You are on page 1of 2

COMMISIONER OF CUSTOMS and THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, petitioners

Vs
EASTERN SEA TRADING, respondent.

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS

FACTS
 Respondent Eastern Sea Trading (EST) was the consignee of shipments of
onion and garlic, which arrived at the Port of Manila from August 25 to
September 7, 1954.
 Since none of the shipments had the certificates required by the Central
Bank for release thereof the goods were seized and subjected to forfeiture
proceedings for violations of Sec. 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative
Code and Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45.
 The Collector of Customs of Manila (Collector) rendered a decision
declaring said goods forfeited to the Government.
 Court of Tax Appeals: reversed the Collector’s decision
o Central Bank has no authority to regulate transactions involving
foreign exchange
o Shipments in question are in the nature of “no-dollar” imports
o Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are null and void
o Seizure can’t be justified under Executive Order No. 328
 Our Trades and Financial Agreements is of dubious validity
 No governmental agency is authorized to issue the import
license required by EO 328.
ISSUE/S:
 WoN the Central Bank had authority to regulate “no-dollar” imports:
YES
o Authority to regulate no-dollar imports and the validity of the
Central Bank Circulars have already been passed upon and
repeatedly upheld by the SC.
o Broad powers of the Central Bank to maintain our monetary
stability and preserve the international value of our currency
 Sec. 2 and 14, RA 265: authorizing the bank to issue such
rules and regulations as it may consider necessary to the
Central Bank
 ^connotes the authority to regulate no-dollar imports,
owing to the effect the same may and do upon the stability
of our currency.

 WoN the executive agreement sought to be implemented by


Executive Order No. 328 is valid despite the fact that the Senate had
not concurred in the making of the said agreement: YES
o 1935 Constitution requires the concurrence of the Senate in the
making of “treaties”, which are distinct from “executive
agreements”
 Treaties: requires ratification with approval of 2/3 of the
Senate
 Executive agreements: becomes binding through executive
action without the need of a Congressional vote.
 Treaties: international agreements involving political issues
or changes of national policy and those involving
international arrangements of a permanent character.
 Executive agreements: international agreements
embodying adjustments of detail carrying our well-
established national policies and traditions and those
involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature.
o Executive’s right to enter into binding agreements w/out the
necessity of Congressional approval has been confirmed by long
usage.
o US jurisprudence: Parity Rights in the Ordinance Appended to the
Constitution were the subject of an executive agreement, made
without the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate.
 WoN a license is no longer required because the Import Control
Commission (ICC) no longer exists, thus no existing agency is
authorized to issue such license: NO
o Authority to issue such a license is not exclusive to the ICC or
Import Control Administration (ICA)
o EO 328 provided for export or import of licenses “from the Central
Bank of the Philippines or the Import Control Administration”.
 ICA was created only to implement certain objectives of the
Monetary Board and the Central Bank, which otherwise had
to be undertaken by these two agencies. In short, there’s
still the Monetary Board and the Central Bank to issue such
licenses.