spot_img
27.6 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Aquino criticized over Edca deal

- Advertisement -

SENATOR Miriam Defensor Santiago on Sunday slammed President Benigno Aquino III for defying the 1987 Constitution when the Philippines signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States.

“Instead of abiding by the Constitution he has sworn to protect, the President openly defied it by striking a deal concerning foreign bases, troops or facilities through an executive agreement,” said Santiago, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee.

She made her statement even as the four Supreme Court justices who dissented with the high court’s ruling that the Edca was “not constitutionally infirm” said the deal needed ratification from the Senate.    

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

Associate Justices Marvic Leonen, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo Brion and Estela Perlas-Bernabe maintained that, since Edca had a far wider scope than earlier treaties like the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement, it should be ratified by the Senate as mandated by Section 25, Article 18 of the 1987 Constitution.

While acknowledging the broad powers of the  President in foreign relations, Santiago, however, said that power excluded what was prohibited by the Constitution.   

- Advertisement -

She said Article 18, Section 25 of the Constitution prohibited an executive agreement on foreign bases, troops or facilities.

She said Malacañang could have cured Edca’s constitutional infirmity by considering it a treaty and submitting it to the Senate for concurrence.

She questioned the Supreme Court’s premise that the President had broad powers in foreign relations, including the authority to enter into executive agreements such as the Edca.

Voting 10-4-1, the Supreme Court ruled that the Edca needed no Senate concurrence because it was  merely an implementing agreement of the VFA, which the Court deemed a valid and effective treaty.

But Santiago said the Constitution was clear that if an agreement pertained to foreign military bases, troops or facilities, it must be in the form of a treaty, concurred in by the Senate and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

“The Edca is invalid for two reasons: The Executive claims that it is not a treaty but merely an executive agreement, and it was not submitted to the Senate for concurrence. The flaw of the VFA, meanwhile, lies in the fact that it is not considered a treaty by the US,” Santiago said.

Santiago said that, for a treaty to be binding to the US, it must have the consent of the US Senate. 

The VFA, she said, was submitted to the US Senate not for concurrence but only in compliance with the Case-Zablocki Act, an American law that requires the US State Department to transmit to the US Senate agreements not recognized as treaties.

“Therefore, the Edca cannot derive its validity from the VFA because the VFA is also infirm,” Santiago said, recalling her assertion in a 2009 resolution adopted by the Senate that the Philippine government should renegotiate the VFA or, if the US refused, to move to abrogate the military deal.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles