defense relations, that is, until it was replaced by the Visiting Forces
Agreement.ItshouldberecalledthatonOctober10,2000,byavoteofeleventothree,thiscourtupheld
thevalidityoftheVFA.[7]TheVFAprovidestheregulatorymechanismbywhichUnitedStatesmilitary
andcivilianpersonnel[mayvisit]temporarilyinthePhilippinesinconnectionwithactivitiesapprovedby
thePhilippineGovernment.ItcontainsprovisionsrelativetoentryanddepartureofAmericanpersonnel,
drivingandvehicleregistration,criminaljurisdiction,claims,importationandexportation,movementof
vessels and aircraft, as well as the duration of the agreement and its termination. It is the VFA which
givescontinuedrelevancetotheMDTdespite the passage of years.Its primary goal is to facilitate the
promotion of optimal cooperation between American and Philippine military forces in the event of an
attackbyacommonfoe.
The first question that should be addressed is whether Balikatan 021 is covered by the Visiting
ForcesAgreement.Toresolvethis,itisnecessarytorefertotheVFAitself.Notmuchhelpcanbehad
therefrom,unfortunately,sincetheterminologyemployedisitselfthesourceoftheproblem.TheVFA
permitsUnitedStatespersonneltoengage,onanimpermanentbasis,inactivities,theexactmeaningof
whichwasleftundefined.Theexpressionisambiguous,permittingawidescopeofundertakingssubject
only to the approval of the Philippine government.[8] The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is
couchedinthenegative,inthatUnitedStatespersonnelmustabstainfromanyactivityinconsistentwith
thespiritofthisagreement,andinparticular,fromanypoliticalactivity.[9]Allotheractivities,inother
words,arefairgame.
Wearenotleftcompletelyunaided,however.TheViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,which
containsprovisosgoverninginterpretationsofinternationalagreements,state:
SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES
Article 31
General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the
terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text,
including its preamble and annexes:
(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in
connexion with the conclusion of the treaty;
(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connexion with the conclusion
of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the party.
3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:
(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty
or the application of its provisions;
(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement
of the parties regarding its interpretation;
(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.
4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.
Article 32
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the
treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
Itisclearfromtheforegoingthatthecardinalruleofinterpretationmustinvolveanexaminationof
the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties intentions. The Convention likewise dictates what
maybeusedasaidstodeducethemeaningofterms,whichitreferstoasthecontextofthetreaty,aswell
asotherelementsmaybetakenintoaccountalongsidetheaforesaidcontext.Asexplainedbyawriteron
theConvention,
[t]he Commissions proposals (which were adopted virtually without change by the conference and are
now reflected in Articles 31 and 32 of the Convention) were clearly based on the view that the text of a
treaty must be presumed to be the authentic expression of the intentions of the parties; the Commission
accordingly came down firmly in favour of the view that the starting point of interpretation is the
elucidation of the meaning of the text, not an investigation ab initio into the intentions of the parties. This
is not to say that the travaux prparatoires of a treaty, or the circumstances of its conclusion, are relegated
to a subordinate, and wholly ineffective, role. As Professor Briggs points out, no rigid temporal
prohibition on resort to travaux prparatoires of a treaty was intended by the use of the phrase
supplementary means of interpretation in what is now Article 32 of the Vienna Convention. The
distinction between the general rule of interpretation and the supplementary means of interpretation is
intended rather to ensure that the supplementary means do not constitute an alternative, autonomous
method of interpretation divorced from the general rule.[10]
TheTermsofReferencerightlyfallwithinthecontextoftheVFA.
After studied reflection, it appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the
wordactivitiesarosefromaccident.Inourview,itwasdeliberatelymadethatwaytogivebothpartiesa
certainleewayinnegotiation.Inthismanner,visitingUSforcesmaysojourninPhilippineterritoryfor
purposesotherthanmilitary.Asconceived,thejointexercisesmayincludetrainingonnewtechniquesof
