Tuesday, August 28, 2007

TREATY-MAKING IN THE PHILIPPINES

Prepared by: Arnel D. Mateo
What is a treaty?
Under Philippine Laws, Treaties are international agreements entered into by the Philippines
which require legislative concurrence after executive ratification. This term may include
compacts like conventions, declarations, covenants and acts.[1]
Under International Law, Treaty means an international agreement concluded between
States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.[2]
Not all international agreements are governed by international law. The convention applies
only to those which are governed by the domestic law of one of the parties or some other
national law chosen by the parties.[3]

What is an executive Agreement?
Executive Agreements similar to treaties except that they do not require legislative
concurrence.[4]

What is the distinction between a treaty and an executive agreement?
The difference between the two is sometimes difficult of ready ascertainment.[5] Under
international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their
binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have
remained within their powers.[6] International law continues to make no distinction
between treaties and executive agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon
nations.[7]
In our jurisdiction, we have recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even
without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress. Generally, treaties of any kind, whether
bilateral or multilateral, require Senate concurrence[8] while executive agreements may be
validly entered into without such concurrence.[9]
The members of the Constitutional Commission acknowledged the distinction between a
treaty and an executive agreement during their deliberations of Section 21 Article VII. One
of the issues in the discussions was trying to identify the kind of international agreements
that require Senate concurrence.
Commissioner Joaquin Bernas made a clarification by quoting from the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading:
The right of the executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of
subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest
days of our history, we have entered into executive agreements covering such subjects as
commercial and consular relations, most favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and
copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The
validity of this has never been seriously questioned by our Courts.
Agreements with respect to the registration of trademarks have been concluded by the
executive and various countries under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat. 502) .
. . International agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those
involving international agreements of a permanent character usually take the form of
treaties. But international agreements embodying adjustments of detail, carrying out well
established national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or
less temporary nature usually take the form of executive agreements.[10]
Commissioner Bernas further explained that international agreements, which require Senate
concurrence, are those, which are permanent in nature. Also, if it is with prior authorization
from Congress, it does not need subsequent concurrence by Congress.[11]
The Department of Foreign Affairs in its press release[12] said that in executive agreement,
there is no fundamental change in policy, nor will there be need for legislation to fund the
agreement. It does not impinge on any existing international legal obligation.

What is the rationale for distinguishing a treaty form an executive agreement?

The distinction between a treaty or international agreement and an executive agreement is
of great significance in the Philippines because the procedure followed in the process of
ratification is different.
If what is involved is a treaty, the concurrence by at least two-thirds of all the Members of
the Senate is required.[13] On the other hand, if what is involved is an executive, there is
no such requirement.

What is the procedure for determining whether an agreement is a treaty or an
executive agreement?

a. Internal procedure within the Office of the President and the DFA

In 1988, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Circular 89 to set the guidelines in
case of conflict as to whether an agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement. The
Legal Adviser of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Assistant Secretary on
Legislative Affairs and the Senate will be given opportunity to comment on the nature of the
agreement. Consultation shall be made with the leadership of the Senate. The Secretary of
Foreign Affairs shall make the proper recommendation to the President.[14]
In 1997, Executive Order 459 was issued and under Sec. 9 thereof, the DFA determines the
nature of an agreement. Said Executive Order is silent if the determination by the DFA of
the nature of agreement can be overturned by the President or not.
If asked which of the two issuances is prevailing, as a rule, being a later act, E.O. 459 is
controlling. However, newly appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonio
Eduardo Nachura, and prominent authors in international law Jorge Coquia and Senator
Miriam Defensor Santiago (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations before
adjournment of the 13th Congress) are of the opinion that Memorandun Circular 89 is still
binding.[15]

What is the current framework for trade negotiations?

a. Who has the power to negotiate or make treaties?

