In a landmark decision, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States, ruling that it is an executive agreement permissible without Senate concurrence. The Court reasoned that EDCA merely implements existing treaties, such as the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951, and does not introduce new foreign military presence requiring Senate approval. This decision empowers the President to enhance defense cooperation with the U.S. while raising significant concerns about checks and balances on executive power.

U.S. Troops Access: Does the President’s Executive Power Extend to New Military Arrangements?

At the heart of the legal battle was the question: can the President of the Philippines, through an executive agreement, grant the U.S. military access to Philippine facilities for activities beyond the scope of existing treaties? Petitioners argued that allowing foreign military bases, troops, or facilities requires a treaty concurred in by the Senate, as mandated by Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution. They contended that EDCA, by granting the U.S. military significant access and operational control over designated “Agreed Locations,” effectively establishes foreign military bases without Senate approval. The Supreme Court disagreed, setting the stage for the Philippines to continue its enhanced defense cooperation with the United States, influencing the dynamics of foreign relations.

The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on several key principles. First, the Court affirmed the President’s role as the executor of laws, including the duty to defend the State and conduct foreign relations. These presidential functions must function within constitutional limits. It acknowledged, this power is subject to constitutional constraints. The Court emphasized the President’s prerogative to determine how best to execute defense strategies within legal and constitutional boundaries. Crucially, the Court found that Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution restricts only the initial entry of foreign military elements but allows the President to make subsequent implementing adjustments. Once entry is authorized, actions are subject to the constitution and laws. If an implementing act stays true to pre-existing authorizations, it requires no Senate treaty.

Furthermore, the court found that the EDCA does not grant ownership or control of the ‘Agreed Locations’ to the U.S.; it only allows their access and use for purposes in line with the VFA. All the buildings built and facilities will automatically be transferred to Philippine control and ownership.

Justices in the minority presented compelling dissenting opinions, arguing that the EDCA substantially amended the VFA by allowing the stationing of troops with military materiel. The dissent claimed this power went beyond the limited and specifically focused VFA visits. It noted the vagueness of EDCA activities as launching platforms, and the increased possibility of being attacked by US enemies because of them. But these concerns did not prevail.

Moreover, the majority distinguished EDCA from the conditions described in the expired Military Bases Agreement (MBA) and stressed that even though activities under EDCA may appear parallel to those listed under the 1947 agreement, differences lie in the restrictions and obligations that fall upon the Philippine and the U.S. governments.

Also to note, EDCA provisions can only be construed to allow, subject to relevant Philippine laws and the terms of EDCA, entry to U.S. contractors legitimately permitted into the country but these privileges are denied to them under unqualified Philippine jurisdiction because of laws on equity restrictions, criminal liability and immigrations laws.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016