THE Supreme Court affirmed Tuesday the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement that the Palace signed with the US government in April 2014.
Voting 10-4, with one magistrate abstaining, the justices said the agreement was not unconstitutional as petitioners against it had said, on the ground that the Constitution allows the President to enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops or facilities, as long as it merely intends to implement an existing law or treaty, such as the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement.
The Palace hailed the Supreme Court decision, saying it strengthens the strategic partnership between the Philippines and the United States.
“This ruling boosts the ongoing Armed Forces of the Philippines modernization program and paves the way for upgrading our military equipment and capability for national defense as well as for humanitarian assistance and disaster response,” said Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr.
The 10-year agreement, signed in 2014 but not implemented due to legal challenges, will see more US troops rotate through the Philippines for war games and help their hosts build military facilities.
Contrary to the arguments of the petitioners, the Supreme Court said Edca is an executive agreement that does not require the concurrence of the Senate.
The justices said the President’s power to enter into executive agreements, which are different from treaties, has long been recognized and upheld by the Court.
“The Court ruled that the Edca is not the instrument that allows US ‘troops or facilities’ to enter as the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) already has done that… The Edca provides for arrangements to implement existing treaties allowing entry of foreign military troops of facilities under the VFA and MDT, and thus may be in the form of an executive agreement solely within the powers of the President and not requiring Senate concurrence under Article XVIII, Section 25,” the decision written by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno said.
Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Arturo Brion, Marvic Leonen, and Estela Perlas Bernabe dissented from the majority ruling, while Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza took no part in the deliberations.
The justices also said the government succeeded in showing that Edca merely carried out the provisions of the VFA.
“The President’s choice of an executive agreement to contain the Edca places the burden on respondents to show that it is mere implementation of existing laws and treaties concurred in by the Senate. On this, the Court found that the burden had been discharged by the respondents,” the decision said.
The Court also denied the two petitions filed by former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada and militant party-list lawmakers led by Bayan Muna Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate questioning the legality of Edca.
The petitioners had argued that the government committed a grave abuse of discretion when they entered into the Edca as it constitutes a derogation of the country’s dignity and an unconscionable sellout of sovereignty and that it contravenes the country’s national interests as it is “primarily motivated by the US strategic rebalancing towards Asia and is therefore in the service of US security and economic interests.”
Contrary to the claim of the respondents, they said, the Edca is “not in implementation or furtherance of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty between the two countries and the Visiting Forces Agreement and that the country might once again become a staging ground for the deployment of US ships, aircrafts and even missile systems overseas because of the pre-positioning and the deployment of material allowed under the Edca.
The petitioners also said that the respondents yielded to the US forces the operational control of agreed location for construction activities and the operational control and defense of these agreed locations.
The government, on the other hand, insisted that the agreement is a valid executive agreement that could stand even without the concurrence of the Senate.
Under the Edca, the US will be allowed to build structures, store as well as preposition weapons, defense supplies and materiel, station troops, civilian personnel and defense contractors, transit and station vehicles, vessels, and aircraft for a period of 10 years.
“This is a good development and this confirms the policies of the government regarding the strengthening of national defense in partnership with the country’s ally, the United States,” Coloma said.
The agreement, which was signed on April 28, 2014 before US President Barack Obama arrived for a two-day state visit to the Philippines, gives US forces access to the Philippine military facilities in the country.
Obama pushed hard for Edca as part of his so-called strategic “pivot” to Asia that has involved expanding American military presence in the region. The agreement, he said, would give US forces “greater access to Filipino facilities, airfields and ports, which would remain under the control of the Philippines.”
However, the agreement faced immediate legal challenges from groups opposed to US military involvement in the Philippines.
The country was home to two of the largest overseas US military bases until 1992, when the Senate voted to end their leases.
The Philippines and the United States are already bound by a Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1951 and the Visiting Forces Agreement signed in 1998.
The first accord commits the United States to come to the aid of the Philippines in case of external aggression, while the second paved the way for US troops to engage in exercises in the Philippines.
The new pact, which was only intended to be in place for 10 years from 2014, does not authorize a return of US bases.
But in recent years the tensions with China have seen Aquino’s government seek much greater US military and diplomatic support.
China claims almost all of the South China Sea, despite conflicting claims from the Philippines as well as Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.
In April 2012, after a tense stand-off with Philippine ships, Chinese vessels took control of a shoal just 220 kilometers off the main island of Luzon.
The Philippines has since become the most vocal critic of China’s efforts to claim South China Sea territory, including its strategy of turning islets in those waters into artificial islands that can host military facilities.
In a short statement immediately after the Supreme Court’s announcement, the US embassy in Manila welcomed the verdict.
“Edca is a mutually beneficial agreement that will enhance our ability to provide rapid humanitarian assistance and help build capacity for the Armed Forces of the Philippines,” the statement said.
In Camp Aguinaldo, Armed Forces chief Lt. Gen. Hernando Irriberi would boost efforts to modernize the military.
“This decision bodes well for deepening our defense cooperation with a key ally,” he said in a statement after the Edca ruling was announced.
“As part of our shared goals with the US under this agreement, we look forward to further enhancing interoperability, addressing short-term capability gaps, promoting long-term modernization of our forces, helping maintain maritime security and maritime domain awareness, and developing HADR [humanitarian assistance and disaster relief] capabilities. These will redound to improving our capacity to perform our mandate to protect our people and secure the state,” he added.
The Court decision came as Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario met with their counterparts in Washington.
Gazmin said an item on their agenda was defense cooperation between the two countries in response to China’s aggression in the West Philippine Sea—Manila’s name for portions of the South China Sea that the Philippines claims.
Various militant groups on Tuesday criticized the Supreme Court ruling.
Renato Reyes, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) chairperson, said the petitioners and intervenors—Bayan, Bayan Muna Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate, Gabriela Women’s Reps. Luzviminda Ilagana and Emmi de Jesus, Alliance of Concerned Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio, Anakpawis Rep. Fernando Hicap, Kabataan Rep. Terry Ridon, National Artist for Literature Bienvenido Lumbera, film and television director Joel Lamangan and anti-bases activist Renato Constantino Jr., among others—would file a motion for reconsideration, questioning the Supreme Court’s decision.
“This is another sad day for Philippine sovereignty as the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Edca. We shall immediately consult with our lawyers regarding a possible motion for reconsideration,” Reyes’ statement read.
The petitioners said Edca was “outrightly lopsided in favor of the United States.”
Despite the SC ruling, Reyes said they would continue to “expose and oppose” the intervention of the US military in the Philippines.
“We maintain that the Edca is not the solution to the problem of China’s incursions, not when the EDCA also violates Philippine sovereignty. The Filipino people must now resolutely oppose the return of US bases and all the social ills associated with these bases,” he added.
House deputy minority leader and 1-BAP party-list Rep. Silvestre Bello III said he disagreed with the Court’s decision.
“An agreement that grants to a foreign country the right to occupy Philippine sovereign territory should be ratified by the Senate. More importantly, EDCA circumvents the constitutional prohibition versus the establishment of foreign bases in Philippine territory,” Bello, a former Justice secretary, said. With Florante S. Solmerin, Maricel V. Cruz, Rio N. Araja and Agence France-Presse
