Page 1 of 2Public International Law

#7 Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000I. THE FACTSThe 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 ISSUEWas 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 xxxThis 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 xxxThe 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.

Page 2 of 2Public International Law

#8 Abaya vs. Ebdane G.R. No. 167919 Feb. 14, 2007FACTS :This a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside and nullify Res. No. PJHL-A-04-012 dated May 27, 2004 issued by the Bids and Action Committee (BAC) of the DPWH. This resolution recommended the award to private respondent China Road and Bridge Corporation of the contract which consist of the improvement and rehabilitation of a 79.818-km road in the island of Catanduanes.Based on an Exchange of Notes, Japan and the Philippines have reached an understanding that Japanese loans are to be extended to the country with the aim of promoting economic stabilization and development efforts.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. Consequently, the bid goes to private respondent in the amount of P952,564,821.71 (with a variance of 25.98% from the ABC). Hence this petition on the contention that it violates Sec. 31 of RA 9184 which provides that :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 proceeding. There shall be no lower limit to the amount of the award.The petitioners further contends that the Loan Agreement between Japan and the Philippines is neither an international nor an executive agreement that would bar the application of RA9184. They pointed out that to be considered as such, the parties must be two (2) sovereigns or states whereas in this loan agreement, the parties were the Philippine government and the JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese government.ISSUE :Whether or not the assailed resolution violates RA 9184.RULING :The petition is dismissed. Under the fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is in fact, embodied is Section 4 of RA9184, “any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory, shall be observed”. The DPWH, as the executing agency of the project financed by the Loan Agreement rightfully awarded the contract to private respondent China Road and Bridge Corporation.The Loan Agreement was executed and declared that it was so entered by the parties “in the light of the contents of the Exchange of Notes between the government of Japan and the government of the Philippines dated Dec. 27, 1999.” Under the circumstances, the JBIC may well be considered an adjunct of the Japanese government. The JBIC procurement guidelines absolutely prohibit the imposition of ceilings and bids.