Mr. Recto States the Philippine Case

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Mr. Recto States the Philippine Case
extracted text: MR. RECTO STATES THE PHILIPPINE CASE I Mcmora.ndu11� of Senator Claro M. Ruto to tile Secretary of Forei9n Affairs in reply to the United States claini of owne rship over its ,,aval and military bases in the Pltil;ppines. It wa.:i dated /l:f,1rcl, 3, 1 954, and inco,;Jorc,ted poinfl! num:io,ied in an ear.'1er memo. an rfom by Mr. Recto. D:ar Secretary Garcia : My attention h:1s bt:en cnllerl to the opinion dated August 28, 1953 of Mr. Drvwnell, the ir, cumbent altornev general of the Un ited States, on the ques. tion of whcthe!" the United Stntes has retained thf' "pro prictnry interest or title :is diS tinguished from s:overdgnty/' in the " bnds or areas i!l. the Phili ppi,?eS com prising the mi litary and naval bases, rue1· vations, and stations" notwith standing the grant of indepen dence. His c.pinion is that the llnited States refa.ined, after the gr<tnt of ind�pendence, the title or MR. RECTO proprietary interest to the ba.se lands, thnt is to say, that the Republic of the Philippine!I is not the owner of the lands where the United States military b·ues, reservations and fueling stations !lre presently located. The argument supporting l\lr. Brownell's opi.nion m:iy bf gummarized thus: That under i-ection 5 of th<' Tyding.s-McDuffie Law the Cc,m- ' monwealth g"vernment acquired all the property ond rights wt:ich the UnitP.d States acqui1·ed from Sp'\in. except m:litary an,f othrr reservations; that under section 2(a) '12) and section 5. title to said reservations was retained during the Commonwealth reriod ; thi:i.t under se<:tion lO(a) of tt,e s:ime law. it was oriirinully in tended to +ran!l-fer to the Philinpin�::i the t:tlc to mil'tary rt>se··va tions u n,.m thP. proclamlltion of independence; that under rect:on lO (b) all nuestiom• relating to naval i-e�e,·v"'t;or,s anrl fueli11'?' Ab tions would be arliusted and settled with;n two yea"s af'tl'r tl-ie p rocle.mat:on of irtdependence. in nevnFaticms bPtween the Pres:dent of the United States and the Philio"ine J!'OVcrnment: that unrlrr section HHcl , added to the law in 1939, tl•e Unite1 St-- tcs wnuH r(::tiiir. t.itle to it� pro!>E'"ties m::�d fnr dipfomatic and con"uhr establi!l-hme•,t,q in the Philinnines aftn the J!'rant of indPoenr'h•nce; that Joint Re�olution 93 of the U"itPrl �tatr!l- <'o"lgrrss dat<>d ,J ,ine 29. 1944 chanl?f'd the policy of the Unitc<l �t.,,.tt>11 with re'!pct't to military rt>ser..,ations by prnyiding in e"fect that. i.,stcad of tr:i.ns ferrine' titlE' to :oaid resf'rvations upon the gra.,t of in<'encn-'r.rce, us originally intended, the title to such rcse1·vntions woulrl be l'E' tnined evf'n after the .1?rant of indenendf'nce; that such ,.h:tnl?P. (If policy is e.lso eviderll':ed by the Philippine Prooeitv Act of 1!'146, 1,assed b:v th<' U11ited States C(ln!?'ress on J uly 3. 1946, one d'\y before the proclnmation of independen('e, wh;ch provided t1•at t.itle to all United States pronerties in the Philinpines would rem·•in VC!Sted in the United States even after indeuendence and such properties included military and �ther re;,ervations : t1'at there has been no n.diustment of the pronerty riJ?hb1 of the U:iited S1ates in the Philippines as contemplated in sect:on 2 !b) (]) ,..,f the Tvdin,z1:1McD•1ffic> Law, 11s shown by article VI of the Tre,,ty of G�neral Relations; that the proclamation of Philippirie indenendence was· subjer.t to tht• reservations contained in the Tydings-McDuffie La,v and other laws o! the United Sb.tes Congress;' that thP. Ba.,es A(tree-· ment concerns the use of the bases and did not eettlc direcBy the title to military and naval bases; that, therefore, the titlEs to all 112 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL ?1.fat>th 81, 1954 a MR. RECTO STATES . the bases still remain in the United States, there having bi>en no transfer thereof to the Philippines ; and that, fin1.lly, the President of the ,United States has complete discre�io:i to decide whether the titles to such bases would be transferred to the Philippin2s and whether the transfer should be! with or without comvensati-Jn. I have carefully read Mr. Bl"ownell's 21-page opinion, and I have found no justification for changing my st:uid th:.it the rn-ca}led "base lands 'Jr areas" (as dist'nguished from tl':e imprcveme11t� thereon in the form of buildings a,,d' otrer types of real property) arc now owned by the Republic of the Philippines and not by the United States. My stand is supported by the provisions of the Tydingc-McD:if. fie Act, and the stipulations of Treaty of Gel'ern.l Relatirms en tered into between the Philippines rd 1he Unit-d S�at�s ,n July 4, 1946 and the bases aJ!'l'�rment re•ween the two countries execn1e'.I on March 14. 