Saguisag vs Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426 & 212444, Jan.

12, 2016

FACTS: EDCA authorizes the U.S. military forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain
"Agreed Locations" in the country. It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive's
understanding that to do so was no longer necessary. Accordingly, in June 2014, the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the U.S. Embassy exchanged diplomatic notes confirming the completion
of all necessary internal requirements for the agreement to enter into force in the two countries. After
eight rounds of negotiations, the Secretary of National Defense and the U.S. Ambassador to the
Philippines signed the agreement on 28 April 2014. President Benigno S. Aquino III ratified EDCA on 6
June 2014.

On 10 November 2015, after the oral arguments were concluded and the parties ordered to file their
respective memoranda, the Senators adopted Senate Resolution No. (SR) 105. The resolution expresses
the "strong sense" of the Senators that for EDCA to become valid and effective, it must first be
transmitted to the Senate for deliberation and concurrence.

Related to issue #1: The OSG maintains that there is no actual case or controversy that exists, since the
Senators have not been deprived of the opportunity to invoke the privileges of the institution they are
representing. It contends that the nonparticipation of the Senators in the present petitions only confirms
that even they believe that EDCA is a binding executive agreement that does not require their
concurrence.

ISSUE #1: In view of the abstention of the Senators from the present proceedings, is there an actual case
or controversy that is already ripe for adjudication?

RULING: Yes. There is an actual case or controversy that is already ripe for adjudication. The sheer
abstention of the Senators from the present proceedings as basis for finding that there is no actual case
or controversy cannot be considered. The Senate has expressed its position through SR 105 and took a
position contrary to that of the OSG*. As the body tasked to participate in foreign affairs by ratifying
treaties, its belief that EDCA infringes upon its constitutional role indicates that an actual controversy
exists.

The Executive Department has sent an official confirmation to the U.S. Embassy that "all internal
requirements of the Philippines...have already been complied with." By the exchange of diplomatic
notes, such branch had effectively performed the last act required under Article XII(l) of EDCA before the
agreement entered into force. Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution, is clear that the presence of
foreign military forces in the country shall only be allowed by virtue of a treaty concurred in by the
Senate. Hence, the performance of an official act by the Executive Department that led to the entry into
force of an executive agreement was sufficient to satisfy the actual case or controversy requirement.
ISSUE #2: Will the present petitions qualify as citizens, taxpayers, or legislators suits, and thus, the
petitioners have legal standing?

RULING: No. The present petitions cannot qualify as citizens', taxpayers', or legislators' suits; the Senate
as a body has the requisite standing, but considering that it has not formally filed a pleading to join the
suit, as it merely conveyed to the Supreme Court its sense that EDCA needs the Senate's concurrence to
be valid, petitioners continue to suffer from lack of standing.

It is not a citizens suit because the petitioners failed to make any specific assertion of a particular
public right that would be violated by the enforcement of EDCA. For their failure to do so, the present
petitions cannot be considered by the Court as citizens' suits that would justify a disregard of the
aforementioned requirements.

It cannot qualify as taxpayers' suits. We emphasize that a taxpayers' suit contemplates a situation in
which there is already an appropriation or a disbursement of public funds. A reading of Article X(l) of
EDCA would show that there has been neither an appropriation nor an authorization of disbursement of
funds. Until and unless the Legislature appropriates funds for EDCA, or unless petitioners can pinpoint a
specific item in the current budget that allows expenditure under the agreement, we cannot at this time
rule that there is in fact an appropriation or a disbursement of funds that would justify the filing of a
taxpayers' suit.

It cannot qualify as a legislators' suit. The power to concur in a treaty or an international agreement is
an institutional prerogative granted by the Constitution to the Senate, not to the entire Legislature.
In Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary, this Court did not recognize the standing of one of the
petitioners therein who was a member of the House of Representatives. Therefore, none of the initial
petitioners in the present controversy has the standing to maintain the suits as legislators.