Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, left, and U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg sign the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement at Camp Aguinaldo, Philippine military headquarters in Quezon City on Monday, April 28, 2014. The U.S. military will have greater access to bases across the Philippines under the new 10-year agreement signed Monday in conjunction with President Barack Obama's visit and seen as an effort by Washington to counter Chinese aggression in the region. AP/Aaron Favila
Groups have renewed their bid in the Supreme Court (SC) to strike down the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) signed by the government with the US.
In a memorandum filed last Monday, the petitioners led by former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada again asked the high court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the implementation of EDCA.
The petitioners, through their lawyers from the Public Interest Law Center, reiterated that the deal is “unconstitutional and downright invalid because it violates the national sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interest provision of the Constitution, other provisions of the Constitution and various Philippine laws and principles of international law.”
They alleged that President Aquino committed grave abuse of discretion when he entered into an agreement with the US without complying with the requirements under Article VII Section 21 and Article XVIII Section 25 of the Constitution, which require legislative concurrence for entry of foreign troops and facilities in the country as provided in the assailed EDCA.
They refuted the argument of the solicitor general that such legislative concurrence is not necessary since EDCA is a mere executive agreement meant to implement the previous Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and not a new treaty.
Citing the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, the petitioners stressed that such distinction has no bearing since there is no difference between treaties, executive agreements and other international agreement as to their binding effect upon states concerned.
“No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of the members of the Senate,” they said.
The petitioners insisted that EDCA is a treaty since the rights, authorities and privileges granted to US forces are similar to those granted to the United States under the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the two countries.
They further alleged that the deal was “lopsided in favor of the US.”
They claimed that the EDCA violates the constitutional provision against the presence of nuclear weapons in the country.
In addition, petitioners argued that EDCA deprives the SC of its judicial power provided under Article VIII Section 1 of the Constitution. They cited Article XI of EDCA that provides a procedure for the resolution of all disputes which may arise out of the agreement.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/12/18/1403942/anti-edca-petitioners-press-sc-tro
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.