PIMENTEL VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The signing of a treaty is composed of two separate and distinct processes to which each requires the exclusive prerogative and act of the executive and legislative department. One is the signing of the treaty which is handled by the executive department during the negotiation stage. The other is the ratification stage where the President ratifies a treaty but with the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate. These acts are distinct from each other and as such, are within the domain of the political question doctrine. Therefore, pursuant to the principle of separation of powers enshrined in a republican form of government such as the Philippines, the signing of a treaty during the negotiations and the ratification by the President cannot be encroached by the other departments of the government. Corollarily, the President cannot dwell into questions involving the concurrence or non-concurrence by the Senate. Each must respect the prerogatives of a co-equal department.
Therefore, it is error for any court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the executive branch to transmit the signed Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
BAYAN VS ZAMORA
The Visiting Forces Agreement is constitutional.
Under international law, a treaty has the same force and effect with an executive agreement. Although the latter does not require the concurrence of the Senate, the same is just as binding as treaties under international law. Thus, whether the VFA is signed and concurred by the Senate of the USA is immaterial. Such fact does not affect the efficacy of the executive agreement.
ABAYA VS EBDANE
An exchange of notes is a binding instrument in the form of an executive agreement under international law.
The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval. Treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all refer to "international instruments binding at international law." Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments.
Being binding under international law, the Philippines must comply with its provisions in good faith by virtue of the principle of pacta sunt servanda where treaties or other international agreements must be respected by the contracting States and must be complied with by them in good faith.
AKBAYAN VS AQUINO
The signing of a treaty is composed of two separate and distinct processes to which each requires the exclusive prerogative and act of the executive and legislative department. One is the signing of the treaty which is handled by the executive department during the negotiation stage. The other is the ratification stage where the President ratifies a treaty but with the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate. These acts are distinct from each other and as such, are within the domain of the political question doctrine. Therefore, pursuant to the principle of separation of powers enshrined in a republican form of government such as the Philippines, the signing of a treaty during the negotiations and the ratification by the President cannot be encroached by the other departments of the government. Corollarily, the President cannot dwell into questions involving the concurrence or non-concurrence by the Senate. Each must respect the prerogatives of a co-equal department.
Therefore, it is error for any court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the executive branch to transmit the signed Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
BAYAN VS ZAMORA
The Visiting Forces Agreement is constitutional.
Under international law, a treaty has the same force and effect with an executive agreement. Although the latter does not require the concurrence of the Senate, the same is just as binding as treaties under international law. Thus, whether the VFA is signed and concurred by the Senate of the USA is immaterial. Such fact does not affect the efficacy of the executive agreement.
ABAYA VS EBDANE
An exchange of notes is a binding instrument in the form of an executive agreement under international law.
The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval. Treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes all refer to "international instruments binding at international law." Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments.
Being binding under international law, the Philippines must comply with its provisions in good faith by virtue of the principle of pacta sunt servanda where treaties or other international agreements must be respected by the contracting States and must be complied with by them in good faith.
AKBAYAN VS AQUINO
The power to directly negotiate treaties and international agreements is vested with the executive department. No other branch of the government can encroach on this exclusive power. Thus, the Senate’s role in the treaty making process is to give its concurrence to the ratification of a treaty. It does not have the power to directly negotiate with the other State.
LIM VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
In an international standpoint, a treaty must prevail over municipal law. This is in adherence to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Therefore, a party to a treaty is not allowed to "invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
CIR VS JOHNSON & JOHNSON
One of the importance of a treaty and other international agreements is to lessen the rigors of multiple taxation of the same taxable income in different States.
No comments:
Post a Comment