EDCA talks to proceed only after SC rules on deal

MANILA, Philippines - Formal talks on the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States could only proceed if the Supreme Court (SC) decides on its legality, the military said yesterday.

“We want a decision on whether EDCA is constitutional or not and unfortunately, we cannot move forward if there are legal impediments,” Armed Forces chief Gen. Gregorio Catapang Jr. told reporters in Camp Aguinaldo.

“There are no final or official discussions right now on EDCA,” he added.

Catapang said EDCA, which allows US troops to build facilities and store equipment in Philippine bases, was not discussed during the meeting of the Mutual Defense Board-Security Engagement Board (MDB-SEB) yesterday.

The MDB-SEB is convened annually to allow the two countries to discuss security issues and activities that will boost their partnership.

Catapang earlier said EDCA might be tackled during the MDB-SEB meeting in preparation for a possible favorable SC ruling. The Philippines and the US signed EDCA last April in a move seen as a response to China’s aggressive acts in the region.

Officials claim that the 10-year deal will help modernize the Philippine military.

Three petitions have been filed before the SC challenging the legality of the EDCA. Former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada, who voted to shut down the US bases in the Philippines in 1991, filed one of the petitions.

Saguisag and Tañada said EDCA has no legal basis because the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines and the US has been superseded by the 1987 Constitution, which renounces war as a national policy.

Lawmakers who belong to the Makabayan bloc and leaders of different groups filed the second petition. They claim EDCA would only benefit the US and could lead to “a derogation of our country’s dignity and an unconscionable sellout of our sovereignty.”

The third petition, filed by the Kilusang Mayo Uno and the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement, claimed the deal violated constitutional provisions on national sovereignty, territorial integrity and interests, freedom from nuclear weapons and autonomy of local government units.