2 ex-senators challenge EDCA before SC

MANILA, Philippines - Two former senators who voted to remove the US military bases in the country 23 years ago went to the Supreme Court yesterday questioning the legality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US government.

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said the legality of EDCA was for the high court decide.

“It is up to the Supreme Court to rule whether or not EDCA is constitutional,” DFA spokesman Charles Jose said.

In a 63-page petition, Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada asked the high court to stop the implementation of the deal signed last April 28 and the release of funds for its implementation.

Malacañang, on the other hand, said they are ready to defend EDCA before the high court.

“Certainly there will be voices who will not be in agreement with the signing of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. But we have made it very clear that if you look at the provisions of the EDCA, you will see their provisions sustaining and maintaining the position of the provisions on the Constitution regarding bases, regarding related matters with respect to basing,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said.

“We believe that the government can ably support and defend the position in case a petition is filed or if a petition has already been filed before the Supreme Court. That has been anticipated owing also primarily to the statements coming from some senators,” he said.

Saguisag and Tañada urged the SC to declare EDCA unconstitutional.

The two former senators argued EDCA is a treaty – not merely an executive agreement as Malacañang has claimed – which needs concurrence of the Senate before it could be implemented.

The petitioners cited Article XVIII Section 25 of the Constitution, which requires that any foreign military bases, troops or facilities “shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.”

They argued the constitutional provision makes no distinction whether the foreign military bases, troops, or facilities are temporary, transient or permanent in nature.

They also argued EDCA violates Article II Section 8 of the Constitution, which prohibits nuclear weapons in the country.

“The constitutional prohibition is absolute in its prohibition against nuclear weapons in its territory. As such, no vessel or aircraft of the US, which enters Philippine territory, should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. Yet, the language of EDCA only prohibits nuclear weapons if they are prepositioned. There is no prohibition present in all the other activities that EDCA allows where US troops, supplies and materiel enter Philippine territory,” the petitioners stressed.

In seeking to declare EDCA null and void, petitioners also argued that the government, particularly the Department of National Defense, committed grave abuse of discretion in signing the agreement purportedly to promote the decades-old Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the US.

They explained the government cannot invoke the MDT since it was already superseded by the Constitution, which rejects war as a national policy.

They said the EDCA contradicts the country’s obligations as a member of the United Nations, which has outlawed the use of force as a means to settle disputes between states.

Petitioners also said EDCA is disadvantageous to the government. They stressed the EDCA would grant the US “carte blanche power to establish and operate de facto military bases anywhere on Philippine soil, minus the cost of paying for one.”

“This agreement will allow the US government to use Philippine military bases, essentially allowing them 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,” they said.

Even with the signing of EDCA, the two former senators pointed out there is no assurance that the US will go to war with the Philippines over the territorial dispute with China.

Such military aid would not be automatic or immediate as the MDT provides that constitutional processes must first be complied with the approval of Congress, the petitioners said.

“Although it was signed in the context of heightened tension with China and dangled as proof of America’s ironclad commitment to defend the Philippines against Chinese expansionism, there is no assurance that the United States will actually come to the aid of the Philippines in case of an invasion by China,” the petition stated.

Saguisag and Tañada said US President Barack Obama did not expressly say that the US would come to the aid of the Philippines in case of an armed attack by China.

This was in stark contrast to his clear and unequivocal statement during his visit to Japan where he expressly stated the US commitment, added the petitioners.

Lastly, the petitioners questioned why the administration of President Aquino has disregarded the nationalism shown by Filipinos in 1991 during the term of his mother, the late President Corazon Aquino, in resisting the US military presence in the country.  â€“ Pia Lee-Brago, Alexis Romero