ABAYA vs.
EBDANE international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to
Facts:
The Government of Japan and the Government of the Philippines, through their
respective representatives, namely, Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the Republic of the Philippines,
and then Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo L. Siazon, have reached an
understanding concerning Japanese loans to be extended to the Philippines.
These loans were aimed at promoting our countrys economic stabilization and
development efforts.
The assailed resolution recommended the award to private respondent China
Road & Bridge Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works
for Contract Package No. I (CP I), which consists of the
improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres (Codon)-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga road,
with the length of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.The
DPWH caused the publication of the Invitation to Prequalify and to Bid for the
implementation of the CP I project, in two leading national newspapers, namely,
the Manila Times and Manila Standard on November 22 and 29, and December
5, 2002.
A total of twenty-three (23) foreign and local contractors responded to the
invitation by submitting their accomplished prequalification documents on
January 23, 2003. In accordance with the established prequalification criteria,
eight contractors were evaluated or considered eligible to bid as concurred by
the JBIC. Prior to the opening of the respective bid proposals, it was announced
that the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) was in the amount of
P738,710,563.67.
The bid goes to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation was
corrected from the original P993,183,904.98 (with variance of 34.45% from the
ABC) to P952,564,821.71 (with variance of 28.95% from the ABC) based on their
letter clarification dated April 21, 2004.
The petitioners anchor the instant petition on the contention that the award of the
contract to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation violates RA
9184, particularly Section 31 thereof which reads:
SEC. 31. Ceiling for Bid Prices. The ABC shall be the upper limit or ceiling for
the Bid prices. Bid prices that exceed this ceiling shall be disqualified outright
from further participating in the bidding. There shall be no lower limit to the
amount of the award.
The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement is neither an international nor an
executive agreement that would bar the application of RA 9184. They point out
that to be considered a treaty, an international or an executive agreement, the
parties must be two sovereigns or States whereas in the case of Loan
Agreement No. PH-P204, the parties are the Philippine Government and the
JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from
the Japanese Government.
The respondents however contend that foreign loan agreements, including Loan
Agreement No. PH-P204, as executive agreements and, as such, should be
observed pursuant to the fundamental principle in international law of pacta sunt
servanda. The Constitution, the public respondents emphasize, recognizes the
enforceability of executive agreements in the same way that it recognizes
generally accepted principles of international law as forming part of the law of the
land.34 This recognition allegedly buttresses the binding effect of executive
agreements to which the Philippine Government is a signatory. It is pointed out
by the public respondents that executive agreements are essentially contracts
governing the rights and obligations of the parties. A contract, being the law
between the parties, must be faithfully adhered to by them. Guided by the
fundamental rule of pacta sunt servanda, the Philippine Government bound itself
to perform in good faith its duties and obligations under Loan Agreement.
Issue :
Whether or not the the loan agreement violates RA 9184.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the respondents.
Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive
agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without the need of
a vote by the Senate or Congress. executive agreements, They sometimes take
the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents
denominated agreements or protocols.
The fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is,
in fact, embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that [a]ny treaty or
which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed, the DPWH,
as the executing agency of the projects financed by Loan Agreement No. PH-
P204, rightfully awarded the contract for the implementation of civil works for the
CP I project to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation.
G.R. No. 151445 Lim vs Executive Secretary 151445
Facts:
In the beginning of 2002, the personnel of Armed Forces of the United States
started to arrive in the Philippines which will participate in the Balikatan 02-1
pursuant to the VFA (Visitig Forces Agreement) signed in 1999. The Balikatan
02-1 is a simulation of joint military maneuvers or exercises of Filipino and
American which was pursuant to MDT (Mutual Defense Treaty) a bilateral
agreement entered into by the Philippine Government and United States
Government in 1951. The entry of the American troops in the Philippines is partly
rooted from the campaign of US President George W. Bush against international
terrorism as a result of terrorist attacks in United States which was the cause of
numerous loss of lives.
The petitioners, Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando, as citizens, lawyers,
and taxpayers, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition and attacking the
constitutionality of Balikatan 02-1 or the joint exercise. Subsequently, they were
joined by SANLAKAS and Partido ng Manggagawa by filing a petition-in-
intervention, the claimed that some of their members were situated in the places
were the exercise are being conducted.
However the Solicitor General, claimed that there were lack of locus standi, does
not invlve tax spending, and there is no proof of direct personal injury.
Issue:
WON the Balikatan02-1 is covered by the VFA.
WON the VFA is constitutional.
Held:
The VFA permits the US personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in
activities, the exact meaning of which was undefined. The permit under VFA
grants US personnel a wide scope of undertaking subject only to approval of the
Philippine Government. In general US personnel must abstain from any
activities inconsistent with the agreement, and in particular, from an political
activities. All other activities, in other words, are fair game.
In aid of the case at bar, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 31
and 32 which contains the provisions governing the interpretation of international
agreements. The cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of
the text, which is presume to verbalise the intentions of the parties.
The word activities in the view of the court it was deliberately made that way to
give both parties a leeway for negotiations. In this manner, the US forces may
sojourn in the territory of the Philippines for purposes other than military. Under
these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is
only logical to assume that Balikatan 02-1, a mutual anti-terrorism, advising,
assisting and training exercise falls under the context of the agreement.
From the facts obtaining, the court find that the Balikatan 02-1 joint military
exercises has not intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call
for correction on the part of the court. The respondents did not commit grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Wherefore, the
petition and petition-in-intervention are hereby dismissed without prejudice to the
filing of new petition sufficient in form and substance in the proper regional trial
court.
Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000
BUENA, J.:
I. THE 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.
II. THE ISSUE
Was the VFA unconstitutional?
III. THE 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.
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.
Citation. I.C.J., Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15.
Brief Fact Summary. Reservations to various provisions to the U.N.
Conventions on Genocide were effected by several signatories states to it.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide
may be effected by a state and still be considered a signatory thereto.
Facts. The convention on Genocide was unanimously adopted by the United
Nations in 1951. Several states made reservations to one or more of its
provisions. An opinion as to whether a party could express reservations and still
be considered a signatory was laid before the International Court of Justice.
Issue. May a reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide be made by a
state and still be considered a signatory thereto?
Held. Yes. A reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide may be effected by
a state and still be considered a signatory thereto. In a multilateral treaty, as long
as the reservation does not defeat the purpose of the treaty, a reservation is
permitted. By virtue of its sovereignty, it has been argued that a state may effect
any reservation. In this case, the validity of each reservation must be examined
on a case-by-case basis since numerous reservations were made by different
states. (The court held that the state objecting to a reservation could if it desired,
consider the reserving state not to be a party to the Convention.
Discussion. Politics was at play in this case as it has also been in other cases.
Going by precedence, international law usually held that reservations to a
multilateral treaty had to be accepted by all other parties. Unanimous acceptance
of the Convention would not have made the Convention possible if the rule was
followed. The Court was undoubtedly determined to facilitate such unanimity