Click here for the full text of the EDCA petition
Another petition filed by BAYAN and sectoral congressmen against EDCA:
Final Bayan PETITION EDCA SC
Today, various individuals and groups, appalled by the mockery of the Constitution and complete disregard of the historic Senate vote ending the U.S. bases era on Sept. 16, 1991 by the Aquino government, are filing with the Supreme Court today a petition to declare the recently-signed PH-US Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement as unconstitutional.
Leading the petitioners are former Senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tanada, two of the 12 who voted to kick the US Bases out in 1991. Steve Salonga, will be signing the petition for his father, former Senate President Jovito Salonga. (The other nine senators who voted to oust the U.S. bases were Agapito “Butz” Aquino, Joseph Estrada, Teofisto Guingona Jr, Sotero Laurel II, Ernesto Maceda Jr, Orlando Mercado, Aquilino Pimentel Jr, Victor Ziga, and Juan Ponce Enrile.)
The Center for International Law, represented by Harry Roque and Romel Bagares, leads the group petitioners which also include the Concerned Citizens Movement.
EDCA was signed by Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg hours before the arrival of U.S. President Barack Obama in Manila last May 28.
EDCA allows the Americans to build bases inside military camps (euphemism inEDCA: agreed locations). If there are no military camps in places that the Americans want, the Philippine government will build a base in the area. Example: the Americans want to return to Subic, once their naval base. Since Subic is now an economic zone, the Philippine Air Force will be building a camp there so an American base can be established.
The petitioners said “The postcolonial history of the relations between Philippines and of the United States of America is akin to that of an unequal and exploitative love affair. There was one shining moment however, when the Philippines grew a backbone and finally decided that it will no longer be a doormat for the US. On September 16, 1991, despite pressure from the Executive and the US government itself, and risking their political careers, twelve Senators rejected a proposed treaty that would have extended to another 10 years one of United States’ most strategic bases, the Subic Naval Base (at this point, the Clark Air Force Base had already been closed due to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo).
The historic Senate vote ended 470 years of U.S. military presence in the country, during which time the Philippines nurtured dependency on the U.S.
The petitioner said, “Sadly, this sense of nationalism and desire for genuine independence has been steadily eroded and even eclipsed. From the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the Mutual Logistics and Support Agreement (MLSA) which allowed the return and servicing of US military forces and war materiel inside Philippine territory, to the secret negotiations and rushed passage of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the lack of the Philippine government’s resolve to uphold and protect Philippine sovereignty and national interest has never been more apparent.”
“The EDCA is a clear departure from and reversal of the stand taken by the Philippine Senate in 1991. Its terms and conditions put the country in an even worse situation than what would have transpired if the US-RP Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Peace that was sent to the Senate for ratification had not been rejected.
“The Executive has circumvented the correct and brave stand taken by the Philippine Senate in 1991 in refusing to renew the RP-US bases treaty by illegally entering into the EDCA.”
President Aquino decided not to submit EDCA to the Senate for ratification despite the Constitutional ban on foreign military b, troops, and facilities except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate…”
The petitioners said, “At the very least, it should be expected that the Philippine government comply with Constitutional requirements when entering into international treaties and agreements. At best, the Philippine government should negotiate the best possible terms for a just and equitable agreement.
“In both aspects, the Executive has miserably failed. Not only is the EDCA a violation of the Philippine Constitution, it also does not provide any substantial, long-term real benefit, much less distinct advantage or improvement in our position vis-à-vis the United States.”
The presence of U.S. military bases in the country then was likened to rape – an assault on the Philippine sovereignty.
The Philippines got raped again but this time,sad to say, it was rape with consent (of the Aquino government.)
It is the petitioners’ prayer that the Supreme Court stops the sellout.
“Rape with consent.” Kung meron consent paano naging rape? Maybe there is another word to describe the act.