patrolandsurveillancetoprotectthenationsmarineresources,seasearchandrescueoperationstoassist
vesselsindistress,disasterreliefoperations,civicactionprojectssuchasthebuildingofschoolhouses,
medicalandhumanitarianmissions,andthelike.
Undertheseauspices,theVFAgiveslegitimacytothecurrentBalikatanexercises.Itisonlylogical
to assume that Balikatan 021, a mutual antiterrorism advising, assisting and training exercise, falls
undertheumbrellaofsanctionedorallowableactivitiesinthecontextoftheagreement.Boththehistory
and intent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion that combatrelated
activitiesasopposedtocombatitselfsuchastheonesubjectoftheinstantpetition,areindeedauthorized.
Thatisnottheendofthematter,though.GrantedthatBalikatan021ispermittedunderthetermsof
the VFA, what may US forces legitimately do in furtherance of their aim to provide advice, assistance
and training in the global effort against terrorism? Differently phrased, may American troops actually
engage in combat in Philippine territory? The Terms of Reference are explicit enough. Paragraph 8 of
sectionIstipulatesthatUSexerciseparticipantsmaynotengage in combat except in selfdefense. We
wrylynotethatthissentimentisadmirableintheabstractbutdifficultinimplementation.Thetargetof
Balikatan021,theAbuSayyaf,cannotreasonablybeexpectedtositidlywhilethebattleisbroughtto
theirverydoorstep.Theycannotbeexpectedtopickandchoosetheirtargetsfortheywillnothavethe
luxuryofdoingso.Westatethispointifonlytosignifyourawarenessthatthepartiesstraddleafineline,
observingthehonoredlegalmaximNemopotestfacereperaliumquodnonpotestfacereperdirectum.[11]
The indirect violation is actually petitioners worry, that in reality, Balikatan 021 is actually a war
principallyconductedbytheUnitedStatesgovernment,andthattheprovisiononselfdefenseservesonly
ascamouflagetoconcealthetruenatureoftheexercise.Aclearpronouncementonthismatterthereby
becomescrucial.
In our considered opinion, neither the MDT nor the VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an
offensivewaronPhilippineterritory.WebearinmindthesalutaryproscriptionstatedintheCharterof
theUnitedNations,towit:
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance
with the following Principles.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
In the same manner, both the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement, as in all
othertreatiesandinternationalagreementstowhichthePhilippinesisaparty,mustbereadinthecontext
ofthe1987Constitution.Inparticular,theMutualDefenseTreatywasconcludedwaybeforethepresent
Charter,thoughitneverthelessremainsineffectasavalidsourceofinternationalobligation.Thepresent
Constitutioncontainskeyprovisionsusefulindeterminingtheextenttowhichforeignmilitarytroopsare
allowed in Philippine territory.Thus, in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, it is provided
that:
xxxxxxxxxxxx
SEC. 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
SEC. 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the
paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right
to self-determination.
SEC. 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom
from nuclear weapons in the country.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
TheConstitutionalsoregulatestheforeignrelationspowersoftheChiefExecutivewhenitprovides
that[n]otreatyorinternationalagreementshallbevalidandeffectiveunlessconcurredinbyatleasttwo
thirdsofallthemembersoftheSenate.[12]Evenmorepointedly,theTransitoryProvisionsstate:
Sec. 25. 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.
The aforequoted provisions betray a marked antipathy towards foreign military presence in the
country,orofforeigninfluenceingeneral.Hence,foreigntroopsareallowedentryintothePhilippines
onlybyway ofdirect exception.Conflict arises then between the fundamental law and our obligations
arisingfrominternationalagreements.
Aratherrecentformulationoftherelationofinternationallawvisvismunicipallawwasexpressed
inPhilipMorris,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,[13]towit:
xxx Withal, the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any
means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the
doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing
equal, not superior, to national legislation.
Thisisnotexactlyhelpfulinsolvingtheproblemathandsinceintryingtofindamiddleground,itfavors
neither one law nor the other, which only leaves the hapless seeker with an unsolved dilemma. Other
moretraditionalapproachesmayoffervaluableinsights.
Fromtheperspectiveofpublicinternationallaw,atreatyisfavoredovermunicipallawpursuantto
theprincipleofpactasuntservanda.Hence,[e]verytreatyinforceisbindinguponthepartiestoitand
