Actitud hacia la educación virtual

The President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs.

The President is vested with the authority to:

[DEW-ME-FR]

(1) Deal with foreign states and governments;

(2) Extend or withhold recognition;

(3) Maintain diplomatic relations;

(4) Enter into treaties; and

(5) Transact the business of foreign relations.

[Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.

158088, July 6, 2005]

Treaty-making power

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. [Art. VII, Sec. 21]

Treaty - As defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “an international instrument 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.” [Bayan v.

Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 138570, Oct. 10, 2000]

Other terms for a treaty: act, protocol, agreement, compromis d’ arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of notes, pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi.

Note: It is the President who RATIFIES a treaty (not the Senate), the Senate merely CONCURS. [Bayan v. Executive Secretary, supra]

The President cannot be compelled to submit a treaty to the Senate for concurrence; she has the sole power to submit it to the Senate and/or to ratify it. [Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011)]

Military Bases Treaty

Art. XVIII, Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

The President, however, may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military bases, troops, or facilities, if:

(a) it is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities; or

(b) it merely aims to implement an existing law or treaty

Sec. 25 refers solely to the initial entry of the foreign military bases, troops, or facilities.

To determine whether a military base or facility in the Philippines, which houses or is accessed by foreign military troops, is foreign or remains a Philippine military base or facility, the legal standards are:

(a) independence from foreign control;

(b) sovereignty and applicable law; and (c) national security and territorial

integrity.

[Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.

212426 (2016)] (N.B. Outside of the bar coverage)

Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)

The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an implementing agreement to the main RP-US Military Defense Treaty. The VFA is therefore valid for it is a presence “allowed under” the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty itself has been ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine Senate and the US Senate, there is no violation of the Constitutional provision

resulting from such presence. [Nicolas v.

Romulo (2009)]

Executive Agreements

(1) Entered into by the President (2) Need no concurrence

(3) Distinguished from treaties- International agreements involving political issues or changes in national policy and those involving international agreements of permanent character usually take the form of TREATIES. But the international agreements involving adjustments in detail carrying out well-established national policies and traditions and those involving a more or less temporary character usually take the form of EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS. [Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading (1961)]

(4) Executive agreements may be entered into with other states and are effective even without the concurrence of the Senate.

From the point of view of 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. The distinction between an executive agreement and a treaty is purely a constitutional one and has no international legal significance.

[USAFFE Veterans Assn. v. Treasurer (1959)]

An executive agreement that does not require the concurrence of the Senate for its ratification may not be used to amend a treaty that, under the Constitution, is the product of the ratifying acts of the Executive and the Senate. [Bayan Muna v. Romulo (2011)]

Two Classes of Executive Agreements (1) Agreements made purely as executive acts

affecting external relations and independent of or without legislative authorization, which may be termed as presidential agreements; and

(2) Agreements entered into in pursuance of acts of Congress, or Congressional-Executive Agreements.

Although the President may, under the American constitutional system enter into executive agreements without previous legislative authority, he may not, by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto.

He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of law by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws. [Gonzales v. Hechanova (1963)]

Once the Senate performs the power to concur with treaties or exercise its prerogative within the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution, the concurrence cannot be viewed as an abuse of power, much less a grave abuse of discretion. [Bayan v. Executive Secretary, supra, on the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement]

Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege

While the final text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) may not be kept perpetually confidential, the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. The Japanese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that “historic confidentiality” would govern the same.

Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations. The objective of the privilege is to enhance the quality of agency decisions. In assessing claim of privilege for diplomatic negotiations, the test is whether the privilege being claimed is indeed supported by public policy. This privilege may be overcome upon “sufficient showing of need”. [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]

Deportation of Undesirable Aliens

The President may deport only according to grounds enumerated by law, otherwise it would be unreasonable and undemocratic.

[Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board (1963)]

2 Ways of Deporting an Undesirable Alien (1) By order of the President after due

investigation, pursuant to [now Ch. 3, Bk.

III of the Admin. Code of 1987];

(2) By the Commissioner of Immigration under Section 37 of the Immigration Law [Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, supra]

Scope of the power

(1) The Deportation Board can entertain deportation based on grounds not specified in Sec. 37 of the Immigration Law. The Board has jurisdiction to investigate the alien even if he had not been convicted yet.

(2) The President’s power to deport aliens and to investigate them subject to deportation are provided in [now, Chapter

3, Book III, of the Admin. Code of 1987].

(3) The State has inherent power to deport undesirable aliens. This power is exercised by the President.

(4) There is no legal or constitutional provision defining the power to deport aliens because the intention of the law is to grant the Chief Executive the full discretion to determine whether an alien’s residence in the country is so undesirable as to affect the security, welfare or interest of the state.

(5) The Chief Executive is the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of facts which would warrant the deportation of aliens. [Go Tek v. Deportation Board (1977)]

B.7. POWERS RELATIVE TO