THE government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, on Friday insisted that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (Edca) between the Philippines and the United States is constitutional.
In his 32-page consolidated comment, Solicitor General Florin Hilbay sought the dismissal of the petitions seeking the nullification of Edca for lack of merit.
Hilbay maintained that the President entered into the agreement pursuant to his constitutional duty to protect the state as its commander in chief, chief executive and chief architect of foreign policy. He argued that under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, the President, as head of state and chief representative of government, has the “prime duty to serve and protect the people.”
Hilbay stressed that Edca is necessary to enhance the country’s internal and external security, considering the “international platform of politics,” as well as “recent events within Philippine territory.”
He argued that the Edca is one of the security measures necessary “to achieve a minimum credible defense to the manifold security concerns in the West Philippine Sea.”
“What the Edca does is to enhance the existing contractual security apparatus between the Philippines and the US, set up through the MDT [Mutual Defense Treaty] and the VFA [Visiting Forces Agreement]. It is the duty of the Honorable Court to allow this security apparatus enough breathing space to respond to perceived, anticipated and actual exigencies,” the government’s chief counsel said.
In addition, Hilbay argued that being merely an implementing device for the country’s commitments under the MDT and the VFA, the Edca does not require Senate concurrence.
He added that the government will rely on the Edca to shore up the Armed Forces’ capabilities in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.
Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court in May by a group led by former Senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada, and militant lawmakers led by Party-list Reps. Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate of Bayan Muna.
Another group, led by Kilusang Mayo Uno and Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement, filed a third petition in June.
They asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the agreement.
Named respondents in the two anti-Edca petitions were Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Defense Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin, Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario, then-Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, Defense Undersecretary Pio Lorenzo Batino, Ambassadors Eduardo Malaya and Lourdes Yparraguirre, Defense Assistant Secretary for Strategic Assessment Raymund Jose Quilup and Justice Undersecretary Francisco Baraan III.
The petitioners argued that Edca is not a mere Executive agreement but a treaty, which should be approved by the Senate.
Thus, they added that the agreement violates Section 25, Article XVIII 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 also alleged that the deal also violates Section 8, Article II of the Constitution, which prohibits nuclear weapons in the country.
The petitioners argued that Edca is “unconstitutional and invalid,” as it violates the national sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interest of the Constitution and various Philippine laws and principles of international law.
The petitioners said the Aquino administration committed grave abuse of discretion in signing the agreement, which is tantamount to a “derogation of the country’s dignity and unconscionable sellout of sovereignty.”