must be performed by them in good faith.[14] Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to invoke the
provisionsofitsinternallawasjustificationforitsfailuretoperformatreaty.[15]
Our Constitution espouses the opposing view. Witness our jurisdiction as stated in section 5 of
ArticleVIII:
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
xxxxxxxxxxxx
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and order of lower courts in:
(A) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement,
law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
In Ichong v. Hernandez,[16] we ruled that the provisions of a treaty are always subject to
qualificationoramendmentbyasubsequentlaw,orthatitissubjecttothepolicepoweroftheState.In
Gonzalesv.Hechanova,[17]
xxx As regards the question whether an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts, suffice
it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing, in
Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the Supreme Court may not be deprived of its jurisdiction to review,
revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or the rules of court may
provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or
validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question. In other words, our
Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law,
but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
The foregoing premises leave us no doubt that US forces are prohibited from engaging in an
offensivewaronPhilippineterritory.
Yetanaggingquestionremains:areAmericantroopsactivelyengagedincombatalongsideFilipino
soldiersundertheguiseofanallegedtrainingandassistanceexercise?Contrarytowhatpetitionerswould
haveusdo,wecannottakejudicialnoticeoftheeventstranspiringdownsouth,[18]asreportedfromthe
saturationcoverageofthemedia.Asarule,wedonottakecognizanceofnewspaperorelectronicreports
perse,notbecauseofanyissueastotheirtruth,accuracy,orimpartiality,butforthesimplereasonthat
factsmustbeestablishedinaccordancewiththerulesofevidence.Asaresult,wecannotaccept,inthe
absenceofconcreteproof,petitionersallegationthattheArroyogovernmentisengagedindoublespeakin
trying to pass off as a mere training exercise an offensive effort by foreign troops on native soil. The
petitionsinviteustospeculateonwhatisreallyhappeninginMindanao,toissue,makefactualfindings
onmatterswellbeyondourimmediateperception,andthisweareunderstandablyloathtodo.
Itisalltooapparentthatthedeterminationthereofinvolvesbasicallyaquestionoffact.Onthispoint,
wemustconcurwiththeSolicitorGeneralthatthepresentsubjectmatterisnotafittopicforaspecial
civilactionforcertiorari.Wehaveheldintoomanyinstancesthatquestionsoffactarenotentertainedin
sucharemedy.Thesoleobjectofthewritistocorrecterrorsofjurisdictionorgraveabuseofdiscretion.
Thephrasegraveabuseofdiscretionhasaprecisemeaninginlaw,denotingabuseofdiscretiontoopatent
andgrossastoamounttoanevasionofapositiveduty,oravirtualrefusaltoperformthedutyenjoined
oractincontemplationoflaw,orwherethepowerisexercisedinanarbitraryanddespoticmannerby
reasonofpassionandpersonalhostility.[19]
Inthisconnection,itwillnotbeamisstoaddthattheSupremeCourtisnotatrieroffacts.[20]
Under the expanded concept of judicial power under the Constitution, courts are charged with the
dutytodeterminewhetherornottherehasbeenagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.[21] From the facts
obtaining, we find that the holding of Balikatan 021 joint military exercise has not intruded into that
penumbraoferrorthatwouldotherwisecallforcorrectiononourpart.Inotherwords,respondentsinthe
caseatbarhavenotcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the petition and the petitioninintervention are hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice to the filing of a new petition sufficient in form and substance in the proper Regional Trial
Court.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,Melo,Mendoza,Quisumbing,andCarpio,JJ.,concur.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,andPuno,J.,jointhemainandseparateopinionofJ.Panganiban.
Vitug,J.,intheresult.
Kapunan,J.,seedissentingopinion.
Panganiban,J.,seeseparateopinion.
YnaresSantiago,andSandovalGutierrez,JJ.,jointhedissentingopinionofJ.Kapunan.
[1]Forreadyreference,thetextofthetreatyisreproducedherein:
MUTUALDEFENSETREATY
BETWEENTHEREPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES
ANDTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA
30August1951
ThepartiestothisTreaty,
ReaffirmingtheirfaithinthepurposesandprinciplesoftheCharteroftheUnitedNationsandtheirdesiretoliveinpeacewith
allpeoplesandallGovernments,anddesiringtostrengthenthefabricofpeaceinthePacificArea,
