Itepublir of tbo l0rilippirrPdSrnatr, lPaggp (Lity

$enstor frlirisnr Detengor SontiugoChair, Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, Committee on Forcign Relations,

Joint Congressional Oversight Committee on the Overseas Absentec Voting Act; Legislativc Oversight Comrnittee on the Visiting Forces Agreement

'. ; " ! -r- -.l-lJj->--\.L :-r-

30 June 2015

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. SerenoSupreme Court of the PhilippinesBy fax and by hand

Encl.:As stated.

lvlain: 4lF Narsan Blg.,3 Wcst Fourth St., West'l'riangle, Quezon City'lelephones 372-4573.371-9156,41 l-4380 * Fax 376-5936Enrail : rniriam(aJmiriam.com.ph * Website: rvww.miriam.com.ph

I

L

JUii 3 0 2015. _'r:l

It_

BYTINTE oFllGt ur I nE

Court

illlDear Madame Chief Justice: To lollor up, pla,olta lha numlar abov' x/0

This is to respectfully enclose, for the presumable infbrmation of the Supreme Cour1.the copy of Senate Resolution No. 1414, entitled "Resolution expressing the strong sense ofthe Senate that any treaty ratified by the President of the Philippines should be concurred inby the Senate, otherwise the treaty becomes invalid and ineffective."

Thank yclu fbr your forbearance.

Sincerely yours,

ill

Committee on Foreign Relations

Senale: Room 52l-A, Senate ofthe t hilippines, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City'l'elephones 552-6693 * 552-6601 to 80 loc. 5561,5562,5563 * Fax 552-6692

6i*,#$*, "fuW

SIXTEENTH CONGRESS OF TIIE REPUBLICOF TFIE PHILIPPINES

Third Regular Session

SENATEP. s. R. No. l{lll

)))

t9llrrr ,,f ii,r irihtsrg

I

'15 JUN 29 P3:25

itF.{'tilVLir it}

Introduced by Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago, Sonny M. Angara,Pia S. Cayetano, Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada,

Teofisto L. Guingona III, Manuel 'oLito" M. Lapid, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.,Sergio R. Osmefla III, Aquilino L. Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto,

Ramon B. Revilla Jr., and Cynthia A. Villar

1 RESOLUIION2 EXPRESSING THE STRONG SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT ANY TREATY3 RATIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD BE4 CONCURRED IN BY TFIE SENATE, OTHERWISE TI{E TREATY BECOMES5 INVALID AND INEFFECTIVE;6 WHEREAS, the treaty known as RP-US EDCA (Enhanced Defense7 Cooperation Agreement) is at present subject of Supreme Court proceedings on the8 question of whether this treaty is valid and effective, considering that the Senatet has not concurred with the treaty;

10

1l12

13

14

15

t6t7

WHEREAS, the Office of the President argues that the document is not atreaty but is instead an executive agreement that allegedly does not require Senateconcuffence;

WHEREAS, the only constitutional ground for the position taken by theExecutive is the mere inclusion of the term "executive agreement" in theConstitution which provides: "All cases involving the constitutionality of an....executive agreement...." (Article 8, Section 4,para.2) as one of items included inthe list of cases which the Supreme Court has power to decide;

WHEREAS, there is no other provision in the Confiitution concerning a so-called executive agreement, and there is no mention at all of its definition, itsrequirements, the role of the Senate, or any other characteristic of, or protocol for,any such so-called "executive agreement";

l819202t

22 WHEREAS, "executive agreement" is a term wandering alone in the23 Constitution, bereft of provenance and an unidentified constitutional mystery;

I

d"

I2

J45

.a IWHEREAS, in stark contrast to the lone mention of the term "executive

agreement," the Constitution provides categorically :

a. "No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unlessconcurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."(Article 7, Section 21)

b. "After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic ofthe Philippines and the United States of America concerning MilitaryBases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed inthe Philippines except under atreaty duly concurred in by the Senate and,when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast bythe people in a national referendum held for that pu{pose, and recognizedas a treaty by the other contracting State." (Article 18, Section25);

WHEREAS, on the one hand, the Constitution is c/ear and categorical thatSenate concurence is absolutely necessary for the validity and effectivity of anytreaty, particularly any treaty that promotes for foreign military bases, troops, andfacilities, such as the EDCA;

WHEREAS, under the rules of constitutional and statutory construction, thetwo constitutional provisions on Senate concurrence are specific provisions; whilethe lone constitutional provision merely mentioning an "executive agreement" is ageneral provision; and therefore the specific provisions on Senate concuffenceprevail over the general provision on "executive agreement";

WHEREAS, the ruling cited above does not apply to the EDCA case,because the Senate makes no attempt to force the President of the Philippines tosubmit the EDCA treaty for concurrence by the Senate; by this resolution, theSenate merely takes a definitive stand on the non-negotiaQle power of the Senate todecide whether a treaty will be valid and effective, depending on Senateconcuffence;

WHEREFORE, be it hereby resolved by the Senate that the RP-US EDCAtreaty requires Senate conculrence, in order to be valid and effective;

Be it further resolved that this resolution expressing the strong sense of theSenate be formally submitted to the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice.

Adopted,

Committee on Foreign Relations

6

7

8

9r01lr2

13

t4l5t6

17

18t9202t

242526272829

303t

32JJ

22 WHEREAS, the Senate is aware of and obeys the ruling of the Supreme23 Court in Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Seuetary,462 SCRA 622 (2005);

2I

/"Y- vfk-

TANO

S FERDIN:TAR

/v'rtlosvrEfir

COS JR.

A IIIsERq R.

JOSEPH VICTOR EJERCITO

EJER

TEOFISTO GUINGONA III

M. LAPID

. PIMENTEL III

VILLA JR.

CYNTHIA A. VILLAR

A

J

W\ ,"*^z[^rt

r

I