EDCA: Senate concurrence not a factor.

               "Para kayong mga birhen na naniniwala sa pag-ibig ng isang puta!" The very statement that Justice Marvic Leonen quoted from Heneral Luna. Such statement was made after Justice Leonen disagreed with the constitutionality of the EDCA or the Enhance Defense Cooperation Agreement between the Philippines and the United States.

               EDCA’s primary purpose is to provide military support within our country in which they are allowed to establish military bases in certain location in the country that is agreed upon and as well as perform military exercises with the Armed forces of the Philippines within the period of 10 years. The Agreement, the Supreme Court stated, carries out provisions of previous agreements such as the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement. Which Justice Carpio stated that If the Mutual Defense Treaty cannot attain this purpose without the EDCA, then the EDCA merely implements the MDT and executive action is sufficient to make the EDCA valid.

               However some Justices disagreed with this, including Justice Leonen, which he argues that such agreement must concur with the senate before it becomes valid, which he stated the Provisions of Section 21, Article 7 and Section 25 Article 18 of the 1987 Consitution. He further contends that such agreement cannot amend treaties.

               Now the question rises, if an executive agreement is similar to an international agreement which falls under the Section 21, Article 7 which states that No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the senate. In the case of Comissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea trading, where in states that executive agreement does not need concurrence, “The right of the executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history, we have entered into executive agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations, most favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of this has never been seriously questioned by our Courts. “. . . International agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving international agreements of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties. But international agreements embodying adjustments of detail, carrying out well established national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature usually take the form of executive agreements”

               So in conclusion, the EDCA is an Executive agreement, since it does not technically provide a new national policy, but rather it just upholds and carries out the previous agreements and treaties regarding military forces in the country. Therefore, the EDCA is valid and does not need the majority vote of the Senate. And for me, it will help our armed forces drastically. Agree or not, We need all the help we could get, especially with the territorial disputes and with the rebels within our country.