The President has the power to make treaties implicitly in the general grant of authority in
Section 1, Article VII that The executive power is vested in the President of the
Philippines, in particular as this is applied in foreign relations.[16]
By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as head of
State, is the sole organ and authority in the external affairs of the country.[17] In many
ways, the President is the chief architect of the nations foreign policy; his dominance in
the field of foreign relations is (then) conceded.[18] Wielding vast powers an influence, his
conduct in the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson describes, is executive
altogether."[19]
Since the President is the head of state in the system of government of the Philippines, he is
the authority in the countrys external or foreign relations.[20] Being vested with diplomatic
powers, the President formulates foreign policy, deals with international affairs, represents
the state with foreign nations, maintains diplomatic relations, and enters into treaties or
international agreements. Likewise, the power granted to the Senate to concur in
treaties[21] is to be interpreted as referring to treaties which the President makes and
submits to the Senate for concurrence.
Normally, it is the Head of State or the Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who binds
States in treaties. These persons do not need to produce evidence of full powers to conclude
a treaty. Treaty ratification is one of the incidents of their position. For purposes of adopting
a text to a treaty, the head of the diplomatic mission or accredited representatives of States
to an international conference or one of its organs are empowered to authenticate or
accredit the text of a treaty. If an act was performed without authorization or without the
full powers, a treaty can still be given force and effect provided it is subsequently confirmed
by the State.[22]

b. Working procedure
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process
in this wise[23]:
The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification,
and exchange of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for
registration and publication under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential to the
validity of the agreement as between the parties.
1. Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns
this task to his authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with
credentials known as full powers, which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of
the formal discussions. It is standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the
proposed treaty which, together with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the
subsequent negotiations. The negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the
issues involved, and may even collapse in case the parties are unable to come to an
agreement on the points under consideration.
In the Philippines, the negotiation phase of the treaty making process is essentially
performed and controlled by the Executive branch of the government through the
Department of Foreign Affairs and the respective government agencies involved. Once a
treaty proposal is received by the Government the Department of Foreign is tasked to
determine whether or not said agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement. It is the
Chief Executive, through the recommendation of the DFA Secretary, who designates the
persons who will comprise the Philippine delegation and the departments, which will be
involved and consulted in the negotiation.
Pursuant to Executive Order 459, the lead agency in the negotiation of a treaty or an
executive agreement or any amendment thereto shall convene a meeting of the panel
members prior to the commencement of any negotiations for the purpose of establishing the
parameters of the negotiating position of the panel. No deviation from the agreed
parameters shall be made without prior consultation with the members of the negotiating
panel.
The panel of negotiators is normally composed of several individuals from the different
agencies of government who are technical experts and resource persons in certain areas of
specialization. This group of persons is normally referred to as technical working groups. A
treaty, which has far-reaching effects on the different industries, may involve several
technical working groups. The technical working groups would meet and outline the
Philippine position and embody this position in writing. Ideally, the Philippine position must
be in conformity with the outlined policies, development goals and targets of the
government and in general pursue Philippine interest.
During the negotiation process, negotiators of each State party would meet and discuss to
arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement. Battles over semantics and phrasing are normal
in treaty negotiations. This stage is very tedious and negotiators must be very vigilant in
looking at each particular provision. Before concurring to a particular provision, said
negotiator must agree to it only after consultation with other negotiators and evaluate if it is
in conformity with the outlined Philippine position. In issues of primordial importance or high
significance, public consultation must be performed to be able to determine its overall
impact on the industries that are affected or parties who will be prejudiced. Negotiators
aside from being experts must be strong, assertive and emphatic in pursuing the Philippine
position. Disagreements among the negotiators over certain provisions is also normal, but
some experienced negotiators have perfected the art of inserting provisions in unexpected
sections or rephrasing rejected provisions to make it appear acceptable. The quote timing
is everything finds application in the art negotiations, some negotiators will invoke
provisions of doubtful validity, during such times when negotiators of the other party are
already quite tired or weary from long hours spent on text analysis, interpretation and
revision. Once a final draft of the agreement is reached, it will be sent to the office of the
Chief Executive who will signify his approval. If he approves the agreement, he will forward
it to the Office of the Executive Secretary, who in turn, will attest, to the authenticity and
veracity of the text signed or ratified. The Office of the Executive Secretary receives texts in
their final form but can override these agreements on broad grounds of it being against the
Constitution, the law or public policy, in general. [24]
2. If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened
for signature. This step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument
and for the purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does
not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is
required. The document is ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of
the several negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his
own state.
3. Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and
accepts the provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of
ratification is to enable the contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to
give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their
interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are made subject to the scrutiny and
consent of a department of the government other than that which negotiated them.
Ratification is generally held to be an executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or
of the government, as the case may be, through which the formal acceptance of the treaty
is proclaimed.[25] A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of ratification
of a treaty. The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification
when: (a) the treaty provides for such ratification, (b) it is otherwise established that the
negotiating States agreed that ratification should be required, (c) the representative of the
State has signed the treaty subject to ratification, or (d) the intention of the State to sign
the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its representative, or was
expressed during the negotiation.[26]
In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly
believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its
consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.[27]
4. The next step is the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which usually also
signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the
parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the
treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature.[28] [emphasis supplied]
5. In our jurisdiction, for the treaty to be valid and effective, it must be concurred
in by the Senate. The process of treaty concurrence by the Senate follows the procedure
under the 1987 Constitution on the passage of bills. Such rules are supplemental by the
Rules of the Senate. The step-by-step process of treaty concurrence is discussed below.
Initially, the President, through a letter to the Senate, transmits to the Senate the
Instrument of Ratification and the text of the ratified treaty for concurrence pursuant to
Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution. The President transmits the same by acting through
the Executive Secretary, who himself makes a letter of endorsement to the Senate. [29]
The Senate receives the agreement through its Legislative Bills and Index Services (Bills
and Index). The Bills and Index reproduces the text of the agreement and includes it in the
Order of Business. It also indexes and publishes an abstract of the agreement.
At the beginning of each Senate Session, the Secretary of the Senate reports all bills,
proposed Senate resolutions, and correspondences from the other branches of the
government, and such other matters included in the Order of Business. Like an ordinary bill,
the international agreement undergoes three readings.
In the first reading, only the title and number is read. The title usually goes Concurrence in
the Ratification of (the treaty or international agreement) with the corresponding Proposed
Senate Resolution Number. [30]
Afterwards, the treaty is referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. If the treaty
concerns other Committees, it is also referred to such other Committees for their joint
consideration and recommendation. As an illustration, the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
was also referred to the Committee on National Defense. If the treaty concerns almost all or
all the Senate Committees, it is referred to what is called the Committee of the Whole. For
instance, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
The role of the Committee is to study and analyze the agreement. It makes consultations to
studies and position papers. It conducts public hearings and considers public testimonies.
The final output and recommendations are documented in the committee report. The
committee report is filed with the Bills and Index, which then includes it in the Calendar of
Business for second reading. [31]
At the start of the second reading, the Senator-Sponsor/s of the treaty endorses the
committee report to the Chamber through a sponsorship speech. During the second
reading, the treaty would be opened to general debate and to amendments. At the close of
the debate, the members of the Senate would vote.
If approved by the Senate, the bill would pass to third reading. The Committee on Foreign
Relations will document any action taken in the form of a Proposed Resolution. The
Proposed Resolution shall be engrossed and printed by the Bills and Index, and distributed
to each Senator three (3) days before third reading. [32]
After three days from the distribution of the resolution with the treaty attached thereto, the
Proposed Resolution shall be submitted for nominal voting. The treaty shall be deemed
approved if 2/3 of the Senators voted for its approval. A Senate Resolution concurring in the
ratification of the treaty is then adopted. The adopted Senate Resolution is brought to the
Secretary of the Senate, who thereafter transmits a copy thereof to the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs.
c. Opportunities/venues for private sector participation