What is missing in the complaint is the context. The Executive has certain Constitutional responsibilities to protect the Philippines. Today the nation is at greater risk than in 1991 because of China’s irrational aggression. The Supreme Court is not charged with oversight of the nation’s defense, and should not take it up by meddling in Executive powers. The anti-EDCA argument is speculative as to what the U.S. would or would not do, and sets aside as irrelevant all the choices and approvals that fall within Philippine authority. The argument is essentially that “any decision I don’t like is unconstitutional, and appalling, and unbalanced”. Never mind what is to be done about Chinese aggression . . .
At least America should pay rent, why is it for free..??
“…At best, the Philippine government should negotiate the best possible terms for a just and equitable agreement…”
Statement of former Sen. Rene Saguisag:
I am now nearing 75 and use a cane on uneven surface. I’d fight if I, paos, laos, nakatungkod, could – the Chinese, the Kanos, whoever – instead of leaving the matter to my four apos, eldest, not quite six. (Two boys and two girls, all with my Dulce’s luxuriant piliks.)
What seems to be wrong in going to the Supreme Court to question Edca given what we perceive (or misperceive) to be valid constitutional questions and overriding policy considerations?
The first petition I signed in my personal capacity was filed this morning. There’s a second one coming. And then a third from the MABINI lawyers, qua MABINI, or qua individual lawyers. (Am still polling. A number of Attys., e.g., Chairs Bobbit and Ed, are gone but we have enough MDs, Masasamang Damo, left.)
The first petition was knowingly filed without a certified true copy of the agreement. All attempts to get such a copy have proved unavailing. Para na naman po kaming humihila sa bayawak sa lungga. MABINI, led by Sen. Tanny and Abe Sarmiento sued to smoke out the secret PDs – Palakol ng Demonyo – of Macoy. Now, PNoy’s secret pacts?
No freedom to get information that will affect the coming generations, not only the next elections. The next polls?
We respect everyone’s right to differ. Jojobama Binay, in Washington, D.C., has expressed support for Edca and may not appreciate being misrepresented. The timing was unfortunate as some wags may say nagpapabasbas.
Say it ain’t so.
But, we all do what makes us feel good.
We have gone to the Supreme Court as that is our accepted institutional arrangement.
And we must continue to tolerate ideas we may abhor and despise even as we file the second third petitions.
#1, yes Manuel, there should be a better word.
I used it for a lack of a better term. Isip pa.
That was my first reaction; there is no rape if the female gives consent.
Unless.
The female, in the eyes of the law, cannot give consent, because she is a minor, or she was drugged, or she was under duress – If you don’t agree, my thugs will kill your mother.
Can the President give consent to foreign troops without the Senate? The Constitution says no. It has to be through a treaty, not a mere executive agreement. The executive was not granted the power, by executive agreement, to agree to foreign troops. That is why they tried to finesse the situation stating that there will be no US bases, but use of Philippine bases by the US troops. But it is not bases alone that are forbidden, but foreign troops and facilities as well.
In cases where it is a question of he said she said, and the physical evidence shows that there was no consent (torn dress, bruises, etc.), the favorite line of defense lawyers is the Kobe Bryant defense. Bryant’s female defense lawyer said the female liked rough sex, so she let down her thong to thong thong thong. Too bad Sisqo was a one-hit wonder.
#5 Ellen,
Upon deep reflection I think the correct term to describe the EDCA is “hook up”. It keeps the sexual imagery intact while taking into account that the coupling involved mutual consent.
As our mutual friend Men Sta Ana put it, “It’s not even about love. Just the need to satisfy an urgent and basic need.” Except he preferred to call it a “tryst” which I told him is the term favored by older people while “hook up” is the term we younger people use. 🙂
Well, hook ups can lead to disastrous results or to long and fruitful relationships. Time will tell, I guess.
#5 – Ellen, “rape with benefits.”
May libreng kana na, may pabaon pa.
