Executive Agreements Ph

President Duterte`s disturbing remarks on an executive agreement, which appear to have been written on water, were made aware by Judge Antonio Carpio of going so far as to take practical action against his own Ponencia in the Magallona case (G.R. No. 187167, August 16, 2011). Judge Carpio, a resounding critic of the government`s attitude toward China after our own victory as arbitrator, said in the minutes that the Constitution was superior to the Convention on the Law of the Sea on the issue of the Philippine EEZ. An executive agreement is in fact a term in national law that applies to a treaty under international law. Executive agreements between the United States are subject to the amendment of the Zablocki Act (1 U.S.C§ 112b) of 2005, as implemented by 22 CFR Part 181. The U.S. Department of State`s Office of Legal Counsel decides whether this is an executive agreement, in accordance with a procedure described in Circular 175 (Volume 11 of the State Department`s Foreign Affairs Manual, 11 FAM 720). The American approach is somewhat similar to ours.

For them, there are executive agreements in three forms: (1)) agreements concluded on the basis of the constitutional authority of the President (executive agreements); 2.) agreements concluded in accordance with congressional legislation (agreements between Congress and the executive); and 3.) Agreements concluded on the basis of an earlier treaty duly ratified. Finally, does the president have the right to unilaterally withdraw the country from an international agreement? Senator Drilon moved a resolution stating that “the denunciation or withdrawal of international treaties and agreements agreed to by the Senate should be valid and effective only with the agreement of the Senate.” In many major cases, our Own Supreme Court has recognized that there is no essential distinction between the status of executive agreements and treaties, at least in their form. First of all, they must be written, in any form, including on office paper (where ambassadors write notes, right?) In addition, there is an executive order of Ramos – Executive Order 459, series of 1997 – which has become a kind of Bible on how our Ministry of Foreign Affairs fulfills its mandate when negotiating contracts with other states on behalf of the president. Section 2 of OP 459 reflects the language of the Vienna Convention when defining executive agreements as “treaty-like unless they do not require legislative approval”. I would object to some of the sentences of this executive order, but I would say that this definition given is sufficient for our current purposes. . . .