Bayan vs Executive Secretary G.R. No.

138570 October 10, 2000

Facts

- Consolidated petitions filed for certiorari and prohibition are issues relating to, and borne by, an
agreement forged in the turn of the last century between the Republic of the Philippines and
the United States of America -the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
- Then president Estrada ratified the VFA through secretary of Foreign Affairs
- Concurrence by the Senate was approved by a 2/3rds vote.

Issues

- Do petitioners have legal standing as concerned citizens, taxpayers, or legislators to question the
constitutionality of the VFA?
- Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Article VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of
the Constitution?
- Does the VFA constitute an abdication of Philippine sovereignty? Are Philippine courts deprived
of their jurisdiction to hear and try offenses committed by US military personnel? And is the SC
deprived of its jurisdiction over offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher?
- Does VFA violate Art3 S1, Art2 S8, and Art6 S28(4) of the 1987 Constitution?

Ruling

- Court dismissed the objection that the petitioners were not proper parties and ruled that
transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly
and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure. The Court may relax the
standing requirements and allow a suit to prosper even where there is no direct injury to the
party claiming the right of judicial review.
- As to the matter of voting, Section 21, Article VII particularly requires that a treaty or
international agreement, to be valid and effective, must be concurred in by at least two-thirds of
all the members of the Senate. On the other hand, Section 25, Article XVIII simply provides that
the treaty be "duly concurred in by the Senate."
- Court ruled that the President, in ratifying the VFA and in submitting the same to the Senate for
concurrence, acted within the confines and limits of the powers vested in him by the
Constitution therefore no grave abuse of discretion. In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is
vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate
is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
- In light of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court hereby dismisses the instant petitions.