EDCA: Whether or not an Executive Agreement
The Enhanced Defense Cooperation
Agreement (EDCA) was signed by the president on June 6, 2014. [1]EDCA
is an agreement between the Philippines and the US for the implementation of
Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), which authorizes the US military
forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain agreed locations
in the Philippines. It was not transmitted to the Senate because it was
understood by the Executive that there was no need to do so. However, after the
signing of the agreement, two petitions for certiorari were raised assailing
the constitutionality of EDCA. The petitioners argue that it should be in the
form of treaty concurred in by the Senate and not an Executive agreement.
Let us first analyze the
difference between an executive agreement and a treaty. A treaty is when an
agreement involves changes in the Philippine National Policy and the agreement
must therefore be submitted to the Senate for ratification. While the executive
agreement merely implements an already existing treaty obligations, laws, or
policy and does not need the concurrence of the Senate. [2]Sec
17, Art VII of the Constitution states that the president has the duty to
ensure that laws are faithfully executed. In this provision, the president has
the responsibility and prerogative to guarantee the welfare of its nation
especially in territorial disputes. But the exercise of rights of the Executive
must strictly adhere to our laws. [3]Sec.
25, Art. XVIII of the Constitution states that “… foreign military bases,
troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a
treaty duly concurred in by the Senate…” this phrase from the Constitution is
the matter raised by the petitioners in GR No. 212426 making the agreement
unconstitutional. However, the court proved otherwise. In order to prove that
EDCA is an executive agreement, it must involve an existing treaty. In this
case, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement was a mere implementation of
the pre-existing treaties of Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) in 1951 and Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA) in 1991. [4]According
to the case involving the constitutionality of EDCA, it was explained that
during the existence of VFA our government allowed the initial entry of the
foreign military bases, troops or facilities. VFA also involved the so called
“Balikatan” exercises between Philippine-US military troops which proves that
the treaty of VFA allowed the US military troops to enter in our defense territories.
Therefore, EDCA is an executive agreement because it does not pertain to a
treaty wherein there’s a change in the policy of our nation especially relating
to national defense. The agreement merely enforces the pre-existing treaties of
VFA and MDT which was duly ratified by the Senate.
The agreement will be
advantageous to our country because US is one of the developed countries. The
agreement gives us a helping hand in our military defense in protecting our
territory and improving our defense mechanism against enemy states. The court
correctly upheld the decision in the constitutionality of EDCA because it was
clearly explained in the jurisprudence the concrete reason why the president
did not seek for the concurrence of the Senate. An executive agreement,
implements an already existing obligations, laws, or policy and does not need
the concurrence of the Senate. Therefore, the president did not gravely abuse
his discretion when he entered into an executive agreement with the United
States.
[1] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/597859/what-is-the-enhanced-defense-cooperation-agreement-and-what-does-it-mean-for-ph
[2]
Sec. 17, Art. VII, Constitution
[3]
Sec. 25, Art. XVIII, Constitution
[4] GR
No. 212426
No comments:
Post a Comment