EDCA is a deterrent! Its a double edge sword and there is price for security with which our government, after Marcos, CAN’T provide! Economically, well maybe and maybe not since everything else here is owned by people behind this government and they don’t even pay the people with fair compensation for the service (and yet they pay themselves really well just being in the government). There’s a constitutional question. TRUE but its debatable in my view. Too many holes? The Supreme Court will just delay their response again as usual. Pag moot and academic na tsaka mag decide hehehe.
Because of this deterrence, we are also given another opportunity to better ourselves as a country to fix our governance by making it really INDEPENDENT from the rich few behind this government that gave us this EDCA, and other unilateral decisions affecting us. If fix, then be proud. I think then we can deal better involving ourselves on international treaties!
Why complain with the bondage with the Americans? Di ba BFF ang pinas at US, considering that we are held up to our ears by the ruling few who has not done anything concrete for the good of the country but themselves? What’s the difference? They can’t even respond to Yolanda victims but the Americans and international community did!
This will give us time to negotiate with the other side.
Maganda na narito ang mga kano sa Pinas para maging marami ang fil am sa hinaharap at kapag ganun na ay hindi na maging uto uto ang karamihan na tao kasi hindi na purong pinoy. Karamihan kasi na mga pinoy ay uto uto. Madaling mauto katulad sa halalan. Kahit di karapat dapat iboto ay iboboto kasi mauuto sa perang ibigay. Napatalsik si Marcos dahil sa mga uto utong pinoy ng pumunta sa edsa. Kung konti lang ang tao sa edsa hindi magtatagumpay na mapatalsik si Marcos. Ano ang nangyari ng mapatalsik si Marcos. Mahal ni Marcos ang mga mahihirap na tao dahil marami ang mahirap. Ang mga mayayaman na tao, mga negosyante kung kailangan ay gusto na makisosyo ang gobyerno niya para makatulong sa mga mahirap. Kaya ayun kontrolado ang mga bilihin. Panahon ni Marcos mayroon MASAGANA 99, libre ang abono, libre para sa magsasaka kaya mura ang bigas. Ang presyo ng abono ay unti unti ng tumaas ang presyo kaya ang bigas ay mahal na rin. Sampung taon ang presyo ng bigas baka sobra na isang daan. Lalong dadami ang magugutom dahil tataas ang bilihin pero ang kita ay ganun pa rin. Nakaka export ng bigas. Pero ng mawala si Marcos ano na ang nangyari. Nariyan ang carabao loan, tahungan loan, duckery loan at iba pa. Mayroon pa ba niyan ngayon.
Sa Pilipinas lang may pangulo na kung interview sa tv dahil may kalamidad o krisis ay nakangisi, nakatawa. Mula ng mapatalsik si Marcos parang wala ng seryoso na naging pangulo ng bansa. Corrupt daw si Marcos, eh ang mga sumunod na pangulo hindi ba naging corrupt.
Mula ng mapatalsik si Marcos dumami ang bagyo na dumarating sa Pilipinas, lindol naging palakas ng palakas. Panahon ni Marcos may malalakas ba na bagyo o lindol.
ER Ejercito pinasususpended ng comelec dahil gumastos daw ng malaki sa halalan. Nakakatawa naman na desisyon. Bawat lugar kapag halalan ay umuulan ng pera para pagbili ng boto. Ang pagbili ng boto ay gastos din iyon. Ang kalaban ni ER Ejercito baka nga mas malaki pa ang nagasto. Para sa akin hindi na masyado pang kailangan gumastos ng malaki si Ejercito sa halalan kasi sikat na siya at higit sa lahat marami ang natutulungan. Tama ang sinabi ni JV Ejersito na pinepersonal ang pamilya nila.
Samar at Leyte kapag halalan ay tiba tiba ang mga botante kasi karamihan tanggap kaliwa at kanan. Kung kandidato ka pagka Mayor at 500 lang ang ibibigay sa mga botante ay mahirapan kang manalo. Nang mangyari ang bagyong Yolanda wala akong nabalitaan na may politiko na namigay ng pera para sa mga tao o kahit bawat pamilya na lang. Pero kapag halalan ay handa silang mga politiko na gumastos ng ilang milyon para sila manalo. Ibig lang sabihin na mula ng mapatalsik si Marcos ang karamihan na mga politiko ay pansariling interes na lang ang iniisip.
