Kent Andrionne M.
Seares Teehangkee-1
Statutory Construction
1. Read in its entirety the case of Saguisag [Link]., v. Executive Secretary
(G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016), and answer the following:
a. How did the Supreme Court (SC) rule on the issue whether or not
Enhance Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is an executive
agreement or a treaty? Briefly explain in your own words. (25%)
The Supreme Court ruled that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation
Agreement (EDCA) is an executive agreement rather than a treaty. The
Court considered the arguments raised by petitioners who contended that
EDCA should have been in the form of a treaty concurred in by the Senate.
However, the Court found that EDCA falls within the legal parameters of a
valid executive agreement. The Court examined the provisions of EDCA
and its consistency with the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) and the Visiting
Forces Agreement (VFA). It also emphasized the President's authority to
enter into executive agreements on foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities. The Court determined that the essential requisites for judicial
review were present, and the provisions under EDCA were found to be
consistent with the Constitution and existing laws.
The Supreme Court reasoning for classfying EDCA as a executive
agreement rather than a treaty are base on these following reasons, first is
that the president has the authority in the field of external affairs and as
the head of the head of the state and foreign relation the president has a
wide authority and discretion which has the least amount of check and
restriction under the constitution. Which is highlighted in the constitution
that specifically grant the president the exclusive authority to conduct
foreign relations and to enter into binding foreign agreements without the
necessity or requiring the subsequent congressional approval which has
been confirmed by long usage. Secondly the constitution does not provide
a specific definition or protocol of the what is the exact definition of
“executive agreements” and the term it self is a general provision. While it
was pointed out that the “specific provisions “ on the senate concurrence
for trieties prevail over “general provision on “executive agreement”. This
lead to the SC to ruled that (EDCA) is an executive agreement rather than a
treaty.
b. Argue that EDCA is a treaty that requires senate concurrence for its
validity. Ground your answer with law and/or jurisprudence. (25%)
The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) should be
considered a treaty requiring Senate concurrence for its validity as it is a
international agreement and as mention and supported by our constitution
provisions particularly in article VII, section 21 that states "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” and additionally in
Article XVIII, Section 25 it outlines that "foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate." this support to the idea that the EDCA should
be a treaty that emphasize the role of the Senate in relation in the
international agreements, particularly those involving the presence of
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country. Furtheremore
based on the of constitutional and statutory construction that the principle
of specific provisions under the constitution especially those of related in
the senate concurrence for treaties prevail over general provisions. The
language of law is also at highlight for this argument as the Distinction
between Executive Agreements and Treaties must be emphasized in the
case of Nicolas v. Romulo GR NO. 175888, FEB 11, 2009 shows that there
are a conceptual difference between executive agreements and treaties as
stated Treaties are considered contracts between parties and are in the
nature of international agreements and municipal laws while on the other
hand, executive agreements are either purely proceeding from an executive
act or an executive act in pursuance of legislative authorization and EDCA
falls in the definition of the Treaties as it is a contract between the head of
the state and it is the foreign agreement. Given those agruement I
mentioned above it shows that EDCA as a treaty which should required a
Senate concurrence have a strong legal grounds and standing.
2. Read in its entirety the case of Intellectual Property Association of the
Philippines v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016), and answer the
following:
a. Distinguish between treaties and international agreements and
executive agreements. Focus on the procedural requirements. (25%)
Based on the case of Intellectual Property Association of the
Philippines v. Ochoa G.R. No. 204605, July 19, 2016 treaties and
international agreements and executive agreements as follows first Treaties
by definition are formal agreements entered into by the Philippines with
other governments. which requires legislative concurrence after executive
ratification. In treaties it involve political issues or changes of national
policy and this are in a permanent character. Treaties must be in written
form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in multiple related instruments. The Constitution,
specifically Article VII, Section 21, mandates that treaties be concurred in
by at least two-thirds of the members of the Senate for their validity and
effectiveness. While on the International agreements these are contracts or
understandings, regardless of nomenclature, entered into between the
Philippines and another government which is also governed by
international law. In International agreements includes compacts,
conventions, declarations, covenants, and acts and similar with the treaties,
the international agreements require legislative concurrence after executive
ratification. While on otherhaqnd the Executive agreements are similar to
treaties, but do not require legislative concurrence as they can be validly
entered into by the executive branch alone. the Executive agreements differ
from treaties in that they usually involve adjustments of detail or
arrangements of a more temporary nature. They are often used to carry out
established national policies and traditions, and furtheremore the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) initially determines whether an
agreement should be treated as a treaty or an executive agreement.
To sum it all up, treaties and international agreements are similar as
it require both executive ratification and subsequent legislative
concurrence, while the executive agreements can be validly entered into by
the executive branch alone without legislative concurrence and whether an
agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement is determined by the DFA.
b. How did the SC resolve the issue of whether or not the Madrid
Protocol is an executive agreement? Briefly explain in your own words.
(25%)
On the case given resolving the issue of whether or not the Madrid
Protocol is an executive agreement, the Supreme Court (SC must dwell and
look upon the how does the DFA or department of foreign affairs
determined the madrid protocol as it is in the vital role of the DFA to
determine whether it is a treaty or executive agreement. The supreme court
highlight Albert Del Rosario the DFA secretary the following reason what
makes the Madrid Protocol as an executive agreement. First After
conducting its own review, the DFA endorsed the accession to the Madrid
Protocol to the President, in line with its authority under Section 2 of
Executive Order No. 459. The review considered the potential benefits of
the Madrid Protocol for Filipino brands and the country's intellectual
property system. The Section 2 of Executive Order No. 459 provision gives
initial authority to the DFA secretary to determine whether an agreement
should be treated as a treaty or an executive agreement. Furthermore The
SC recognized that there are no strict rules on the form of international
agreements and the determination of whether an agreement is a treaty or
an executive agreement falls within the discretion of the executive branch,
specifically the DFA.
By recognizing the authority of the DFA Secretary to determine the
nature of the Madrid Protocol leads the way to the resolution of the
supreme court that it is indeed a executive agreement as such the DFA
Secretary did not abuse his discretion in treating the Madrid Protocol as an
executive agreement. Being that said the implementation does not require
the concurrence of the Senate. As the ratification of the protocol by the
President was deemed valid and constitutional.
