EDCA: Is it "ripe" for adjudication?

The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an agreement between the Philippines and United States which is designed to improve interoperability of both country’s forces, address short-term gaps of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), promote long-term modernization, and maintain and develop maritime securities, maritime domain awareness, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief capabilities.

Recently, two petitions were filed before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of EDCA. The petitioners argued that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when they entered into the agreement as it constitute a derogation to national sovereignty and territorial integrity and violates the Constitution and other laws.

Under Article VIII, Section 1, paragraph 2 of the 1987 Constitution, “Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”

For the Court to be able to exercise the power of judicial review, there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power. Hence, the court has no authority to pass upon issues of constitutionality through advisory opinion and it has no authority to resolve hypothetical or speculative constitutional problems. Also, the actual case must be “ripe” for adjudication. A constitutional question is ripe for adjudication when the governmental act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it.

EDCA fails to meet all the requisites provided for the exercise of judicial review. Hence, the 

Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the case. There is no actual case and controversy presented since the agreement has not yet been implemented. And since it has not yet been implemented, there has no direct adverse effect yet in the society and in the country.

As mentioned by Justice Velasco Jr. in their oral arguments held on November 18, 2014, “Let us first see the implementation of EDCA and then challenge it before the Court if there is really a grave abuse of discretion.”

Lastly, the presumption of constitutionality must be observed. Before we assume unconstitutionality about EDCA, we must first see how it will be implemented.

“EDCA should be given a chance first. When we see implementing agreements and acts that really derogate Philippine sovereignty and then that is when we step in.” - Chief Justice Sereno during their oral arguments on November 18, 2014.