1947. The implic--tioiu1 of tlie two t•·ea'ies ,m the question of title to the base lands we:rfl not fully consid,red in Mr. Brownell's opinion. The Tydyings-McDuffie Law of March 24, 1934 nrovides that "the Philippine Islands recognizes thl'. right of the United St�t.cs t,:, n?aititain military and other reservations"; that "all the property and riirhts which mav have been acquired in the Phil ipnine Islands by th(' United States • . . excent such lar>rl or other pronerty as has heretofore been rlrsignated by the Pres ident of the t:nited States for militnry and other reservations of 'th� J!Overnment of the United States" are .irr.,.ntcd lo the Common W£ca.lth government: that unon the procln.mation of Philir,nine [n. depc,ide11.cl'. on .Tul11 4, 19Ui "the Pre.,;ident of the United State!J shall by proclomation w,.fhdraw and surrender all rin '1t of 7,0.<; session. supervi,qfon. juri.qdi,.tion. control. or sovere;,Qr,ty fhl"r: f':r.i.<;t in_q rmd exercised bu f},e Unitf'd St(l,tes in arod ovr.r the territM1/ and fJf'Oplc of the Philinpine [11fr111ds, includinq ffll military and other re.<;tlrvations of the Government of the UnifPd States in the PhilipvinPs (except mtr.h nrtva! rr.<;ervation.<; and fu,:,Jin"!' <:tn tions as ar':l rPservecl under S('cti,m 5\": a.ncl that "the President of the UnitPd States is her('bv authorized and emnnwered to <>ntflr , into negotiations with the Government of the Philinpine Islands, not later than hvo yenrs after his nroclamation rPco,mizingo the independence of the Philippine Islands, for the adiustment and settlement of all questions relating- to nava.1 rPi:ervations ar,d fuel inv: stations of the United States in the Philippine Islands. and pt'ndinl!' such arliustment and settlement of the mdter nf n'lv:ll reservations and feuling stations shall remain in its present status." Rf'Cause only na.val r('servnt;nns ancl fuelinf? St'ltions wne ,irovided for in the TydinJ!s-McOuft'ie Lii.w, the ril!'ht of the t:nited StatE's to neP"otiate for aclrlitioMI h!\Sf$ was implemE'nt erl in the Joint Resolution of the UnitPd States Cono-,-ess of Jnnc 2!1. 1944. In conc11rren('e with this action of the U.S. CongrMi3, th� Co.,PTe!'s of the Philinnines apnrovecl Joint Resoln+inn No. 4 on Julv 28. 1945 authorizini? the Prei:irl,,.nt of the Phi!ipr,ines to neit0tiate · with the PrPsidPnt of the United StntPs thP ('Stab lii;hment of the a+'or."sa;d bas0s. E'.O rt� to ins"re thP territ,wiS1.l intP!'!rity of 1-he PhilinninPS. the mut11al protection of the Phil inpines 11nd the United States, and the mcintenance of peace in the Pacific. On July 4, Hl46. President Truman proclaimed the inrle-en dence of the Philim)inPS, Pursi,ant to the nroviRiori of sPction l{'(a) of the Tydings-McDuffie Law. he withdrl'W &nd surreTJdl'l' erl "all rights of possession. supervision, ,i11risdiction, control o.,.. sovereignty of the United Sta.+es of America in and over t¾e territory and pe:1ple of the Philinnines except ce!"'"ain reserva tions therein and thereafter authorized to be made.'' Under article I of the Treaty of Gener::il Re'ations the United States withdrew and surrendered to the Republic of the Phil ippines "all right of posse>ssion, supervision, jui-iscliction, control of sov�reignty existin� and exercised by the United Sbtfls . in rmcl over th territory and people" of the Philippinf'S. 4'excep� the use of such bases. necessa.ry appnrknances to s1,ch bnses, im-! the rights incident thereto, as the UnitE'cl States of America by agret'.!ment with the Republic of the Phi!ippine·s, may deem ne cessary to 1·etain for