013 Arthur Lim et al. v Executive SecretaryG.R. No. 151445 April 11, 2002TOPIC:PONENTE: DE LEON, JR., J.:

AUTHOR:NOTES:

Nature: This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a petition-in-intervention, praying that respondents be restrained from proceeding with the so-called "Balikatan 02-1" and that after due notice and hearing, that judgment be rendered issuing a permanent writ of injunction and/or prohibition against the deployment of U.S. troops in Basilan and Mindanao for being illegal and in violation of the Constitution.

FACTS:1. Beginning January of this year 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United States of America

started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in "Balikatan 02-1."2. These so-called "Balikatan" exercises are the largest combined training operations involving Filipino and

American troops.3. In theory, they are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty, 1 a

bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951.4. Prior to the year 2002, the last "Balikatan" was held in 1995. This was due to the paucity of any formal

agreement relative to the treatment of United States personnel visiting the Philippines.5. In the meantime, the respective governments of the two countries agreed to hold joint exercises on a

reduced scale. The lack of consensus was eventually cured when the two nations concluded the Visiting Forces Agreement (V FA) in 1999.

6. The entry of American troops into Philippine soil is proximately rooted in the international anti-terrorism campaign declared by President George W. Bush in reaction to the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001.

7. On that day, three (3) commercial aircrafts were hijacked, flown and smashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. by terrorists with alleged links to the al-Qaeda ("the Base"), a Muslim extremist organization headed by the infamous Osama bin Laden. Of no comparable historical parallels, these acts caused billions of dollars worth of destruction of property and incalculable loss of hundreds of lives.

8. On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.2 They were joined subsequently by SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, both party-Iist organizations, who filed a petition-in-intervention on February 11, 2002.

9. Lim and Ersando filed suit in their capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers. SANLAKAS and PARTIDO, on the other hand, aver that certain members of their organization are residents of Zamboanga and Sulu, and hence will be directly affected by the operations being conducted in Mindanao.

10. They likewise pray for a relaxation on the rules relative to locus standi citing the unprecedented importance of the issue involved.

11. On February 71 2002 the Senate conducted a hearing on the "Balikatan" exercise wherein Vice-President Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., who is concurrently Secretary of Foreign. Affairs, presented the Draft Terms of Reference (TOR).3 Five days later, he approved the TOR

12. Contemporaneously, Assistant Secretary for American Affairs Minerva Jean A. Falcon and United States Charge d' Affaires Robert Fitts signed the Agreed Minutes of the discussion between the Vice-President and Assistant Secretary Kelly.

ISSUE(S): Is the “Balikatan-02-1” inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution?HELD:

It is necessary to refer to the VFA itself. The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in “activities,” the exact meaning of which was left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that United States personnel must “abstain from any

activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing

interpretations of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties’ intentions. The Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside the aforesaid context.

It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word .’activities” arose from accident. It was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation. In this manner, visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than military. As conceived, the joint exercises may include training on new techniques of patrol and surveillance to protect the nation’s marine resources, sea search-and-rescue operations to assist vessels in distress, disaster relief operations, civic action projects such as the building of school houses, medical and humanitarian missions, and the like.

Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that .’Balikatan 02-1,” a “mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training exercise,” falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement.

Substantially the same points are advanced by petitioners SANLAKAS and PARTIDO The MDT is the core of the defense relationship between the Philippines and the US and it is the VFA

which gives continued relevance to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercise.

The constitution leaves us no doubt that US Forces are prohibited from engaging war on Philippine territory. This limitation is explicitly provided for in the Terms of Reference of the Balikatan exercise. The issues that were raised by the petitioners was only based on fear of future violation of the Terms of Reference.

Based on the facts obtaining, the Supreme court find that the holding of “Balikatan-02-1” joint military exercise has not intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call for the correction on its part.

The petition and the petition-in-intervention is DISMISSED. It is all too apparent that the determination thereof involves basically a question of fact. On this point, we

must concur with the Solicitor General that the present subject matter is not a fit topic for a special civil action for certiorari. We have held in too many instances that questions of fact are not entertained in such a remedy. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion: The phrase "grave abuse of discretion" has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility.

In this connection, it will not be amiss to add that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Under the expanded concept of judicial power under the Constitution, courts are charged with the duty

"to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."21 From the facts obtaining, we find that the holding of "Balikatan 02-1" joint military exercise has not intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call for correction on our part. In other words, respondents in the case at bar have not committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:WHEREFORE, the petition and the petition-in-intervention are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a new petition sufficient in form and substance in the proper Regional Trial CourtRATIO:

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):