Author: John Marti C.
Duya
Bayan (Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan) vs. Zamora (2000)
Petition: Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition
Petitioner: Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, et
al.
Respondent: Ronaldo Zamora, et al.
Ponente: Buena
D O C T R I N E : Incorporation of International L aw
International Law and Municipal Law belong to
different spheres. For parliaments, through the
process of transformation, they make an
international law, a law of the land. Another
doctrine of making an international law is
incorporation.
Through Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution,
an express declaration that an International Law
shall have the force of Domestic Law is made.
Provided, however, that only customary
international laws and treaties that have become
part of customary law shall be incorporated,
unless otherwise a treaty is ratified, in which
case, it becomes part of the law of the land.
FACTS:
1. Philippines signed Military Bases
Agreement (MBA for brevity) and Mutual
Defense Treaty (MDT) on March 14,
1947 and August 30, 1951 to strengthen
and enhance their defences together.
2. When the MBA was about to expire, an
extension was negotiated but was
rejected. However, on July 18, 1997, the
US Panel (Deputy Asst. Sec. Kurt
Campbell) and the Phil. Panel (Rodolfo
Severino, Jr.) drafted the VFA, which,
after a series of negotiations, was
finalized on January 12-13, 1998. FVR
approved, and Siazon from the Phils.
and Thomas Hubbart signed it.
3. October 5, 1998, Joseph Estrada ratified
VFA, then gave it to the senate the next
day for concurrence according to Sec.
21 of Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Senate gave it to Blas Ople (Committee
on Foreign Relations) and Rodolfo
Biazon (Committee on National
Defense) for joint consideration and
recommendation.
4. A proposed resolution was given by the
committees and recommending
concurrence to VFA as well as forming a
Legislative Oversight Committee.
5. On May 27, 1999, Proposed Senate
Resolution 448 was approved by 2/3
votes pursuant to requirements of Sec.
21 of Art VII of the Constitution and was
re-numbered as Senate Resolution No.
18. VFA entered into force in June 1,
1999.
6. VFA contained 9 Articles:
Article 1: Definitions
Article 2: Respect for Law
Article 3: Entry and Departure
Article 4: Driving and Vehicle
Registration
Article 5: Criminal Jurisdiction
Article 6: Claims
Article 7: Importation and Exportation
Article 8: Movement of Vessels and
Aircraft
Article 9: Duration and Termination
7. Sec. 6 of Article V, for example, holds
that the custody of the US Personnel
over whom the Phils. is to exercise
jurisdiction shall immediately reside with
the US Military authorities, if they
request, from the commission of the
offense to the end of judicial
proceedings.
8. Petitions assailing the constitutionality of
the VFA have thus been filed before the
court.
ISSUES:
1. Procedural
a. WoN petitioners as concerned
citizens, taxpayers, legislators
have locus standi to question
the constitutionality of VFA.
2. Substantive
a. Whether Sec. 21 of Art. VII or
Sec. 25 of Art. XVIII of the
constitution will govern the VFA.
Author: John Marti C. Duya
b. WoN VFA abdicates Philippine
Sovereignty.
i. WoN courts are
deprived of jurisdiction
to hear and try offenses
by US personnel.
ii. WoN courts are
deprived of its
jurisdiction over
offenses of reclusion
perpetua or higher.
c. WoN equal protection clause is
violated. (Sec. 1, Art. 3)
d. WoN prohibition against nuclear
weapons is violated. (Sec. 8, Art.
2)
e. WoN Sec. 28, Art. VI of
Constitution exempting taxes of
equipment, materials, supplies
and other properties imported to
Phils. by or on behalf of US
Armed Forces.
f. WoN the President of the
Republic of the Philippines
acted in excess of the powers
and limitations vested upon him
in ratifying said treaty.
PROVISION:
x Article II, 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.
RULING + RATIO
1. No, petitioners do not possess locus
standi. This is because in order to
assail the constitutionality of a law, an
apparent and imminent injury that would
be suffered by the petitioner or in the
case of the legislators, by their
institutions due to such a law or act.
2. Section 25 of Article XVIII will govern
the VFA. It is a finely-imbedded
principle in statutory construction that a
special provision or law prevails over a
general one. Lex specialis derogant
generali. While Sec. 21 of Art. VII talks
about the approval of treaties and
international agreements in general, Sec.
25 of Art. XVIII is a special provision for
treaties which involve the presence of
military bases, troops, or facilities in the
Philippines.
3. No, the VFA does not abdicate
Philippine Sovereignty, and any other
constitutional provision shall not
readily stand as an excuse to non-
compliance with international laws
and treaties. Upon final acceptance of
the treaty, it shall be binding on the two
states under international law, and as
stated in Section 2 of Article II of the
1987 Constitution of the Philippines, the
generally accepted principles of
international law shall be part of the law
of the land. Moreover, the court further
holds that under the international
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
state is responsible in making sure that
the government, Constitution and laws
will carry out international obligations.
As such, we cannot readily plead
Constitution as a convenient excuse for
non-compliance with the duties and
responsibilities under international law.
(Art. XIII, Declaration of Rights and
Duties of States, 1949)
4. No, the president of the Republic of
the Philippines did not act in excess
of the executive power given him. By
Constitutional fiat, the sole ratifying
power is vested on the Chief Executive,
subject only to the subsequent
concurrence of 2/3 of the legislature
pursuant to Sec. 21 of Art. VII of the
Constitution. In the Philippine jurisdiction,
the court recognizes the binding effect if
executive agreements even without the
concurrence of the Senate or Congress.
DISPOSITION: Petition Dismissed
Author: John Marti C. Duya

DISSENTING OPINION/S: 5. J. Puno holds that the Phils. would be

standing on unstable ground if we are to
J. PUNO put a sole executive agreement in the
same level as a treaty.
1. The VFA does not state duration of how 6. As such, since it is merely a sole
long the visit of the US Forces can be executive agreement on the part of the
and also stays silent as to how many US, there is a lack of one of the
times they can visit a year. Puno argues requirements of Section 25 of Article
that if they can stay 4 weeks at a time XVIII of the Constitution, and that is the
and come back 12 times per year, they acceptance of the other party that such
would have stayed permanently for the an agreement entered into is a treaty.
year, and since the renewal of the MBA
was due to the fact of the prohibition of SPECIAL NOTE:
the permanent stay of foreign military This however was already debunked by the fact
forces as well as the establishment of that under international law, an executive
permanent military bases here in the agreement is binding as treaty. A treaty may
country. have many names: agreement, pact, act, etc.
2. The recognition of the US should not but the substance and the effect is the same.
RQO\EHE\WKH³H[HFXWLYHDJUHHPHQWE\
the president but should also be
concurred with by the legislature. This is
because what happened with the MBA
is the same, and J. Puno in his decision
KROGVWKDWVXFK³DQRPDORXVDsymmetry
PXVWQHYHUEHUHSHDWHG´EHFDXVH
according to him, it becomes a slur to
our sovereignty as a state.
3. The yardstick in compliance to the VFA
should be US Constitutional Law. There
are 4 types of international agreement in
the US Constitution: a) Article II Treaties,
b) executive agreements pursuant to a
treaty, c) congressional-executive
agreements, and d) sole executive
agreements.
4. Furthermore, there are 3 kinds of
executive agreements: a) treaty
authorized executive agreements (made
by president authorized by a preceding
treaty), b) congressional-executive
agreements (either executed by
president after approval by congress or
to be ratified by congress after
execution by president), and c) sole
executive agreements (entered into by
president in his sole capacity as the
head of state to enter into treaties with
foreign powers)