the mutual protection". of the two connMa.rch 31, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 118 MR. J,?ECTO STATES tries. I have underscored the word "use" because it discloses th11 natur(' of the interest rC'tainC'd b>· the United States in the bases and it implies that the title to the bases is in the Repub lic of the Philippines a.s the sovereign grantor of their use to the United States. It is inferable from article I of the treaty that there had al. ready bi?en a gr:rnt or surr.ender to the Philippines of the title held by the 'Cnited States to all the, base lands at the time of the proclamation of Philippine independence. The subsequent agreement· referred to in the said tr.::aty of General Relations is the Bases Agreement concluded between the two countries on March 14, 1947. The treaty uses the word "bases" without qualification, thus indicating that it refers indiscriminately to militar)', na,·al and other kinds of bases. The Rases Agreement, us an implementation nf the Treat)' of General Relations and as the culmin;ition of negotiations for bases in the Philippines after the withdr:Hval of AmeriC'an sov ereignty, unreservedly confirms the view that the Philippines owns the lands or are:l.S where the bases are situa.tcd. The subject of the Ba�es Agrremrnt according to its preamble h, the ",qrant to the United States uf .America by the Republic of the Pkilip pi•ies, in the e:::ercise of its title rind sovereir,,1ty, of the m:e, free of rent, in furthe·mnce uf the mutual intwnst of both count-ries, of certain land.� of the public domain!' It may be noted that ths 'preamble recognizes that the ''titlP" to tho bases i9 held by the PhilippinES and that the United States aC'(!Ui1'es only the "use" of certain lanrls of �he public domain. Tl1c juxtaposition of the w01-ds "title" and ·•sm-ereig11ty" signifies that these two concepts nre inserarablir linhd. Article I, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Bases Agreement pro vides that the "Government of the Philippines grants to the Gov ernment of the United States of America the right to retain the 1t.�e of the bases in the Philippines listed in Annex A attached hereto"; and to use the buses listed in Annex B. Under Article XXI the United States retains the right to occupy tempore.,ry quarters and , installations existing outside the bases. The duration of the use imd occupancy is !)!) years. Article XVIII specifically assumes that the bases will be 1·e linquished and turned over by the United States to the Phil ippines upon the termination of the agreement, or at any e:>.rlier date cllf)SCn by the United States. Other provi,;ions of the Bases Agre('tnent indicate that the United States has merely the use, po<.isession, and ryccup:mcy, but not the ownership of the base lands. lndE:ed, the Bases Agree ment contains sew!ral stipulations, whi.::h a.re premise<l on the as sumption that unon the proclamntion of independence there had been :i. transfer to the Republic of the Philippines •>f all the title and prop;·ietary interest previously held by the United States in the b�:,;t: r:rt:as. The sr.me assun·,ption is made b.Y the Philipnine secretuy or foreign affairs in i:iis notes to the American Am basso,dor, relative to the transfer to the Philippine government <>f Fort Mills, l\.fariveles qu:1r:mtine reservation, Nichols Field and the Zamboanga Pettit b:irracks. The secretnry of foreign affairs in his· notes rforificd that t.he trensfet·s were a "formalfzation" of the with<lrawal of United States sovereignty over said bases as effectC'd in the Treaty of General Relations. The stand of tho secretary of foreign affairs is consistent with his note of March 14, l!J47 <upon the signing of the bases agreement) wherein hr did not concede the existence of any right$' or titles of the United States to the real property in the bases. There is one feature of the Bases Agreement which deserves �!)ecial mc11lion. Although the title of the agreement mentions "military bases" only, in reality it also includes such naval reser vations as the Leyte-Samar Nav!!.l Base, Subic Bay, Northwest Shore Naval Ruse, Olongapo Naval Reservation, Baguio Nnval Rtservation, Tawi-Tawi Naval Anchorage