Although the Chief Executive is the sole authority in treaty-making, it is nonetheless the
policy of the State that the people and their organizations have the right to participate in
decision-making processes.[33] Organizations refer to trade unions, peasant organizations,
urban poor, cooperatives, human rights groups, religious groups, and also associations of
landowners and businessmen. The role of the State, by enacting a law, would be mere
facilitation of the consultation mechanisms, and not their creation, for consultation
mechanisms were already operating without the States action by law. Also, people refers
to all the people, including minors.[34]
Also, the people shall have the right to access to all transactions of the State that concern
public interest, subject to standards prescribed by law.[35] During the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Blas Ople, the sponsor of Sec. 28 Art. II, said
that transactions include not just the perfected contract but also the steps and
negotiations taken that led to a contract. Commissioners Ople and Napoleon Rama further
explained that the difference between the provision under State Policies and that under the
Bill of Rights is that the latter affords the right of the people to demand information while
the former speaks of the duty of the government to disclose information even when nobody
demands.[36] It necessarily follows that in all negotiations made by the President as to
entering into international agreements, it is the duty of the government to disclose to the
people, even without the latter making a demand, all its acts, but always limited by
conditions prescribed by law.
The Supreme Court laid down in Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on Good
Government[37] some of the restrictions to the State policy of public disclosure and to the
exercise of the right to information: 1) National security matters which include State secrets
regarding military and intelligence information, diplomatic matters, and information on
inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements;
2) trade secrets pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code; 3) banking transactions as
provided by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; 4) criminal matters or classified law
enforcement matters; and 5) other confidential matters including diplomatic
correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings, executive sessions of Congress, and internal
deliberations of the Supreme Court.
The right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Bill of Rights is the right to information on matters
of public concern.[38] A consequence of this right is the right to access official records and
documents. These rights are subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. It
follows that the limitations include regulations on determining what information are matters
of public concern, and the manner of access to such matters of public concern.
In the case of Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission,[39] the Supreme Court said that
public concern has no exact definition. It encompasses an extensive scope of subjects
which the public may want to know, either because it directly affects their lives or simply
because it arouses his interest. Each case must be examined carefully.
It was also held in the above case that the duty to disclose information of public concern
and to allow access to public records is not discretionary on the part of the concerned
government agency. If denied of the enjoyment of the Constitutional right, the remedy of
the citizen is to file a petition for mandamus to compel the performance of the constitutional
obligation.
Indeed, under Sec. 1 of Art. II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the 1987
Constitution, The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanates from them. Republicanism means all
government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by representatives chosen
by the people. Hence, the people are declared supreme.[40]

