The Supreme Court has been asked to re-examine its decision last month upholding the legality of Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement forged by the government with the United States.
In a motion for reconsideration, petitioners led by Bayan Muna party-list Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate pleaded the high court to overturn its ruling and instead declare the Edca as unconstitutional.
They said the 10 justices in the majority ruling erred in declaring Edca as an executive agreement, insisting that it is a treaty that requires concurrence of the Senate.
“The clear provisions of the Constitution were disregarded, in favor of a stretched-out argument to expand the powers of the President. The decision lacks legitimacy, especially in light of the Senate’s demand to submit Edca for deliberation by the legislature,” they stressed.
According to them, the agreement would lay down the ground for establishment of US military bases in the country despite clear prohibition under the Constitution and the Visiting Forces Agreement.
They disagreed with the position of the majority justices that Edca would benefit the country in boosting its defense amid territorial dispute with China.
“We cannot expect the US to fly to our side the moment confrontations escalate to defend our home front. No such promise has been made, nor will be fulfilled,” the militant lawmakers said.
“If the SC does not reverse its decision on Edca , we will repeat the errors and horrors of our military bases experience,” petitioners argued.
The majority decision penned by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno ruled that Edca is not constitutionally infirm as alleged by petitioners.
Earlier, the SC dismissed the petition of the militant lawmakers against Edca, despite a support by the Senate through its Resolution No. 105, which declared that the agreement was not a treaty similar to the VFA and Mutual Defense Treaty.
The SC pointed out that the law requires Senate concurrence and considers an agreement a treaty only when it serves as an “instrument that allows the presence of foreign military bases, troops or facilities.”
In this case, the SC said edca is “not the instrument that allows US troops or facilities to enter as the VFA already has done that,” citing its earlier ruling that upheld the validity of the VFA.
Instead, petitioners espoused the opinions of the four justices in the minority vote—Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Arturo Brion, Estela Perlas-Bernabe and Marvic Leonen.
They agreed with the four dissenters held that Edca is a treaty by nature that expands the VFA and MDT.
De Castro, in her dissenting opinion, held that Edca “is entirely a new treaty, separate and distinct from the VFA and the MDT” and that “it must satisfy the requirements under Section 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution.”
Leonen, for his part, said the majority ruling “emasculated” the Constitution and “erased the blood, sweat, and tears shed by our martyrs” as it “has allowed this government to acquiesce into collective subservience to the Executive power contrary to the spirit of our basic law.”
However, Brion believes Edca could still be cured as he suggested that the high court—instead of declaring the Edca unconstitutional—should first suspend its implementation and give the executive branch 90 days to seek necessary concurrence of the Senate. If the President fails to do so, he said the majority ruling should then be affirmed.
Court observers have said earlier that reversal of the SC ruling on this case would be unlikely given the wide gap between the votes for and against the Edca.
Under the Edca, the US will be allowed to build structures, store as well as preposition weapons, defense supplies and materiel, station troops, civilian personnel and defense contractors, transit and station vehicles, vessels, and aircraft for a period of 10 years.