and Naval Base, Cafia cao-Sangley Point Naval Base and certain naval air bases. The Bnses Agreement is therefore consistent with the Treaty of Gen-. eral Relations whose article I, as already 'noted, speaks of the use of "bases," without qualification. Furthc1·mcre, the agreement in a way represents and consti114 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL March 31, 1954 MR. RECTO STATES . tutes the very "adjustment and settlement" of questions regard il1g naval reservations, which, under Section lO(b) of the Tydings McDuffie Law, the President of the United States was supposed to negotiate \Yithin two yenrs from July 4, 1946. Mr. Brownell's opinion erroneously presupposes tliat there has been no such ad justment yet. It appears to me that .to resolve the question regarding the title to the base lands there is no need to consult other documC'nts, luws or agreements, nor to consider other antf'cedent and colla tnal circumstances, which would only tend to mis!ead or obscure the issue. The two treaties I have mentioned, viz., the Treaty of General Relations and the Buses Agreement, are covenants which a.re in full force and effect. and have not been modified or altered. They are law-making treaties conclusive on the high contracting parties and are the sole repository and the best evidence of the in tention of the two countries with reference to the status of the bases. Their language as to the nature of the United States' in terest in the base lands is clear a.nd unmistakable. In a recent decision the Philippine supreme court categorically l'Uled that the Republic of the Philippines retains its sovel'eignt:, or ownership of the bases held by the United States. Said the su preme court: "By the agreement, the Philippine government merely consents that the United States exercises jurisdiction in certain cases. This consent was given purely as a matter of comity courtesy, or ex , peclicncy. The Philippine gov1:;rnment has not abdicated its sov .e:-eignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divest ed itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein." (People v. Acierto, January 30, 1953.> The court nlso noted in the Acierto case the significance of the provision of the Bases Agteement in Article XIII, paragraph :i, that in cese the United States 1·enounces the jurisdiction re served to it in p:iragrnphs 1 and 6 of snid article, the American officer holding the offender in custody should notify the corres ponding prosecuting officer of that fact. According to the court, sairl provision "is an emphatic J"ecognition and reaffirmation of Philippine sovereignty over the bas-cs." I notice that Mr. Brownell's opinion fails to mention the JJroviso in article I of the Treaty of Gtneral Relations that the United State8 would be allowed only the "use" of the basr.c. On the other hand, he churacterizes as a "difficult-to-explain ambigui ty" the statement in the preamble of the Bases Agreement that th£. Republic of the Philippinesc, ''in the exercise of its title amJ. icovereignty," was granti11g to the United States merely the ''use" of the bases. While he admits that "the P.urpose of the- agree ,ment was to cover the use of the properties (meaning the bases) for military purposes," his opinion misses the significance of the term "use" as employed in the agreement and bypasses those pro visions which impiy that the title to the base lands remains in the Pl1ilippines. Contrary to the Attorney General's insinuation, the title to the base lm1ds is assumed by the two treaties to be held by the Republic of the Philippines and was not left to future .detennination. The term ''use" in its ordinary and legal acceptation (whe ther in the common law or. civil Jaw) is not synonymous with title or dominion. It connotes a right included in, and therefore inferior to, title or ownership. I have already stated in a previous communica.tion that the right of the United States in the base lands is only a "jus utendi" and that the transaction covere:1 by the Bases Agreement is a "lease." I said it is a lease because the 99-year term of the use reminded me of the 99-year lease of Atlantic bases obtained M:luring the last war by the United States