Sounding Board

US access to bases; SC rushed but rebuffed?


The bases access issue. We do have a Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States. And yes, we also have a Visiting Forces Agreement with that country. The preamble to the agreement notes that “from time to time elements of the United States armed forces may visit the Republic of the Philippines….”

Article I of the agreement says: “As used in this Agreement, ‘United States personnel’ means United States military and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government.”

From time to time the agreement has been put to use and US forces have been allowed to visit for limited periods mainly to take part in joint military exercises with Philippine forces. The understanding has been that these visits would be sporadic and therefore clearly temporary in nature.

Now the government has been circulating the idea of giving to US military forces (and even to Japanese military forces!) access to Philippine military bases. How exactly this will be done is still a secret. Is what is being planned something different from past visits of US forces, which were merely in the nature of “activities approved by the Philippine government” as stated in Article I of the Visiting Forces Agreement? But, why the trial balloon?

At this stage it seems to me that as far as the planned US access to our bases is concerned, we are in a position similar to where we are with respect to the planned peace agreement with the Bangsamoro forces in Mindanao. We are in the dark. For Mindanao, we have a framework agreement but its substance is still in the process of being worked out. For the access-to-bases issue, all we have is a trial balloon. In effect, we now are confronted with two separate ghosts, the “framework” ghost and the “US access” ghost.

How does one fight off a ghost or fight on the side of a ghost?

Reyes vs Velasco. No, that is not the title of the Supreme Court decision, but it could have been. The contenders for a congressional seat in Marinduque were Regina Reyes and Lord Allan Velasco.

I am not claiming that the decision of the Court against Reyes was wrong. All I want to say is that the decision missed an opportunity for the Court to teach lawyers clearer lessons on some contentious issues in election law. This might yet happen in the future. But for now let me take up four points which need elaboration.

First, how does a Filipino woman lose and later reacquire citizenship? Our Constitution says, “Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.” But what acts or omissions may be deemed renunciation of citizenship?

Second, what is the final word on the meaning in political law of the domicile of a married woman? I recall the case of Marcos-Romualdez vs Comelec. The Court said: “Without as much belaboring the point, the term residence may mean one thing in civil law (or under the Civil Code) and quite another thing in political law. What stands clear is that insofar as the Civil Code is concerned—affecting the rights and obligations of husband and wife—the term residence should only be interpreted to mean ‘actual residence.’ The inescapable conclusion derived from this unambiguous civil law delineation, therefore, is that when the petitioner married the former president in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium.” Justice Flerida Ruth Romero approached the subject as an aspect of the struggle of women for equality with men.

Third, there remain blurred issues arising from Republic Act No. 9225, the Dual Citizenship Law, in relation to election law. Section 5(2) says: “Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.”

Does this requirement of renunciation of foreign citizenship apply to those filing a certificate of candidacy for a national office? If it does, it would seem to me to be an unconstitutional addition to the requirements for national office.

Finally, when is jurisdiction over contests passed on to the electoral tribunal? Jurisprudence has repeatedly said: “The Court has invariably held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.” Or, stated in another manner, where the candidate has already been proclaimed winner in the congressional elections, the remedy of the petitioner is to file an electoral protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

In all these past cases, the HRET had already been formed. Hence, the Court could say to the petitioner, “Go to the electoral tribunal as the ‘sole’ judge of all contests.” My question now is about media reports that the losing party in this case, as of last week, has already assumed office in Congress. Is this a rebuff of the Supreme Court decision of last June 25? What will happen next?

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • buninay1

    In the name of fair play, we should ask the the same unmolested access for our visiting forces to US military bases. Let us see if the US will ever accommodate BRP Aguinaldo in Okinawa or Guam or Diego Garcia for that matter

    • clanwolf

      Good point.

      • Crazy_horse101010

        i dont think china will take over them places. can the philippines say the same

    • koolkid_inthehouse

      i dont think theres a problem with that PHL navy visiting Japan or US

      • Crazy_horse101010

        they just visited america they were just in san diego yesterday

  • Chloroform

    we can hire a ghostfighter like Yusuke Urameshi of YuYu Hakusho. hehe

  • koolkid_inthehouse

    Lets ask first the people who kicked out the US forces in the first place. maybe they have a better idea.

  • kayanatwo


    nobody asked me, but…the esteemed constitutionalist is out again with another parable of his, this time a “ghost” theory. fr. bernas should start rehearsing his ritual of exorcism to battle ” this ghost” that fr. bernas might had a pre-knowledge from it..

    and fr. bernas knew that “there is law and there is the law”. or the question of ” is there a prima facie obligation to obey the law “??????

  • generalproblem

    ang problema kasi dito sa magagaling natin na politician at mga lawyer gustong gusto na ginagamit ang wikang english sa ting batas ang problema sila sila ang nahihirapang intindihin ang kanilang sinulat na batas. tagalugin nyo na lang mga unggoy

  • Just_JT

    Happy Birthday Father Bernas!

  • tarikan

    Say it straight, Fr. Bernas. Reyes vs. Velasco was a case that the Supreme Court had better not indulge in. HRET clearly has jurisdiction according to your fourth point. Mr. Lord A. Velasco had the temerity to petition the SC just because his father is one of the justices there? Kapal naman kahit ba hindi sumali si Justice Velasco sa pag-decide. Heard of a word influence?

  • josh_alexei

    That Citizenship law is soo complicated and so confusing that one has already spent Billions in his candidacy and still could lose his office after winning an Election. Why can not anything be as simple as our very own Citizenship law, which simply State that once you are a Canadian, you will be a Canadian unless you personally renounced it for whatever reason or you acquired it by Material MisRepresentation or in other Word you were not supposed to get in in the First Place. Meaning there is ONLY ONE CLASS OF CITIZENSHIP

  • kasile

    Matagal ng may access ang US sa mga base natin, katulad sa Andrew Airforce base sa Zamboanga. may building na sila doon.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks

May 26, 2015

Reason prevails