With EDCA we are back to square one

THE other day the Supreme Court determined that the agreement signed by the US Ambassador and our Secretary of Defense is binding on the nation and is not unconstitutional. Sometime ago the Senate in a resolution declared that the said agreement had the force of a treaty binding the two nations and had to pass the upper chamber for scrutiny and concurrence. This was cavalierly junked by the high magistrates who gave the go signal for this administration to go ahead and allow the United States to convert some areas in the archipelago into military zones and logistics centers.

This development has raised some eyebrows. Is the new norm to conduct foreign policy which is only an extension of domestic policy based on executive fiat? The Constitution precisely provided for an oversight function for the Senate which is supposed to ratify international agreements in order that the chief executive in the exercise of his responsibility as chief architect in the formulation of foreign policy would be checked and balanced by the upper house which represents the true sentiments of the nation (his bosses).