from Great Britain in t:cnsideration for some old destroyers. From the standp'1int of our municipal law, however, the right of the United States to use, the bases free of rent resembles the contract of commodatum or the servitude of use. The comparisou might help in under standing the view that Philippine ownership of the bases is not incompatible with the United States right to maintain and operate them. In the exchanges of notes between the American Ambassador to the Philippines and the Philippine secretary of foreign affairs, Ma.rch 31, 1954 THE LA WYERS JOURNAL 115 MR. RECTO STATES concerning th<! transfer of Fort Mills (Corregidor) ::.nd islands in the vicinity thereof, Pettit barracks in Zamboanga, the Mariveles Quarantine station, a portion of Nichols Field, and the U.S. armed forces cemetery No. 2 in San Francisco del Monte, the American Ambassador generally declares that the ''the government of the United States of Ame1·ica transfers to the Republic of the Phil "ippines all right, or title to .01· interest in" the aforesiad proper ties. The implication is that prior to saic! transfer, the ''title to," or ownership of said bases or reservations belonged to the Govcrn mc,nt of the United States, However, it will be noted that the above installations are not included in Annexes A and B of the Base::; Agreement, as among the military bases whose use is reserved or granted Lo the United States. Hence, as correctly qualified by the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs in his replies to the aforesaid notes of the :American Ambassador. such transfers of "the right, title to or in ·terest" of the United States gove1·nment in the bases and reserva tions known as Fort Mills and islandi' surrounding it, Pettit bar12cks in Zamboanga, the Marivcles quarr,ntine station, etc., were merely "a formalization of the tronsfer and surrender of posces sion, supc1-vi1�fo,i, control or .�uvereignty o,•er these areas glready made by the United St�ites in favor of the Philippines in the Treaty of Genera.I Relations" and in the Proclamation of Inde pendence . The component e!P.ments of m••nership are the jvs fruendi, ;11s ut<-ndi, ius disponendi, jus vindicandi, and jus acutendi. It is evi dent from the terms of the Bases Agreement that the United State'! ac(]uired only the ;us uteruH, which right, in law and jurisprudence anywhere is separable from ownership. On the other hand, the Act of August 7, 1939, amending section 10 of the Tydings-McDuffie Law, provides that the properties which may be acquired by the United States under this act, as contra.distinguished from military bases and other resen·ations, shall belon� in al,solitfe ownership ("shall be vested in fee simple") to the United Statc-s. If it had ever been intended to vest in the United States: the ownership of rr:ilitary b:c>..ses and other reservations in the Philip pines, that intention could have been clearly and unequivocally ex. presed by the United States Congress in the same Tydings-McDuf. fie Law; in the Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congr�s:; of .Jun,� 29, 19'14, authorizing the President of the United States to acqmre bases fo1• the mutual protection of the United States and of the Philippines; in the Treaty of Gene!·.il Reblfons between the United t::t�tcs and the Philippines siqnt:!d on July 4. 1D46, and in the B:ises A;r1·ecmcnt itself, in the s:ime nmrner a� its intention with respect to the properties contempbted in the Act of Congress of August 'i, 1989. Since the Treaty of General Reluhom and the Bases Agrc,e ment merely speal: of the grant of the 11se of the bases b the United States-, said grant can by no means be construed as a re linquishment of ownership. fn short, the bases were in effect lea.,;ed to the United States, fol' 99 years and only their p0s3ession was transferred thereby, inasmuch as there is no transfer of o,vn ership in lease. As I have said, both the• Trenty of General Relations and the Hases Agreement are adequate to the resolution of the question of title to the base lands. Nevertheless, I would like to set fl)rth hereunder i;;ome additional observations on the points discussed in Mr. Brownell's opinion. 