Bayan V Zamora
Bayan V Zamora
Bayan V Zamora
1
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
A.Y. 1819– ATTY. ALIMURUNG
number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the FR. BERNAS. Yes.
Senate.
Article 18, Section 25 specifically deals with foreign military bases, DISPOSITIVE PORTION
troops, or facilities. In both provisions, the concurrence of the Senate is Wherefore, the instant petitions are DISMISSED.
mandatory to comply with strict constitutional requirements. Art. 7, Sec. DOCTRINE/PRECEDENT
21 will be the one to determine the votes required to obtain the Lex specialis derogate generali: where there is in the same statute a
“concurrence” as stated in Art. 18, Sec. 25: particular enactment and also a general one, which, in its most
xxx foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the
in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the senate particular enactment must be operative and the general enactment must
xxx StatCon: Lex specialis derogate generali. A special provision or law be taken to affect only such cases within its general language which are not
prevails over a general one. Check doctrine/precedent. within the provision of the particular enactment.
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire: when no distinction is made by
2. W/N Article 18, Section 25 is controlling even if there were no foreign law, the Court should not distinguish.
military bases involved in the VFA considering Art. 18, Sec. 25 covers
“xxx foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.”? YES STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
The clause does not refer to foreign military bases, troops, or facilities Two StatCon elements in this case:
collectively but treats them as separate and independent subjects. The use of First, Art. 18 should be read in the light of Art. 7. So, the “duly concurred”
comma and the disjunctive word or clearly signifies disassociation and phrase in Art. 18 should be qualified by the “2/3” of Art. 7.
independence of one thing from the others included in the enumeration, Second, the argument is that since there were no military bases in the VFA,
such that, the provision contemplates three different situations - a military Art. 18, Sec 25 should not apply. The basis for this is that this provision
treaty the subject of which could be EITHER (a) foreign bases, (b) foreign mentioned three elements – separated by commas. This is the foreign
troops, or (c) foreign facilities - any of the three standing alone places it military bases, troops, or facilities. The contention was that in the absence
under the coverage of Section 25, Article XVII. Deliberations of the 1986 of one of them, the entire law should not apply
Constitutional Commission is also consistent with this.
OTHER RELEVANT LAWS
MR. MAAMBONG. I just want to address a question or two to Commissioner Article 7, Section 21: No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
Bernas. This formulation speaks of three things: foreign military bases, and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members
troops or facilities. My first question is: If the country does enter into such of the Senate
kind of a treaty, must it cover the three-bases, troops or facilities-or could Article 18, Section 25: After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement
the treaty entered into cover only one or two? between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America
FR. BERNAS. Definitely, it can cover only one. Whether it covers only concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall
one or it covers three, the requirement will be the same. not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by
MR. MAAMBONG. In other words, the Philippine government can the senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the
enter into a treaty covering not bases but merely troops? votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and
recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.