Next show!

No shows booked at the moment.

What Is Executive Agreement In The Philippines

Senator Francis Tolentino, who has a master`s degree in international law from a law school in London and attended the prestigious Academy of International Law in The Hague, believes so. At least that is what the August Senate chamber reports said on Monday about his entry into office as a member of the House of Lords. The question of whether President Duterte exercised this power with caution or not in the case of the VFA is another question. Nevertheless, this column has repeatedly argued that the President in general, but perhaps with some controversial exceptions, has the power to unilaterally withdraw the country from an international agreement. The reasons are summarized: for Philippine law, the main provision is Article VII.21 of the Constitution, which requires that contracts of at least 2/3 of the Senate be “consensual”. Executive agreements do not require this agreement. Who calls if an agreement is a contract or an executive agreement? Under EO 459/s.1997, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Supreme Court has long held that, under international law, executive agreements and treaties are virtually the same in their ability to link the Philippine government to an agreement with another government. “There is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their relationship with the states concerned,” the Tribunal said.

Honestly, the Philippines itself should have treated the VFA as an executive agreement. The reason why a contract has been filed (i.e. Senate approval is required) is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps a prudent interpretation of Article XVIII.25 of our Constitution, which states that “military bases, troops or foreign facilities in the Philippines can only be admitted under a treaty duly signed by the Senate. Elsewhere, I have written that executive agreements in Philippine law are very interesting animals, especially because they are generally based on an earlier treaty, allegedly implemented by such executive agreements. They therefore show what legal theorists would call a “quasi-monist” character (because they no longer need legislative or even judicial measures). The paradox, however, is that they arise only from this quintessentially “dualistic” treaty mechanism, which must first be approved by the Senate in accordance with the treaty clause of the Constitution (see myPhilippine Chapter in the Oxford Handbook of International Law in Asia and the Pacific, OUP, Chesterman, Owada and Saul, Note.M, in August 2019).