Euro Generals vs. the Senate

Gen. Dela Paz was apprehended at the Moscow airport departure area for his failure to declare in written form the 150, 000 euros found in his possession. As a result, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations conducted an inquiry and issued warrants of arrest in connection with the “Euro-General’s” detention in Moscow. However, Dela Paz contended that the said Senate Committee chaired by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, was devoid of any jurisdiction to investigate the Moscow incident as it does not involve state to state relations as provided in par. 12, sec. 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules of Procedure. He added that the arrest warrants issued by the Senate against him were invalid as these lacked the required signatures of the majority of the members of respondent committee. Are the contentions of the Dela Paz tenable?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


No. In a nine-page unanimous resolution penned by Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, the Court enumerated six reasons why the petition of the spouses Dela Paz “must inevitably fail.”

The Court cited sec. 16(3), Art. VI of the Constitution, which states that each House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. “The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee…in effect, asks this Court to inquire into a matter that is within the full discretion of the Senate….[I]t is not for this Court to intervene in what is clearly a question of policy, an issue depended upon the wisdom, not the legality, of the Senate’s action,” the Court said.

Second, the Court said that even if it is within the Court’s power to inquire into the validity of the exercise of assailed jurisdiction, it is convinced that respondent Committee has acted within the proper sphere of its authority. Citing the same provision raised by dela Paz, the Court said that the Senate provision “unmistakably shows that the investigation of the Moscow incident is well within its committee’s jurisdiction.” visit fellester.blogspot.com The Court cautioned that the Moscow incident could create ripples in the relations between the Philippines and Russia, noting that country is a state-party to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the United Nations Convetion Against Transnational Organized Crime. The two conventions contain provisions dealing with the movement of considerable foreign currency across borders. The Moscow incident would reflect on our country’s compliance with the obligations required of state-parties under these conventions, noted the Court.

Third, the Senate has decided that the legislative inquiry will be jointly conducted by the respondent Committee and the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon Committee). Pursuant to par. 36, sec. 13, Rule 10 of the Senate Rules, the Blue Ribbon Committee may conduct investigations on all matters relating to malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office by officers and employees of the government.

Fourth, the Philippine Senate has issued a formal written order of arrest signed by 10 senators, with the Senate President himself approving it, in accordance with the Senate Rules.

Fifth, the Philippine Senate has already published its Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in two newspapers of general Circulation.

Lastly, the arrest order issued against the Dela Paz coupled has been rendered ineffectual when Gen. Dela Paz voluntarily submitted himself during the Senate inquiry held on November 15, 2008. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations initially scheduled the hearing on the Moscow incident on October 23, 2008. (GR No. 184849, Spouses Dela Paz v. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, February 13, 2009)

Lance Corporal Daniel Smith Case

Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, member of the US Armed Forces, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in the RTC of Makati. The court ordered Smith detained at the Makati City Jail until further orders.

On December 19 and 22, 2006, Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and US Ambassador Kristie Kenney executed agreements that pursuant to the VFA, Smith be returned to the US military custody and be detained at the first floor, Rowe Building, US Embassy Compound.

Petitioner Jovito Salonga, et al. challenged the validity of the said agreements contending that the Philippines should have custody of Smith because, first of all, the VFA is void and unconstitutional since it violates Art. XVlll, Sec. 25 of the constitution.

Is the VFA constitutional? Granting that it is constitutional, Are the Romulo-Kenney Agreements in accordance with the provisions of the VFA itself?


SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The SC ruled The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is constitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with the VFA.

VFA is Constitutional

The SC ruled that “the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States,” and “the fact that (it) was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State.”

Section 25, Article XVIII, 1987 Constitution provides that “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.”

The issue, the Court said, is “whether or not the presence of the US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to the VFA is allowed ‘under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.’” “It is,” the Court ruled. “The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an implementing agreement to the main RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty,” the Court held. visit fellester.blogspot.com The RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951 was signed and duly ratified with the concurrence of both the Philippine Senate and the United States Senate.


Romulo-Kenney Agreements not in accord with the VFA itself

The Court however ruled that “the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not “by Philippine authorities.” Article V, Section 10 of the VFA provides that “the confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of the United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United States authorities.” (Suzette Nicolas y Sombilon Vs. Alberto Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009)


DISSENTING OPINION

In his dissent, Chief Justice Puno maintained his view in the earlier case of Bayan v. Zamora that the VFA falls short of the requirement set by Sec. 25, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution, which provides that the agreement allowing the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines must be “recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.” For the Chief Justice, the majority of the Court in Bayan v. Zamora gave undue deference to the statement of former US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard that US Senate advice and consent was not needed to consider a treaty binding on the US, “then jumped to the conclusion that the US recognized the VFA as a treaty, and that the constitutional requirements had been satisfied.” (Suzette Nicolas y Sombilon Vs. Alberto Romulo, G.R. No. 175888, February 11, 2009)

aerial spraying case

CURRENT EVENTS: Davao planters vs. City of Davao

The City of Davao passed an ordinance prohibiting aerial spraying in all plantations within the province and criminally penalizing violation of the ordinance. The banana planters challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance. Is the Ordinance constitutional?

SUGGESTED ANSWER 1:

No. The Court of Appeals based in Cagayan de Oro City, by a vote of 4 to 1, upheld the contention of the planters that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it was oppressive and confiscatory. The argument of oppressiveness was based on a number of factual arguments: (1) the impossibility of switching to other forms of spraying within three months and the enormous cost it would take to accomplish the switch; (2) the harm to the health of workers who would do the manual spraying; (3) and the lack of scientific proof that aerial spraying was harmful to health. The CA also ruled that it violated the equal protection of law since the ordinance prohibits the use of all sprays without distinction.


SUGGESTED ANSWER 2:

Yes. The ordinance is constitutional. According to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, “the case in essence is a conflict between the right to property and the right to life. The accepted jurisprudence is that in the hierarchy of rights life normally prevails over property.” (Banana planters vs City of Davao, by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, Philippine Daily Inquirer 01/26/2009)

“A provision in the 1987 Constitution, which once some saw as unnecessary, has been gradually gaining attention. Section 16 of Article II says: “The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” visit fellester.blogspot.com In tandem with it is Section 15, which says: “The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.”

Section 16 is unusual among those found in Article II in that, whereas almost all the other provisions in the Article are not self-executing but need implementing legislation to make them effective, Section 16 has been recognized by the Supreme Court as self-executing like the provisions in the Bill of Rights. (‘A balanced and healthful ecology,’ by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 02/02/2009)