Gov’t tells SC: EDCA constitutional

MANILA, Philippines - Solicitor General Florin Hilbay told the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US is not unconstitutional as opponents have claimed in their petitions.

In the government’s comment, Hilbay said the agreement is within President Aquino’s power to protect the nation as commander-in-chief, chief executive and chief architect of foreign policy.

“The President, through the (Department of National Defense), entered into the EDCA to perform his primary constitutional duty to promote national security interests. 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’,” read the comment.

“The President is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, which is constitutionally designated as ‘the protector of the people and the State’.” 

Hilbay said EDCA did not require Senate concurrence as it would implement and enhance the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement.

It was necessary in addressing external and internal security to achieve “a minimum credible defense to the manifold security concerns in the West Philippine Sea,” he added.

Hilbay said the government would rely on EDCA to shore up the Armed Forces’ capabilities in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR).

“The country’s experience with Typhoon Haiyan last November 2013 has made us acutely aware of the need to develop HADR capability to provide immediate response to disaster-stricken areas,” read the comment.

“Moreover, this experience underscores not only the fact that disaster response requires more than the immediate rescue of survivors, but also that grave calamities require international effort.” 

Hilbay said petitioners against EDCA had no legal standing to seek relief from the SC since only incumbent senators may raise the issue of alleged lack of Senate concurrence.

“Absent any evidence that senators have been prevented from invoking the privileges of their institution, the Honorable Court may well presume that the Senate itself sees no need for such concurrence,” read the comment.

“There is a difference between political posturing and legal argument. Whether the EDCA is ‘highly disadvantageous to the Philippine government’ or ‘lopsided in favor of the (US)’ is not a legal question that can serve as a basis for a sound legal argument.”

Hilbay asked the SC to dismiss the three petitions for lack of merit.

Anti-EDCA petitioners former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against EDCA.

Bayan Muna Representatives Neri Colmenares and Carlos Zarate, and the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) and Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement (Courage) also filed two similar petitions.

The petitioners alleged that EDCA violates provisions on national sovereignty, territorial integrity and interests, freedom from nuclear weapons and autonomy of local government units in the Constitution.

EDCA is a treaty needing Senate concurrence, not an executive agreement as the government has claimed, they added.

Petitioners said EDCA is disadvantageous to the government as US troops would be exempted from taxes and fees in the use of public utilities.

EDCA promotes the Mutual Defense Treaty with the US in violation of the Constitution, they added.