Practice question
The President approves an arrangement modeled on EDCA. Challengers contend that the Supreme Court's 2016 main decision held EDCA invalid unless first submitted separately to the Senate, and that it required treating EDCA itself as the initial instrument admitting foreign troops. Which response accurately states that decision?
- It upheld EDCA as an executive agreement implementing the MDT and VFA rather than as a new treaty requiring separate Senate concurrence
- It required a separate Senate vote on every activity under EDCA
- It held all foreign military arrangements exempt from Article XVIII, Section 25
- It held the President may establish foreign bases by any unilateral memorandum
- It treated the MDT and VFA as legally irrelevant
Legal references
- Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 212426 and 212444, January 12, 2016, main decision, EDCA and executive agreements: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/jan2016/gr_212426_2016.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 25, foreign military bases, troops or facilities: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.