1. It is argued that a distinction should be made between ''proprietary interest" and ''sovereignty" in the baser:, thll premise being that w'1.ile the Philippines has sovereignty over the base lands, the United SU!.tes Jut> the title. The distinctir,11 has no basis because, as has heen said, the Rcqnisition of territNy Ly a st::te ''can mean nothing else than the acquisition of sovereignty.'' (Op r,enheim's Int. Law, Lauterpacht, Vol. I, Gth .ed., p, 496; I. Haeh worth's Digest vf Int. Law, p. 3�5). To concede tht:.t the United 8tates retr.ined title to the base lands after the proclamation of independence, is to concede her 11.ght to exercise sovereignty over ihc same to the exclusion of the Philippine gowrnmcnt. The re sult would be a species of obnoxious extraterritoriality, imy;itir ing the status of the Republic of the Philippines <IS a sovereigr: 116 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL March 31, 1954 MR, RECTO STATES .stale and contrary to the letter and spirit of the independc-ncc law and the professed altruistic policy of tl1e United Stat.es to the Islands. 2. Mr. Brownell admits tha.t under the Tydings-McDuffie Lr.w, the original intention was to transfer the title to thf' mili tary bases upon the proclamation of Philippine independrnce. But it is contended that ·Joint Resolution 93, adupted by the United States Congress on June 29, · 1944, wrought a change in the policy of the United States with respect to the basefl. Said resolution authorized the President cf the United States to nego tiate with the President of the Philippines for additional bases. The Philippine congress in its Jomt Resolution No. 4, dated Ju,y 28. 1945, assented to the Joint Resolution 93. The attorney general claims that sairl Joint Resolution 93 is "decisive of the ink-ntion to retain title, and of the fact that title was retained," in the bases after the grant of independence. The contention is not well-ta!,en. Section 5 of the Tydings McDuffie Law, in providing for the grant or transfer to ,:he Com monwealth government of all the '}lroperty and rights acquired by the United States from Spuin, may be construed as a complete con veyance of whatever title .or propri�tary interest was held by the United States in Philippine territory. The proviso, excepting military bases and naval reservations from the grant, may be cr.ns trued as allowinq- the retention by the United States of the •tse, t>nssession or occupanr:y of said military und other reservations, but nnt of the owneTship or title. This interpretation is in hal'mony with section lO(a) which speaks of the relinquishment of ''possession" (not tit!�) of mili tary bases upon !he proclamation of Philippine independence, the implication being that during the commonwealth period, the United States retained only the V"s.<:es.'fion or occupancy of the bafles and that their ownHship had liecome vested in the Commonwealth gov ernment, as contemplated in Section 5. There is one practical consideration justifying the abcve in lerpretation. It is that, in order to maintain and or:era.te military bases and 'lther reservations durinJ,!' the commonwealth period and after independenre, it was not, and it would not be necP.sf!ary for the United States to l'etain the title or ownersliip of the base land!!". Possession or control the1·eof is sufficient for the purpose. so it fa impronPr to assume tha.t more than this i·iP.;ht was co!1veyed. The principle of in d1tbio mitiils is applicable to the problem at hand, if there is at all a problem of construction involved in this cuse. This rule of interpretation hol<ls that if the meaning of a stipu lation is in doubt, that meaning is to be preferred which would be less onerbus for the 11arty assuming an oblhra.tion, or which interferes less with the territorial and personal supremacy of a party. There is nothin.Q" in Joint Resnlution 93 which dir,.ctly sun ports the theory that the United States retained owne,.sl1ip of the lands. On the contrary. the re<:olution should likewise be Cf'lll strned as entitlin{!' the United States to retain merely t1ie use mid rwsse.'lsion of a.dd;tional base fan,fs, in \new of the fact that the Rru;,..s A1trf'ement itself which definPS nnd limits the nature of United Sbttes ir,tc1·e!"t in the basr, lands, mi:kes specific reference to Joint Resolution 93. In a comparatively recf'nt book on American foreign policy, tl1e authors, in citinl? Joint Resolntion 93. describes it as· 1·1?ser ving to the United States "the rfoht to 'u.