Executive Agreement Entered Into By A Philippine President

The Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 requires the President to notify the Senate within 60 days of an executive agreement. The president`s powers to conclude such agreements have not been restricted. The reporting requirement allowed Congress to vote in favor of repealing an executive agreement or to refuse funding for its implementation. [3] [4] Of course, the devil will always be in the details of such an agreement. At least a properly implemented executive agreement, if it is actually put in place, should ensure the conservation and sustainable fishing, as well as the protection of our fishermen from harassment by the Chinese Naval Force – its well-known naval militia, which collaborates with its vast fleet of civilian fishing vessels. Under Philippine law, the main provision is Article VII.21 of the Constitution, which stipulates that contracts of at least 2/3 of the Senate must be “consensual”. Executive agreements do not require this agreement. Finally, does the President have the power to unilaterally withdraw the country from an international agreement? Some senators do not think so. Senator Drilon proposed a resolution stating that “the termination or revocation of international contracts and agreements concluded by the Senate will only be valid and effective after approval by the Senate. An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature, since the treaties are ratified.

Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from legally binding contracts. Can President Rodrigo Roa Duterte enter a valid oral executive agreement with China to allow Chinese fishing vessels to enter the Philippines` exclusive economic zone? The U.S. Supreme Court Pink (1942) found that international agreements, which were concluded in law, have the same legal status as treaties and do not require Senate approval. To Reid v. Concealed (1957), the Tribunal, while reaffirming the President`s ability to enter into executive agreements, found that such agreements could not be contrary to existing federal law or the Constitution. An executive agreement is really a concept of domestic law that applies to a treaty of international law. In the United States, executive agreements are binding at the international level when negotiated and concluded under the authority of the President on foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces or from a previous congressional record. For example, the President, as Commander-in-Chief, negotiates and concludes Armed Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces deployed in other nations. However, the President cannot unilaterally enter into executive agreements on matters that are not in his constitutional jurisdiction. In such cases, an agreement should take the form of an agreement between Congress and the executive branch or a contract with the Council and the approval of the Senate. [2] President Duterte`s disturbing remarks about an executive agreement that appeared to have been written on water prompted Judge Antonio Carpio to go so far as to oppose his own ponlenity in the magallona v case.

© 2021 Mahrs Schoppman, M.A., LMFT