Click here for the full text of the EDCA petition
#11 and #12
sige lang arvin. hithit lang ng hithit ng katol 🙂
let’s face it. we are in a desperate situation and we need the US more than they need us. the only way we can do away with EDCA or any other agreement is if we are willing to give up Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal and pretty much our EEZ in the West Phil Sea.
beggars can’t be choosers ika nga. EDCA is just a temporary buffer zone while our country tries to build up a credible defense capability. China’s internal turmoil politically and economically is making it act out rashly against its neighbors. you cannot reason with a country that might be in danger of imploding.
just like Russia, Instead of facing their internal problems head on, China has decided that there’s no better way to distract its citizens than creating conflict with its neighbors to stir up nationalist sentiments.
So they try to finesse in two ways. First, they say there will be no US bases, there will be Philippine bases used by US troops. Nice. But we have a horde of precedent that says that “What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.” The oldest case I found was one in 1936, penned by Claro M. Recto.
The second way is by stating that this is a mere implementation of the MDT, and the VFA, both ratified by the Senate at their respective times. So being a mere implementation, it needs no ratification, for it is not a new treaty.
But that argument cannot elide the fact that the Constitution requires a treaty for the hosting of foreign troops after 1991, as the text plainly says:
The Philippine government anchors its action on the following provision of the MDT.
This is the basis for saying the EDCA is a mere implementation. The problem is that the signatories should have been the Secretary of State (John Kerry) and the DFA Secretary (Yparraguirre and Malaya goofed here).
Is it a mere implementation? I doubt.
The Constitution pointedly spoke prospectively, when it said after 1991, no troops will be allowed except under a treaty. So it can only mean a new treaty, not the MDT. Why not the MDT? Because the Framers are presumed to know the existence of the old treaty. If they wanted to make an exception, then they could have said so. By specifically mentioning the old agreement, and the deadline of 1991, the intent is clear that after 1991, there would be a clean slate. Any new hosting will be submitted to the wisdom of the elected representatives for a new ratification.
Finally, the VFA itself is the best argument against the new hosting being a mere implementation. If the hosting of mere visiting forces requires the concurrence of the Senate, with more reason would a more permanent presence require concurrence.
One may finesse the situation by stating that the forces are “rotating”, that nothing is permanent. Again the finessing misses the point. It is the presence of the US troops, as an entity that is permanent, not the presence of individual members of the troops. That is like arguing that since the justices in the Court of Appeals are rotating (some get promoted, some retire), then there is no permanent Court of Appeals. The very argument shows its infirmity.
RAVS (Rene A.V. Saguisag) is a heavyweight. I am hoping that the government will hire another heavyweight (Estelito Mendoza). Then we will truly have a good fight in the Supreme Court.
The current SolGen? Let us just say that the fight will be more evenly matched if Mendoza put on his robes for the government; assuming he buys into the government’s line.
What happened to Barok (Louis Biraogo)? They jumped the gun on him this time?
Article III is already a treaty? This is not EDCA?
Jake, #17. That’s a provision in the MDT.
http://www.chanrobles.com/mutualdefensetreaty.htm
my take on this EDCA is that they’re presenting this as a sort of an IRR for the MDT and VFA kaya it’s not a new treaty.
we’ll see if that holds water in the SC.
Desiring to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and their common determination to defend themselves against external armed attack, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area. – I really hope this is true
Another petition filed by BAYAN and sectoral congressmen against EDCA:
Final Bayan PETITION EDCA SC
The major part of the Bayan petition focuses more on the wisdom of the EDCA than on the Constitutionality; that the provisions of the EDCA are not advantageous to the Philippines, etc.
Every Constitutional law professor will tell his freshmen students that a Constitutional issue is simply a question or power – or authority. Does the branch of government which presumes to exercise a certain power have the power it tries to exercise?