What is the significant role of the Legislative branch in the treat-making process?

Notwithstanding the sole authority of the President to negotiate and enter into treaties, the
1987 Constitution limits his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of
the Senate for the validity and effectivity of the treaty entered into by him.[41] The role of
the Senate is confined to simply giving or withholding its consent to the ratification.[42]
The involvement of the Senate in the treaty-making process manifests the adherence of the
Philippine system of government to the principle of checks and balances. This indispensable
participation of the legislative branch by way of concurrence provides the check to the
ratification of the treaty by the executive branch.

What is the effect of Senate Concurrence to a treaty?

A treaty becomes valid and effective if concurred in by two-thirds of all the members of the
Senate.[43] This means it forms part of Philippine law by virtue of transformation. By an act
of the legislature, treaty rules may be transformed into Philippine law, to be applied or
enforced as part of Philippine law. [44]
The treaty becomes part of the law of the land and it becomes obligatory and incumbent on
our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the
agreement. In Bayan vs. Zamora[45], the Supreme Court said that with the ratification of
the VFA, which is equivalent to final acceptance, and with the exchange of notes between
the Philippines and the United States of America, it now becomes obligatory and incumbent
on our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the
agreement. Thus, no less than Section 2, Article II of the Constitution,[46] declares that the
Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and
amity with all nations.
As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines agrees to be bound by generally
accepted rules for the conduct of its international relations. While the international
obligation devolves upon the state and not upon any particular branch, institution, or
individual member of its government, the Philippines is nonetheless responsible for
violations committed by any branch or subdivision of its government or any official thereof.
As an integral part of the community of nations, we are responsible to assure that our
government, Constitution and laws will carry out our international obligation.[47] Hence, we
cannot readily plead the Constitution as a convenient excuse for non-compliance with our
obligations, duties and responsibilities under international law.
Beyond this, Article 13 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by the
International Law Commission in 1949 provides: Every State has the duty to carry out in
good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it
may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform
this duty.[48]
Equally important is Article 26 of the convention which provides that Every treaty in force
is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. This is
known as the principle of pacta sunt servanda which preserves the sanctity of treaties and
have been one of the most fundamental principles of positive international law, supported
by the jurisprudence of international tribunals.[49]
What is the effect if the Senate does not concur to a treaty?
As provided for by the constitution, a treaty not concurred in by the Senate will not be valid
and effective.[50]
Under the Philippine Legal System, how does a treaty stand in relation to the
Philippine Constitution?

The Constitution is the basis for ascertaining the legality or validity of the treaty. By virtue
of Article VIII, Section 5(2)(a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may determine the
constitutionality of a treaty or declare it as violative of a statute.[51]

How does a treaty stand in relation to a statute?
Being part of the law of the land and therefore an internal law, a treaty is not superior to an
enactment of the Congress of the Philippines, rather it would be in the same class as the
latter.[52]