Recallingwithmutualpridethehistoricrelationshipwhichbroughttheirtwopeoplestogetherinacommonbondofsympathy
andmutualidealstofightsidebysideagainstimperialistaggressionduringthelastwar,
Desiringtodeclarepubliclyandformallytheirsenseofunityandtheircommondeterminationtodefendthemselvesagainst
externalarmedattack,sothatnopotentialaggressorcouldbeundertheillusionthateitherofthemstandsaloneinthePacific
Area,
Desiringfurthertostrengthentheirpresenteffortsforcollectivedefenseforthepreservationofpeaceandsecuritypendingthe
developmentofamorecomprehensivesystemofregionalsecurityinthePacificArea,
Agreeing that nothing in this present instrument shall be considered or interpreted as in any way or sense altering or
diminishing any existing agreements or understandings between the United States of America and the Republic of the
Philippines,
Haveagreedasfollows:
ARTICLEI.
ThePartiesundertake,assetforthintheCharteroftheUnitedNations,tosettleanyinternationaldisputesinwhichtheymay
beinvolvedbypeacefulmeansinsuchamannerthatinternationalpeaceandsecurityandjusticearenotendangeredandto
refrainintheirinternationalrelationsfromthethreatoruseofforceinanymannerinconsistentwiththepurposeoftheUnited
Nations.
ARTICLEII.
InordermoreeffectivelytoachievetheobjectiveofthisTreaty,thePartiesseparatelyandjointlybyselfhelpandmutualaid
willmaintainanddeveloptheirindividualandcollectivecapacitytoresistarmedattack.
ARTICLEIII.
The Parties, through their Foreign Ministers or their deputies, will consult together from time to time regarding the
implementationofthisTreatyandwheneverintheopinionofeitherofthemtheterritorialintegrity,politicalindependenceor
securityofeitherofthePartiesisthreatenedbyexternalarmedattackinthePacific.
ARTICLEIV.
EachPartyrecognizesthatanarmedattackinthePacificAreaoneitherofthePartieswouldbedangeroustoitsownpeaceand
safetyanddeclaresthatitwouldacttomeetthecommondangersinaccordancewithitsconstitutionalprocesses.
AnysucharmedattackandallmeasurestakenasaresultthereofshallbeimmediatelyreportedtotheSecurityCouncilofthe
UnitedNations.SuchmeasuresshallbeterminatedwhentheSecurityCouncilhastakenthemeasuresnecessarytorestoreand
maintaininternationalpeaceandsecurity.
ARTICLEV.
For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an attack on the metropolitan
territoryofeitheroftheParties,orontheislandterritoriesunderitsjurisdictioninthePacificoronitsarmedforces,public
vesselsoraircraftusedinthePacific.
ARTICLEVI.
ThisTreatydoesnotaffectandshallnotbeinterpretedasaffectinginanywaytherightsandobligationsofthePartiesunder
theCharteroftheUnitedNationsortheresponsibilityoftheUnitedNationsforthemaintenanceofinternationalpeaceand
security.
ARTICLEVII.
This Treaty shall be ratified by the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with their
respectiveconstitutionalprocessesandwillcomeintoforcewheninstrumentsofratificationthereofhavebeenexchangedby
thematManila.
ARTICLEVIII.
ThisTreatyshallremaininforceindefinitely.EitherPartymayterminateitoneyearafternoticehasbeengiventotheother
party.
INWITNESSWHEREOFtheundersignedPlenipotentiarieshavesignedthisTreaty.
DONEinduplicateatWashingtonthisthirtiethdayofAugust,1951.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
[2]Thedaybefore,thefirstpetitioninconnectionwiththejointmilitaryenterprisewasfiledG.R.No.151433,entitledInthe
MatterofDeclarationasConstitutionalandLegaltheBalikatanRPUSMilitaryExercises.PetitionerthereinAtty.EduardoB.
InlayomanifestedthathewouldbeperfectlycomfortableshouldtheCourtmerelynotehispetition.Wedidnotobligehimin
aResolutiondatedFebruary12,2002,wedismissedhispetitiononthegroundsofinsufficiencyinformandsubstanceand
lackofjurisdiction.AfterextendingaheartyValentinesgreetingtotheCourtenbanc,Atty.Inlayopromisedtolaminatethe
aforesaidresolutionasatestimonialofhisonceuponatimeparticipationinanissueofnationalconsequence.
[3]Annex1oftheComment.
[4]Annex2oftheComment.TheMinutesstate:
Secretary Guingona and Assistant Secretary Kelly welcomed the holding of Balikatan 021 exercise (the Exercise) and the
conclusionoftheTermsofReferencefortheExercise.Assistant Secretary Kelly thanked Secretary Guingona for Secretary
GuingonaspersonalapprovaloftheTermsofReference.
BothSecretaryGuingonaandAssistantSecretaryKellyemphasizedtheimportanceofcooperating,withintheboundsprovided
forbytheirrespectiveconstitutionsandlaws,inthefightagainstinternationalterrorism.
BothSecretaryGuingonaandAssistantSecretaryKellyexpressedthebeliefthattheExerciseshallnotinanywaycontributeto
anyescalationofotherconflictsinMindanao,shallnotadverselyaffecttheprogressofongoingpeacenegotiationsbetween
theGovernmentofthePhilippinesandotherparties,andshallnotputatriskthefriendlyrelationsbetweenthePhilippinesand