�e• site� for military, naval, m?d air bn.'les in the Ph-iUp pine Tslands afte·r July 4, 1946, when they would have Jl:ained their freedom and would be able to negotiate as an independent nation." Had it been the intention of the United States to retain the ownership of the base lands after the reco,niition of independence, that intention could and should ha.ve been cleady stated in Sf'C tion 10 of the Tyclings-McDuffie Law, in Joint Resolution 93, ond in the two treaties already -:ited. The· United States would not have left the matter to inference or interpretation. In its Act of August 7, 1939, amencling section 10 of the Tydings-Mc Duffie Law, there is a specific and catcgoriCal rirovision that the properties in the Philippines, acquired by the United Sta.!es for diplomatic or consular establishments "shall continue to be vested :!\farch 31, 1954 •rHEJ LAWYERS JOURNAL 117 MR. RECTO STA'rES . in fee simple in the United States" notwithstanding the grant of i1;dependcnc1J The absence of a similar provision with respect to lands indicates that it was never intended to vest title to them i1t the United States after July 4, 1946. 3. The attorney genernl, in further justification of his theory, cites the Philippine property act of 1946, passed by the United States congress on July 3, 1946. The avowed purpose of the 1946 law is "for the retention by the United States government or its :.tgcncics or instrumentalities of real and personal property within thC: Philippines x x x subsequent to independence." Sections 2 to 5 of the law describe the properties embraced in the provisions of said lu.w, as those held by the President of the United States, the Alien Property Custodian, or any surh officer or '!gency as the President of the United States m.'.ly designate under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, Nevertheless, the Attorney Gen eral argues that title to the base lands remained in the United States subsequent to independe11cc by reason of section 2 of srdd law This argument is manifestly unteni,,.ble. Not only because it has been shown in the preceding discussion that under the Tydi11gs McDuffie Law and Joint Resolution 93 only the use or possession of the bases has been 1·etained by the United States, but also because the Philippine Pi·operty Act itself, in its .section 6, ex pressly provides that it shall not affect the disposition of the bases held by the United States under the Tydings-McDuffa· .L:1w and Joint Resolution 93. 4. The rest of the opinion of the Attorney General is de ,oted to a di!'cussion of the power of the President of the United States to deliYcr to the Philippine government the title to the bnse lands and base properties with or without compensation He s:i:ys that there is nothing in the Bases Agreement making provision for the conveyance of title because the agreement is con cerned only with the use for military purposes of the base)! rat.her than their ownership, However, it should be evident fro!TI what has already been stated, that the omission or failure of U·,e Bases Agreement to i11clude provisions for the conveyance of title to the bast'! kinds is due precisely to the simple reason that such tith, is deemed hi be in the Philippines, as the tmvercign gr:mtor of the use of the base hmds, The Philippines could 11ot liave gra.nted the u:,;e of •he base lands if it were not in the first place, the owne1· there of. Ur.dci- a well known principle of the law of lease, the United States government as the lessee or beneficiary of the use. is estopped to deny the title of the lessor 01· grantor, I have refrained from discussing the point raised by the At torney General regarding the adjustment of the prope,-ty rights r,f the United States, as contemplated in section 2(b) (1) of the Tydings-McDuffie Law, which is paragraph (1), section 1, Article XVII of our Constitution, He says that there has as yet he<>n M adjustment of the property rights of the Uni'ed Stat<'.