In Lim v. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court addressed the legality of the “Balikatan 02-1” joint military exercises between the Philippines and the United States. The Court ultimately dismissed the petitions challenging the exercises, holding that while the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) allows for military cooperation, it does not permit U.S. troops to engage in offensive war on Philippine soil. This decision clarified the permissible scope of military activities involving foreign troops within the framework of Philippine laws and treaty obligations, emphasizing that any foreign military presence must be consistent with the Constitution and international agreements.

When Does Training Become Combat?: Examining the Boundaries of RP-US Military Exercises

The case arose from the “Balikatan 02-1” exercises, initiated in January 2002 as part of the international anti-terrorism campaign declared by the United States after the September 11 attacks. These exercises, involving U.S. and Philippine troops, were framed as simulations of joint military maneuvers under the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951 and facilitated by the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) of 1999. Petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino R. Ersando, later joined by SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, sought to prohibit these exercises, arguing that they violated the Constitution by allowing foreign troops to engage in combat operations on Philippine territory.

The petitioners contended that the MDT only provides for mutual military assistance in case of an external armed attack, which the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) does not constitute. They further argued that the VFA does not authorize American soldiers to engage in combat operations in the Philippines. The Solicitor General countered that the petitions were premature and speculative, as the Terms of Reference (TOR) for “Balikatan 02-1” clearly defined the extent and duration of the exercises. Furthermore, the government argued that the President’s determination that “Balikatan 02-1” was covered by the VFA should be accorded due deference, given the President’s authority in foreign relations and as commander-in-chief.

The Court acknowledged the importance of the constitutional issues raised and proceeded to address the merits of the case, despite procedural objections. It framed its analysis within the context of the MDT and the VFA, noting that the MDT aims to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of the Philippine armed forces through joint training with their American counterparts. The VFA, on the other hand, provides the regulatory mechanism for the temporary presence of U.S. military personnel in the Philippines for activities approved by the Philippine government. The Court recognized the ambiguity in the VFA’s definition of “activities,” which allows for a wide scope of undertakings subject to the approval of the Philippine government.

To interpret the scope of permissible activities under the VFA, the Court invoked the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, emphasizing the importance of examining the text of the treaty in good faith and in light of its object and purpose. The Court found that the Terms of Reference (TOR) rightly fall within the context of the VFA, clarifying the scope of the joint military exercises. It acknowledged that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of “activities” was likely deliberate, providing both parties with flexibility in negotiation. Thus, the VFA could encompass a range of activities beyond military exercises, such as training on marine resource protection, search-and-rescue operations, disaster relief, and civic action projects.

Building on this interpretation, the Court addressed the critical question of whether U.S. forces could legitimately engage in combat in Philippine territory. Paragraph 8 of Section I of the TOR stipulated that U.S. exercise participants may not engage in combat “except in self-defense.” The Court cautioned that this provision, while admirable in principle, could be difficult to implement in practice, given the nature of the conflict with the Abu Sayyaf Group. It emphasized that neither the MDT nor the VFA allows foreign troops to engage in an offensive war on Philippine territory.

The Court grounded its decision in the principles of international law and the Philippine Constitution. It cited Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that all treaties and international agreements to which the Philippines is a party must be read in the context of the 1987 Constitution, which expresses a marked antipathy towards foreign military presence in the country. The Constitution regulates the foreign relations powers of the Chief Executive, requiring Senate concurrence for treaties and international agreements. It also includes a provision in the Transitory Provisions that prohibits foreign military bases, troops, or facilities except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.

The Court acknowledged the potential conflict between international law, which favors treaties under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and the Philippine Constitution, which asserts its authority over treaties and international agreements. Citing previous cases, the Court affirmed that the provisions of a treaty are always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law and are subject to the police power of the State. It reiterated that the Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty when it conflicts with the fundamental law or runs counter to an act of Congress. Based on these premises, the Court concluded that U.S. forces are prohibited from engaging in an offensive war on Philippine territory.

Despite this prohibition, the Court declined to make a factual finding on whether American troops were actively engaged in combat alongside Filipino soldiers under the guise of training and assistance. It stated that it could not take judicial notice of media reports and that facts must be established in accordance with the rules of evidence. The Court rejected the petitioners’ allegation that the government was engaged in “doublespeak” and refused to speculate on what was actually happening in Mindanao. It held that the determination of this issue was a question of fact, which is not appropriate for a special civil action for certiorari. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and the petition-in-intervention, without prejudice to the filing of a new petition with sufficient evidence in the proper Regional Trial Court.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the “Balikatan 02-1” joint military exercises between the Philippines and the United States were constitutional, particularly concerning the presence and activities of U.S. troops on Philippine soil. The petitioners argued that the exercises violated the Constitution by allowing foreign troops to engage in combat operations, while the government maintained that they were permissible under the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
What is the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT)?	The Mutual Defense Treaty is a bilateral agreement between the Philippines and the United States, signed in 1951. It provides for mutual military assistance in case of an external armed attack on either party in the Pacific area.
What is the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)?	The Visiting Forces Agreement is an agreement between the Philippines and the United States, signed in 1999. It provides the regulatory mechanism for the temporary presence of U.S. military personnel in the Philippines for activities approved by the Philippine government, outlining the treatment of U.S. forces visiting the country.
Did the Court find the “Balikatan 02-1” exercises unconstitutional?	No, the Court did not find the “Balikatan 02-1” exercises unconstitutional. It dismissed the petitions challenging the exercises, holding that the VFA allows for military cooperation, but it does not permit U.S. troops to engage in offensive war on Philippine soil.
Can U.S. troops engage in combat in the Philippines under the VFA?	The Court clarified that U.S. troops may not engage in offensive combat operations in the Philippines under the VFA. However, the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the exercises allowed for self-defense.
What is the significance of the Terms of Reference (TOR) in this case?	The Terms of Reference (TOR) were crucial in defining the scope and limitations of the “Balikatan 02-1” exercises. The Court considered the TOR as part of the context of the VFA, clarifying the types of activities that were permitted under the agreement.
What is pacta sunt servanda, and how did it apply in this case?	Pacta sunt servanda is a principle of international law that means “agreements must be kept.” It generally favors treaties over municipal law. However, the Court emphasized that the Philippine Constitution takes precedence over international agreements.
What did the dissenting opinion argue?	The dissenting opinion argued that the “Balikatan” exercises are not covered by the VFA as US troops are not allowed to engage in combat. The dissenting justices contended that the exercises are essentially indefinite, that US military intervention is not the solution to the Mindanao problem, and that there is no treaty allowing US troops to engage in combat.

This case underscores the importance of balancing national sovereignty with international cooperation, particularly in matters of defense. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that any foreign military presence in the Philippines must be consistent with the Constitution and international agreements, and that the limits of military cooperation must be clearly defined to prevent potential infringements on national sovereignty.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Arthur D. Lim and Paulino R. Ersando, G.R. No. 151445, April 11, 2002