itsneighborsaswellaswithotherstates.SecretaryGuingonastatedthathehadinmindtheongoingpeacenegotiationswith
theNDFandtheMILFandheemphasizedthatitisimportanttomakesurethattheExerciseshallnotinanywayhinderthose
negotiations.
BothSecretaryGuingonaandAssistantSecretaryKellystatedthattheylookforwardtotherealizationofthenearlyUS$100
million in security assistance for fiscal years 20012002 agreed upon between H.E. President Gloria MacapagalArroyo and
H.E.PresidentGeorgeW.BushlastNovember2001.
Secretary Guingona stated that the Philippines welcomes the assistance that the U.S. will be providing, saying that while
Filipino soldier does not lack experience, courage and determination, they could benefit from additional knowledge and
updatedmilitarytechnologies.
AssistantSecretaryKellysaidthatheisgladtheU.S.isabletoprovideadvice,assistanceandtrainingandreiteratedthepolicy
position expressed by H.E. President George W. Bush during his State of the Nation Address that U.S. forces are in the
Philippinestoadvise,assistandtrainPhilippinemilitaryforces.
Both Secretary Guingona and Assistant Secretary Kelly reiterated that, as provided in the Terms of Reference, U.S. Forces
shallnotengageincombatduringtheExercise,exceptinaccordancewiththeirrighttoactinselfdefense.
BothSecretaryGuingonaandAssistantSecretaryKellyreiteratedthat,pursuanttoArticleIIoftheVisitingForcesAgreement,
U.S.forcesareboundtorespectthelawsofthePhilippinesduringtheExercise.
Both Secretary Guingona and Assistant Secretary Kelly recognized that, pursuant to Article VI of the Visiting Forces
Agreement,boththeU.S.andPhilippineGovernmentswaiveanyandallclaimsagainsttheotherforanydeathsorinjuriesto
theirmilitaryandcivilianpersonnelfromtheExercise.
SecretaryGuingonaandAssistantSecretaryKellydesignatedAmbassadorMinervaFalconandChargedAffaires,a.i.Robert
Fittstoinitialtheseminutes.
BothsecretaryGuingonaandAssistantSecretaryKellyagreedtoconsultfromtimetotimeonmattersrelatingtotheExercise
aswellasonothermatters.
[5]338SCRA81,100101(2000).
[6]BAYAN,et.al.v.Zamora,342SCRA449(2000).
[7]BAYAN,et.al.v.Zamora,et.al.,342SCRA449(2000).
[8]ArticleI[Definitions],VFA.
[9]ArticleII[RespectforLaw],VFA.
[10]I.M.SINCLAIR,THEVIENNACONVENTIONONTHELAWOFTREATIES7172(1973).
[11]Nooneisallowedtodoindirectlywhatheisprohibitedtododirectly.
[12]Sec.21,Art.VII.
[13]224SCRA576,593(1993).
[14]ViennaConventionontheLawofTreaties,art.26.
[15]Id,art.27.However,thisiswithoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofart.46oftheconvention,whichprovides:
1.AStatemaynotinvokethefactthatitsconsenttobeboundbyatreatyhasbeenexpressedinviolationofaprovisionofits
internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and
concernedaruleofitsinternallawoffundamentalimportance.
2.AviolationismanifestifitwouldbeobjectivelyevidenttoanyStateconductingitselfinthemannerinaccordancewith
normalpracticeandingoodfaith.
[16]101Phil.1155,1191(1957).
[17]9SCRA230,242(1963).
[18]PertinentsectionsofRule129provide:SECTION1.Judicialnotice,whenmandatory.Acourtshalltakejudicialnotice,
without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of
governmentandsymbolsofnationality,thelawofnations,theadmiraltyandmaritimecourtsoftheworldandtheirseals,the
politicalconstitutionandhistoryofthePhilippines,theofficialactsofthelegislative,executiveandjudicialdepartmentsofthe
Philippines,thelawsofnature,themeasureoftime,andthegeographicaldivisions.Likewise,itisalsoprovidedinthenext
succeedingsection:SEC.2.Judicialnotice,whendiscretionary.Acourtmaytakejudicialnoticeofmatterswhichareofpublic
knowledge,orarecapableofunquestionabledemonstration,oroughttobeknowntojudgesbecauseoftheirjudicialfunctions.
[19]Sanchezv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,312SCRA727(1999).
[20]Hervasv.CourtofAppeals,319SCRA776(1999)Valmontev.CourtofAppeals,303SCRA278(1999).
[21]ArticleVIII,section1.

Lim V Exec Sec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lim V Exec Sec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/12/2015 Lim vs Macapagal-Arroyo (Balikatan 02-1) : 151445 : April 11, 2002 : J.

ARTHUR D. LIM and PAULINO R. ERSANDO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE

II. EXERCISE LEVEL

b. At no time shall US Forces operate independently within RP territory.

2. ADMINISTRATION & LOGISTICS

BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE ABU SAYYAF

NEITHER DOES THE VFA OF 1999 AUTHORIZE AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO ENGAGE IN

SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

General rule of interpretation

3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

Supplementary means of interpretation

(a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or

(b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

You might also like