Supreme Court justices, led by Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, enter the main hall for an en banc hearing in this October 2013 file photo. INTERAKSYON.COM FILE
The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an executive agreement that does not need the concurrence of the Senate, government lawyers said Tuesday at the resumption of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Grilled by the justices, Acting Solicitor General Florin Hilbay maintained that the EDCA, signed in April this year, only needs a ratification from the President and not from the Senate, as petitioners insist. Among the petitioners are former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tanada, two of the so-called "Magnificent 12" who in 1991 voted to end the RP-US bases treaty, and militant lawmakers from the Makabayan bloc in the House of Representatives.
“Since the EDCA involves an agreement for the improvement of Philippine military bases and Philippine military facilities, the EDCA need only be approved by the President of the Philippines as an executive agreement," Hilbay argued on Tuesday.
Hilbay pointed out that EDCA is a component of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), ratified by the Senate during the term of President Joseph Estrada.
Not about setting up bases
He also said that EDCA is not about the establishment of foreign military bases, as repeatedly stressed by the petitioners questioning its legality. It is only the latter (foreign military bases) that require Senate concurrence, he added. For this very reason, he said, Malacanang did not bring the EDCA to the Senate.
“The Philippines retains ownership of the agreed locations and all the buildings and facilities the US will build or construct under the EDCA remain as Philippine property,” he said.
Access to and use of such facilities and areas by US military personnel will also be restricted and must be on a rotational basis and not permanently, as anti-EDCA petitioners have contended. “EDCA does not require Senate concurrence because the improvement of the military bases and facilities is consistent with the MDT’s defensive reaction and defensive preparation principles,” explained the acting Sol-Gen.
Also, the EDCA follows the VFA’s policy framework insofar as it “allows US troops, equipment, materials, supplies, aircraft and vessels to agreed locations or facilities and areas provided by the government through the Armed Forces of the Philippines.”
US troops and all other activities related to EDCA may be made only - like in the VFA, Hilbay noted - “at the invitation or upon approval of Philippine authorities.”
Asked what distinguishes these agreed locations from foreign military bases, Hilbay explained that bases conferred on the foreign military forces extraterritoriality and exclusivity - something that is not covered by EDCA.
Thus, he said, “the Philippines has control over these agreed locations not only because we own them, but also because we can set the parameters for their use by US troops.”
Not iron-clad guarantee in case of attack
When questioned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Hilbay admitted that the EDCA does not provide solid guarantee that the US will come to the country's aid should its territorial dispute with China become a military confrontation.
“Yes, there is no guarantee and we are not saying it is (EDCA) the answer to all our problems,” he said adding that the agreement was generally meant to upgrade the country’s military facilities.
Still, he stressed, there is the MDT where the US and the Philippines commit to come to each other's aid in case of attack, especially from external forces.
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/99887/executive-explains-to-sc-nature-of-edca-defends-non-submission-to-senate
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.