G.R. No. 151445 April 11, 2002
ARTHUR D. LIM and PAULINO R. ERSANDO, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY as alter ego of HER EXCELLENCY GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, and HONORABLE ANGELO REYES in his capacity as Secretary of National Defense, respondents. SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, petitioners-intervenors, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ALBERTO ROMULO, ANGELO REYES, respondents.

FACTS

Beginning January 2002, armed forces personnel from the United States arrived in Mindanao to participate with the Philippine military in “Balikatan 02-1,” described as the largest combined training operations under the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951. The exercises were made possible by the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) concluded in 1999. Their proximate cause was the international anti-terrorism campaign declared by U.S. President George W. Bush following the September 11, 2001 attacks. On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando, filing as citizens, lawyers, and taxpayers, initiated a petition for certiorari and prohibition to challenge the constitutionality of the joint exercise. They were joined by party-list organizations SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA via a petition-in-intervention on February 11, 2002, alleging their members in Zamboanga and Sulu would be directly affected. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the exercise, approved on February 7, 2002, stipulated that the exercise was a mutual counter-terrorism advising, assisting, and training activity against the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) in Basilan, to be completed within six months, with U.S. forces not to engage in combat (except in self-defense) and not to operate independently. The Solicitor General, commenting on behalf of respondents, raised procedural infirmities including lack of locus standi, prematurity of the action, and impropriety of certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should take cognizance of the petitions challenging the constitutionality of “Balikatan 02-1” joint military exercises between the Philippines and the United States, given procedural objections and the substantive claims that the exercises violate the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Visiting Forces Agreement by involving U.S. troops in combat operations against the Abu Sayyaf Group, which is not an external aggressor.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, brushed aside procedural barriers and took cognizance of the petitions due to the paramount importance and constitutional significance of the issues raised. The Court cited precedent from the Emergency Powers Cases and others where transcendental public importance warranted setting aside technicalities of procedure. However, the separate opinion of Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, as reflected in the provided text, voted to DISMISS the petition. He reasoned that the Terms of Reference expressly limited the exercise to a non-combat, training capacity for a period not exceeding six months, and that in the absence of firm factual findings proving the allegations that U.S. forces would stay indefinitely or engage in actual offensive combat, the respondents could not be imputed with grave abuse of discretion—an indispensable element for certiorari. He noted that while nagging questions existed regarding the ASG’s status, the existence of an external armed attack, the scope of VFA activities, and potential political questions, these could not be judicially resolved until a petition sufficient in form and substance was properly presented.