In the case of Congress and the enactment of the law on cyber libel, the Supreme Court said it did not have the power to enact some provisions of the cyberlibel law, because it violates freedom of speech.
In this case, the Executive, alone, entered into an agreement that walks, talks, and quacks like a foreign base in the Philippines; and walks, talks, and quacks like the hosting of foreign troops in the Philippines. Does the Executive have that power? Or is the power jointly exercised with the Senate?
The Executive knows that it does not have that power, so it explains that the walking, talking, and quacking is not that of a foreign base. That they are Philippine bases to be used by US troops. It also says that EDCA is not walking, talking, or quacking like the permanent hosting of foreign troops, because the troops are rotating. See my post above about the rotation of Court of Appeals justices vis-a-vis a permanent Court of Appeals.
The Executive also tries to elide the argument about joint exercise of the power with the Senate, by saying the EDCA is a mere implementation of the MDT. So the Bayan petition tries to prove that assertion wrong, by arguing that the MDT only comes into play during an armed attack. But there is none, so there is nothing to implement.
Bayan missed an elementary element of a petition – locus standi. Do you have standing to petition the Court. Standing is the legal term. The street term is personality. Sino ka? Ano ang karapatan mong dumulog sa amin (Court)?
One (like the Saguisag petition) must first prove standing, before going into the merits of the petition. If you read the decisions about Constitutional cases (like the most recent cyber libel case), the Court first discusses why they gave due course (entertained) to the petition of each petitioner (Disini, etc.).
Here’s the other side of the coin as expounded by Ted Laguatan in the Philippine daily inquirer:
…But essentially, here’s the reality: A huge, powerful alien force is at our gates, taking what is ours, kicking us in the gut and humiliating us. Even if we have filed a complaint in a UN Court, the decision will take time; China also says she would not respect any decision from that court. Meanwhile, Chinese forces continue to invade and take our territories. We are practically helpless. But with help from superpower United States, China’s aggression could possibly be deterred.
What then? Refuse this critically needed help and say it is illegal for us to accept it? Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Should a father whose son is starving to death refuse to steal bread because it is illegal to do so? Even King David broke the law and ate the sacred bread in the temple when he was starving. Laws are made for man, not vice versa.
Yes, the law says treaties require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (where more than a third of its current members are suspected of stealing billions of the people’s money), but is this man made law more sacred than the God-given law of our right to self defense against a powerful aggressive invader? Why even invoke it in the first place when invoking it goes against our national interest and helps the invader?
I would rather have a people who could properly discern which laws ought to be obeyed and which laws ought to be ignored or even disobeyed, rather than have robots who think that all laws need to be obeyed, especially in a country where the laws are often used by the powerful and the corrupt to oppress, exploit and steal from the people.
We desperately need EDCA. We definitely also must never allow Chinese military bases within striking distance of our territory.
Read more: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/105394/chinas-military-base-in-ph-territory-must-absolutely-
You will argue like that in the Supreme Court? I thought nobody sank lower than that dumbass Oliver Lozano.
We are discussing the petition of Saguisag, which will be heard by the Supreme Court. The wisdom of having an EDCA is usually discussed in that circus called Congress.
Kaibigan ni Tony Carpio yan? I thought birds of the same feather….
Maybe the more apt phrase is opposites attract.
I think the govt made a mistake by calling it another name. They should have just said that it is a part of the VFA. What is in EDCA that the US cannot do with the VFA? Now it is out in the open. This will just make the country look bad and will weaken our position in the SCS.
#23
Darling America will die for us fighting Chineese..??
Who is friend of Tony Carpio,Ted Laguatan?
Laguatan and Carpio are condo neighbors in Avignon. Laguatan is known to own the whole penthouse w/ roofdeck swimming pool. Big time.
Birds of the same feather din pala
sa bulsa.
Opposites attract sa utak. Naghanap pa sa labas si Carpio. Sa alumni lang ng Supreme Court maraming parang Laguatan magsulat.