Background

The case was brought to the Supreme Court as the petitioners contended that the executive acted beyond its powers by entering into EDCA without Senate concurrence. They argued that the agreement allowed the presence of foreign military troops and facilities, which under the Constitution could only be authorized by a treaty concurred in by the Senate.

Facts

• 1. The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) allows U.S. military forces to access and use certain "Agreed Locations" in the Philippines. The petitioners claimed that the government violated constitutional provisions by entering into EDCA without Senate concurrence. The respondents argued that EDCA was a mere executive agreement, implemented under existing treaties such as the Mutual Defense Treaty (1951) and Visiting Forces Agreement (1999).

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. EDCA should have been submitted to the Senate for concurrence as required by Section 25, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.
• 2. The EDCA involved the presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, thereby requiring Senate approval.
• 3. The petitioners argued that EDCA undermined Philippine sovereignty and violated constitutional provisions limiting the presence of foreign troops.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The Executive argued that EDCA was merely an executive agreement and did not need Senate concurrence.
• 2. EDCA was intended to implement existing treaties like the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement, which had already been approved by the Senate.
• 3. The respondents contended that EDCA enhanced the defensive capabilities of the Philippines, which fell within the President’s executive powers.

Issues

• 1. Whether the President may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities without Senate concurrence.
• 2. Whether the provisions of EDCA are consistent with the Constitution, laws, and existing treaties.

Ruling

• 1. The President may enter into executive agreements without Senate concurrence, provided that these agreements merely implement existing treaties duly concurred in by the Senate.
• 2. EDCA was consistent with the provisions of the Mutual Defense Treaty (1951) and Visiting Forces Agreement (1999).
• 3. EDCA did not establish new foreign military bases but merely allowed access to existing facilities for the purpose of enhancing defense cooperation.

Doctrines

• 1. Verba legis: The Court held that the Constitution's language must be understood as it is plainly written, emphasizing that the limitation on foreign military bases only applied at the point of allowing their entry into the country, which had already been approved through previous treaties.
• 2. Faithful Execution Clause: The President, as the chief architect of foreign policy, has broad discretion in foreign affairs, including the power to enter into executive agreements.

Precedents Cited

• 1. Bayan v. Executive Secretary: The Court cited this case to affirm the President's power to enter into executive agreements.
• 2. Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary: It was cited to discuss the requirement of Senate concurrence for treaties and the scope of executive agreements.
• 3. Angara v. Electoral Commission: Used to explain the concept of judicial review and checks and balances.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution: Requirement for Senate concurrence in treaties.
• 2. Article XVIII, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution: Prohibition on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities except under a treaty concurred in by the Senate.