BAYAN vs EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA
All treaties,
G.R. No. 138570
October 10, 2000
FACTS:
 The PH and the USA forged a Military Bases Agreement
which formalized, the use of installations in the PH territory
by US military personnel. To further strengthen their
defense and security relationship, the PH and US entered
into a Mutual Defense Treaty. Under the treaty, the parties
agreed to respond to any external armed attack on their
territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft
 The PH Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of
Friendship, Cooperation and Security which would have
extended the presence of US military bases in the PH.
- With the expiration of the RP-US Military Bases
Agreement, the periodic military exercises conducted
were held in abeyance. Notwithstanding, the defense
and security relationship between the Philippines and
the United States of America continued pursuant to the
Mutual Defense Treaty.
 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other
things, the possible elements of the Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA). This resulted to a series of conferences
and negotiations. Thereafter, Pres. Ramos approved the
VFA, which was respectively signed by Sec. Siazon and US
Ambassador Hubbard.
 President Estrada, through Zamora, Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, ratified the VFA. The President, acting through
Executive Secretary Zamora, officially transmitted to the
Senate of the Philippines, the Instrument of Ratification,
the letter of the President and the VFA, for concurrence
pursuant to Section 21, Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
CASE FILED:
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners – as
legislators, NGOs, citizens and taxpayers – assail the
constitutionality of the VFA and impute to herein
respondents grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the
agreement.
Petitioner’s Contention:
1) The “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities” may be
allowed in the PH unless the following conditions under
Sec. 25 Art. 28 is met.
Respondent’s Argument:
- Section 21 Article 7 is applicable so that, what is
required for such treaty to be valid and effective is the
concurrence in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the
Senate.
ISSUES AND RULING:
1) Is the VFA governed by Sec. 21, Art. 7, or Sec. 25, Art.
28 of the Constitution? - SEC. 25 ART 28
- Section 25, Art 28 only applies, as the VFA involves the
presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines.
The Constitution contains 2 provisions requiring the
concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international
agreements.
1. Section 21, Article 7 reads:
- “No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the
Members of the Senate.”
 This provision lays down the GR on treaties.
regardless of subject matter, coverage, or particular
designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of the
Senate to be valid and effective.
 To a certain extent and in a limited sense, however, the
provisions of section 21, Article 7 will find applicability
with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of
determining the number of votes required to obtain the
valid concurrence of the senate.
2. Section 25, Article 28, provides:
- “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between
the RP and US concerning Military Bases, foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be
allowed in the PH 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.”
 This is a special provision wherein the concurrence of the
Senate is only one of the requisites to render
compliance with the constitutional requirements and to
consider the agreement binding on the Philippines.
 It is baseless to argue that Section 25, Article 28 is
inapplicable to mere temporary agreements for the
reason that there is no permanent placing of structure
for the establishment of a military base.
- The Constitution makes no distinction between
“transient” and “permanent”.
- We find nothing in Section 25, Article 28 that requires
foreign troops or facilities to be stationed or placed
permanently in the PH. When no distinction is made
by law; the Court should not distinguish.
2) Was Sec 25 Art 28's requisites satisfied to make the
VFA effective? - YES.
It 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 Constitution, as there were at least 16 Senators
that concurred.
 As to condition (c), the Court held that the phrase
“recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting
party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.
- It is insignificant whether the US treats the VFA only as
an executive agreement because, under international
law, an executive agreement is as binding as a
treaty. They are equally binding obligations upon
nations. Therefore, there is indeed marked compliance
with the mandate of the constitution.
- With the ratification of the VFA it now becomes
obligatory and incumbent on our part, under principles
of international law (PACTA SUNT SERVANDA), to be
bound by the terms of the agreement.