[1] Section 2(b)Executive Order No. 459, Providing for the Guidelines in the Negotiation of
International Agreements and its Ratification
[2] Article 2 (1) (a), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
[3] Merlin M. Magallona, Primer on the Law of Treaties, p. 115
[4] Ibid. Sec.2(c)
[5] Sayre, The Constitutionality of Trade Agreements Acts 39 COLUMBIA L.R. 651, 755,
quoted in 3 SCRA 357
[6] Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, p. 395, cited in USAFE Veterans
Association Inc. vs. Treasurer of the Philippines, 105 Phil. 1030, 1037 [1959].
[7] Richard J. Erickson, The Making of Executive Agreements by the United States
Department of Defense: An agenda for Progress, 13 Boston U. Intl. L.J. 58 [1995], citing
Restatement [third] of Foreign Relations Law pt. III, introductory note [1987] and Paul
Reuter, Introduction to the Law of Treaties 22 [Jose Mico & Peter Haggemacher trans.,
1989] cited in Consolidated Memorandum, p. 32.
[8] Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., Constitutional Structure and Powers of Government, Second
Edition 1997
[9] Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351
[10] The citation of said case is 3 SCRA 351.
[11] Bernas, Id.
[12] Press Release No. 314-03; 26 June 2003, Department of Foreign Affairs
[13] Section 21, Article VII, 1987 Philippine Constitution
[14] Memorandum Circular No. 89 of the Office of the President (1988).
[15] Ramos, Infante, Pasco, Cabugao, Memorandum on Negotiation and Treaty Ratification
Process
[16] Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer in International Law in Relation to Philippine Law, p.50
[17] Bayan vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570. October 10, 2000
[18] Cortes, The Philippine Presidency a study of Executive Power, 2nd Ed., p. 195.
[19] Cruz, Phil. Political Law, 1995 Ed., p. 223.
[20] Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622 (2005), p. 632, citing
Cortes, The Philippine Presidency: A Study of Executive Power (1966), p. 187.
[21] Section 21, Article VII, 1087 Constitution
[22] Id., Art. 8.
[23] Pimentel vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005
[24] Ramos, Infante, Pasco, Cabugao, Interview, Atty. Minerva Tan, Office of the Executive
Secretary, cited in the Memorandum on Negotiation and Treaty Ratification Process
[25] Gerhard von Glahn, Law Among Nations, An Introduction to Public International Law,
4th Ed., p. 486.
[26] Article 14 of the Vienna Convention, cited in Coquia and Defensor-Santiago,
Intenational Law, 1998 Ed., pp. 506-507.
[27] Cruz, Isagani, International Law, 1985 Ed., p. 175.
[28] Cruz, International Law (1998 Ed.), pp. 172-174.
[29] The Senate Archives have a compilation of some of the documents and letters of
government officials and members of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations (including
those of then President Fidel Ramos, Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona, and Foreign
Affairs Secretary Roberto Romulo) regarding the World Trade Organization. This compilation
is indexed as CP-Senate Res. No. 97 B9-F97 in the Archives but it can be asked as
documents pertaining to the WTO deliberations.
[30] Rules of the Senate, Rule 36
[31] Interview with Eduardo Sibuma, supra.
[32] [32] Sec. 26(2), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution. Under the same provision, the
requirements of three readings on separate days and the distribution of the final copies of
the bill before its passage may be dispensed with by a certificate of urgency issued by the
President for the purpose of meeting a public calamity or emergency.

[33] Sec. 16, Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution, The right of the people and their
organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and
effective decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall, by law, facilitate the
establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
[34] Bernas, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), pp. 998-1004, citing II
Record of the Constitutional Commission, p. 608 and III Record of the Constitutional
Commission pp. 146-147, 162-163.
[35] Sec. 28, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed
by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest.
[36] Bernas, id, pp. 155-156, citing IV Record of the Constitutional Commission, pp. 24-26,
29.
[37] 299 SCRA 744, pp. 763-765.
[38] Sec. 7, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution , The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents,
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.
[39] 150 SCRA 530 (1987).
[40] Cruz, Philippine Political Law (2002 Ed.), pp.51-52.
[41] Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, No treaty or international agreement shall
be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the
Senate.
[42] Isagani Cruz, International Law, 2000, p.174
[43] Section 21, Article VII, 1987 Constitution.
[44] Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer in International Law in Relation to Philippine Law, p. 49
[45] G.R. No. 138570. October 10, 2000
[46] Sec. 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres
to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
[47] Louis Henkin, Richard C. Pugh, Oscar Schachter, Hans Smit, International Law, Cases
and Materials, 2nd Ed American Casebook Series, p. 136.
[48] Gerhard von Glah, supra, p. 487.
[49] Harris, p. 634 cited in Coquia, International Law, supra, p. 512.
[50] Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution
[51] Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer in International Law in Relation to Philippine Law, p.58
[52] Abbas v. Commission on Elections (179 SCRA 287)
Posted by Arnel D. Mateo at 10:27 PM
Labels: Political Law FAQs: Treaty vs. Executive Agreement