39. Bayan vs. Executive Secretary, GR No.

138570,
October 10, 2000
FACTS
The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
America entered into an agreement called the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a
treaty by the Philippine government and was ratified by
then-President Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3
of the total membership of the Philippine Senate.
The VFA defines the treatment of U.S. troops and
personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the
guidelines to govern such visits, and further defines the
rights of the U.S. and the Philippine governments in the
matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and
aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies.
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
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.
xxx xxx xxx
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.

Was the VFA unconstitutional?

RULING

[The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, 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, viz: (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.

xxx xxx xxx

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.
[G.R. No. 138570. January 25, 2000]

BAYAN, et al. vs. EXEC. SEC. ZAMORA, et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 25 2000.

G.R. No. 138570 (BAYAN [Bagong Alyansang Makabayan], Junk VFA Movement, Bishop Tomas Millamena Iglesia Filipina
Independiente, et al. vs. Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon, Defense Secretary
Orlando Mercado, Brig. General Alexander Aguirre, Senate President Marcelo Fernan (deceased), Senator Franklin Drilon,
Senator Blas Ople (Now Senate President), Senator Rodolfo Biazon and Senator Francisco Tatad.);

G.R. No. 138572 (Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. [PHILCONSA], Exequiel B. Garcia, Amadogat Inciong, Camilo L. Sabio
and Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Hon Ronaldo Zamora as Executive Seretary, Hon Orlando Mercado as Secretary of the Department
of National Defense and Hon. Domingo L. Siazon, Jr. as Secretary of Foreign Affairs.);

G.R. No. 138587 (Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., Raul S. Roco and Sergio R. Osmea III, et al. vs. Joseph E. Estrada, Ronaldo B. Zamora,
Domingo L. Siazon, Jr., Orlando S. Mercado, Marcelo B. Fernan (deceased), Franklin M. Drilom, Blas F. Ople and Rodolfo G.
Biazon.);

G.R. No. 138680 (Integrated Bar of the Philippines represented by its National President, Jose Aguila Grapilon vs. Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, in his capacity as President, Republic of the Philippines and Hon. Domingo Siazon, in his capacity as Secretary
of Foreign Affairs.);

G.R. No. 138698 (Jovito R. Salonga, Wigberto E. Taada, Feneida Quezon Avancea, Rolando Simbulan, Pablito V. Sanidad, Ma.
Socorro I. Diokno, Agapito A. Aquino, Joker P. Arroyo, Francisco C. Rivera, Jr., Rene A.V. Saguisag, Kilosbayan, Movement of
Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. [MABINI] vs. The Executive Secretary, The Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, The Secretary of National Defense, Senate President Marcelo B. Fernan (deceased), Senator Blas F. Ople (Now Senate
President), Senator Rodolfo G. Biazon and all otherPersons acting under their control, supervision, direction and instructions
in relation to the Visiting Forces Agreement.);

The Court Resolved to:

(a) GRANT the: (1) Motion dated 21 December 1999 filed by the Solicitor General for respondents for an extension of thirty
(30) days from the expiration of the original period, or until 28 January 2000, within which to file memorandum; and (2)
undated Motion to Admit Memorandum filed by counsel for petitioner in G.R. No. 138680; and

(b) NOTE the (1) Joint Memorandum dated 28 December 1999 filed by Atty. Theodore Te of the FLAG for petitioners in G.R.
No. 138698; (2) Memorandum dated 28 December 1999 filed by petitioner in G.R. No. 138587; (3) Memorandum dated 29
December 1999 filed by counsel for petitioners in G.R. No. 138570; (4) Memorandum dated 4 January 2000 filed by counsel for
petitioner in G.R. No. 138680, all in compliance with the resolution of 14 December 1999; and (5) Opposition dated 5 January
2000 filed by counsel for petitioners in G.R. No. 138570, praying that respondents' memorandum be not admitted anymore
and that this case be considered submitted for resolution as of 29 December 1999.