echegaray petitioner vs sec of justice

7/28/2019 ECHEGARAY Petitioner vs Sec of Justice

1/3

1

G.R. No. 132601 January 19, 1999

LEO ECHEGARAY, petitioner,

vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ET AL., respondents.

PUNO,J.:

FACTS: This is a case where the herein petitioner, Leo Echegaray, who was convicted and

punished with lethal injection was denied or made inaccessible to him the Lethal Injection Manual for him

to obtain a copy on it.

ISSUE: Whether or not the deprivation of the Lethal Injection Manual is unconstitutional.

HELD: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the making of the Lethal Injection Manual inaccessible to

the convict was unconstitutional and saw no reason why he could not obtain a copy should he so desire. It

declared also that the contents of the manual were matters of public concern which the public may want

to know either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse

the interest of an ordinary citizen.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351

F: Resp. Eastern was the consignee of several shipment of onion and garlic w/c arrived at the port of Mla.from 8/5 to 9/7/54. Some shipments came from Japan and others from HK. Inasmuch as none of theshipments had the certificate required by CB Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 for the release thereof, the goodsthus imported were seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings for alleged violations of Sec. 1363 (f) ofthe Rev. Adm. Code, in relation to the said circulars. Said goods were then declared forfeited in favor ofthe govt by the Commissioner of Customs-- the goods having been, in the meantime, released to theconsignees on surety bonds. On review, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the Commissioner of Customsand ordered the aforementioned bonds to be cancelled and withdrawn. According to the CTA, the seizureand forfeiture of the goods imported from Japan cannot be justified under EO 238, not only bec. the sameseeks to implement an Executive Agreement-- extending the effectivity of our Trade and FinancialAgreements w/ Japan-- w/c agreement, is of dubious validity xxx owing to the fact that our Senate had not

concurred in the making of said Executive Agreement.HELD: The concurrence of said House of Congress is required by the Consti. in the making of"treaties", w/c are, however, distinct and different from "executive agreements," which may bevalidly entered into w/o such concurrence.[The court went on to distinguish a treaty from an executive agreement.]

The agreement in question, being merely an executive agreement, there is no requirementof concurrence.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea TradingInternational agreements involving political issues or changes innational policy and those involving international agreements ofpermanent character usually take the form of TREATIES. But theinternational agreements involving adjustments in detail carrying

out well-established national policies and traditions and thoseinvolving a more or less temporary character usually take the formof EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS.

Bayan vs. Executive Secretary, GR No. 138570, Oct 10, 2000 p. 25 UP

reviewer

Bayan v. Executive Secretary

GR No. 138570, October 10, 2000

FACTS:

On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and the US forged a Military Bases Agreement which formalized,

among others, the use of installations in the Philippine territory by US military personnel. To furtherstrengthen their defense and security relationship, both countries entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on

August 30, 1951. In view of the expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement both countries

negotiated for its possible extension. On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the extension

of the US military bases which was now called RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security.

During the term of Pres. Ramos, he approved the VFA which was the result of a negotiation on the

complementing strategic interests of the US and the Philippines in the Asia-Pacific region. On October 5,

1998, Pres. Joseph Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo Siazon, ratified the

VFA. The Instrument of Ratification, the letter of the President and the VFA were then transmitted to the

Philippine Senate for concurrence pursuant to Sec 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The necessary


2/3

2

2/3 votes of the members of the Senate were gathered thus concurring with the ratification of the VFA

under Resolution No. 18. On June 1, 1999 the VFA officially entered into force. The petitioners argue that

the VFA is governed by the provision of Sec. 25, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution considering that the

VFA has for its subject the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines.

ISSUE:

Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Sec 21, Article VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of theConstitution?

HELD:

Sec. 25, Article XVIII which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases, troops, or

facilities should apply in the instant case. Being a special provision, Sec. 25, Article XVIII will prevail over

the general provision of Sec 21, Article VII of the Constitution. Also, the argument that Sec 25, Article XVIII

is not controlling since no foreign military bases, but merely foreign troops and facilities are involved in the

VFA is untenable. The clause found in Sec 25 does not refer to foreign military bases, troops, or facilities

collectively but treats them as separate and independent subjects as evidenced by the use of comma and

the disjunctive word or. This interpretation which contemplates three different situations a military

treaty the subject of which could be either (a) foreign bases, (b) foreign troops, or (c) foreign facilities

and any of the three standing alone places it under the coverage of Sec 25 is also manifested in thedeliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission on the said section. Moreover, the establishment of

military bases within the territory of another state is no longer viable because of the alternatives offered

by the new weapons of warfare such as nuclear weapons, guided missiles as well as huge sea vessels that

can stay afloat in the sea even for months and years without returning to their home country. Therefore

first requisite of Sec 25, Art XVIII already satisfied by considering the VFA as a treaty. The second condition

of Sec 25 requires that the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate should be viewed in light of Sec

21 Art. VII of the Constitution requiring a 2/3 votes for treaties or international agreements in general. The

2/3 votes is again satisfied after the approval of the VFA by the Senate through Resolution No. 18. The

third requisite of Sec 25, Art XVIII is that the other contracting party acknowledges the agreement as a

treaty. The records of the US Government, through the US Ambassador to the Philippines, show that the

US government has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. Under international law, there isno difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as

long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. Also, the deliberations of the

Consitutional Commission show that,through the words of Fr. Bernas, ...we will accept whatever they

say.If they say that we have done everything to make it a treaty, then as far as we are concerned, we will

accept it as a treaty.. Also through Article 26 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by

the International law Commission in 1949 provides that Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties

to it and must be performed by them in good faith. This is also known as the principle of pacta sunt

servanda. Therefore, the third requisite is also satisfied.

Lim vs Executive Secretary, GR No. 151445, Apr 11, 2002

FACTS :

Beginning 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United States started arriving in Mindanao, totake part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in Balikatan 02-1. In theory, they are a simulation of

joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement enteredinto by the Philippines and the United States in 1951.

On Feb. 2002, Lim filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying that respondents be restrainedfrom proceeding with the so-called Balikatan 02-1, and that after due notice and hearing, judgment berendered issuing a permanent writ of injuction and/or prohibition against the deployment of US troops inBasilan and Mindanao for being illegal and in violation of the Constitution.

Petitioners contend that the RP and the US signed the Mutual Defense Treaty to provide mutual militaryassistance in accordance with the constitutional processes of each country only in the case of a armedattack by an external aggressor, meaning a third country, against one of them. They further argued that itcannot be said that the Abu Sayyaf in Basilan constitutes an external aggressor to warrant US militaryassistance in accordance with MDT of 1951. Another contention was that the VFA of 1999 does notauthorize American soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine territory.

ISSUE :

Whether or not the Balikatan 02-1 activities are covered by the VFA.


3/3

3

RULING :

Petition is dismissed. The VFA itself permits US personnel to engage on an impermanent basis, inactivities, the exact meaning of which is left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition iscouched in the negative, in that the US personnel must abstain from any activity inconsistent with thespirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.

Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical toassume that Balikatan 02-1 a mutual anti terrorism advising assisting and training exercise falls underthe umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement. Both the history andintent of the Mutual Defense Treaty and the VFA support the conclusion that combat-related activities asopposed to combat itself such as the one subject of the instant petition, are indeed authorized.

echegaray petitioner vs sec of justice

Documents