-: in the Philippinei-, and cites as cvide:1ce thereof, the note of the Am� erican Ambassador, dated March 14, 1947, announcing that it was "lhc understallding of my government x x x in signing the agree ment of March 14, 1947, x x x 'ohat the question of the adjustment of any rights and titles held by the United States xx x to J'Pal pro J;erty in any of the bases covered by the :i.foremcntioncd 2-greement or any naval reservations or f112ling stations not so covered is reserved and will be settled subsequently x x x." He advances this conclusion to synchronize with his theory that the title to the base land$, beini::- a United States property right, has not been transferred to the Philippines. It should be observed_. h:1wevC'r, tllat the note of the American Ambassador reserved the 1·ight to adjust rmd settle the ''rin ht.� and titles of the United Stale,q lo real propert11 in any r.f the bases," but n1Jt its title to the base land.,; themselves, '£he base lands .;:hould not be confused with the improvements and other forms of 1·eal property installed or constructed there.in at the expense of the United States for military and naval purposes. As repeatedly stated, the Bases Agreemynt correctly assumes that the title to the base lands had become vested in the Philip pines, if not upon the ir,auguration of the Commonwealth Gov ernment , in 1D35, then as a direct and immediate consequence of 'fl-IE LAWYERS JOURNAL March 31, 1954 l\lR. RECTO STATES . the grant of independence and the total withdrawal of Amer- Bases Agreement, but is ineconcilable with the traditional Am ica.n sovereignty in the Phili1ipines on July 4, 1946. There has, erican policy toward the Philippines. That policy found vivid however, been n'> formalization of the transfer in the sense that expression in TD.it's announcemer,t of "the Philippines for the the muniments of title to the bases if any, have not been actually Filipinos." IL was reiterated in the preamble of the Jones Law delivered to the Philippille government. wherein the United States Congress clarified that the acquisition I have also refrained from discussing the fundamental question of the: Philippines was not "for territorial aggrandizement" and of whether, as between the United States and the inhabitants of tliat it has clw.'.lys been the purpose of the American people to the Philippines, the former, in stl'ict legal theory, really acquired withdraw their sovereignty over be Islands :rnd to recognize their any absolute prcprietary title to the Philippine territory which independence. The policy culminated in the recognition of in Spain ceded to her under the Treaty of Paris. This point wae d1:pendence on July 4, 1946, an independence which is .supposed touched upon, but not definitely 1·esolved by Justice Hulmes in to be full and complete. the case of Carillo \'. Insular Gl)vemment. It is tied up ·.vith the doctrine of the insular cases to the effect that the Philippines was an unincnqJornted, �s distinguished from incorporated, ter ritory of the United States, and was fot·eign to the United StateK in a "domestic sense," although a part thereof in the "internation .il'' sense. I would like to ventul'e a final observation, by way of conclu sion, that the belated a.ssertion by Federal officials of the retention pf title by the U'nited States in the base lands after the recogni tion of independence is not only in plain contravention of the un ambiguous terms of the Treaty of General Relations and the M<wch 31, 1954 The claim of title to the base lands, after the recognition of independence, w:mld make that same independence incomplete, ,rnd impair the territorial integrity and .<>overeignty of our R�public. The retention by the United States in the Phi\ippinc8 of the us1;; and possession of military and naval bases· is a matter of cx1;edhmcy, dictated by 1:he needs of the 'two countries for mutual defense and protection, not to serve and ·foster any othe:· inter <'St of the United States. For the attainme'nt of t,hat objective, ·it is wholly unnecessary for the United Sta.tes to have title of owners'.iip to ar proprietary interest in the base l.mds. 119 >'
Date: 1954
Rights