MANILA, Philippines - Slain transgender Jeffrey “Jennifer” Laude’s mother and two sisters asked yesterday the Supreme Court (SC) to declare unconstitutional the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the US.
The SC will hear oral arguments on petitions against EDCA this afternoon.
Speaking to reporters, lawyer Harry Roque said Julita, Marilou and Michelle Laude joined the petitions of former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada after they suffered “direct injury” from the continued presence of US servicemen in the country following the killing of Jeffrey.
They alleged that the murder case against US Marine Private 1st Class Joseph Scott Pemberton demonstrates how EDCA “perpetuates” the unconstitutional practice of keeping US servicemen facing criminal cases under custody of the US government.
“Such exercise of legal custody over Pfc Pemberton by US authorities despite him being on Philippine territory violates Philippine sovereignty and is therefore unconstitutional,” read the petition.
Under EDCA, Pemberton might be detained inside an “agreed location” that could cause them “personal, material and substantial damages,” petitioners said.
Roque said EDCA is “completely different” from the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) in terms of the issue on treatment of US servicemen who have committed crimes in the Philippines, contrary to government’s claim that it was merely an implementing guideline.
“Under the VFA, we can still run after them (US servicemen with cases), but in EDCA, it does not seem to be the case anymore,” he said.
Roque said EDCA allows US troops to enter the country “not merely in the context of a military exercise – just as in the VFA.”
“There is a clear absence of any provision in EDCA concerning the exercise of jurisdiction by the Philippines – as the receiving state – over these foreign troops within Philippine territory,” he said.
The Laudes agree with the argument of other petitioners that EDCA violates Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Constitution.
The provision states: “After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”
Petitioners said EDCA is a treaty – not merely an executive agreement as Malacañang claims. It needs concurrence of the Senate before it could be implemented, they added.
Petitioners said EDCA violates Article XVIII, Section 25 of the Constitution requiring that foreign military bases, troops or facilities “shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.”
EDCA also violates Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution prohibiting nuclear weapons in the country, 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, depriving the government of its power of taxation.
EDCA promotes the MDT between the Philippines and the US in violation of the Constitution that rejects war as a national policy, they added.