Implication on treaty

Bayan vs Executive Secretary October 10,2000 – The supreme court held that the visiting forces agreement (VFA) is constitutional , having been duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate. The Republic of the Philippines cannot require the United States to submit the agreement to the US senate for concurrence, for that would be giving a strict construction to the phrase “recognize as a treaty”. It is inconsequential that the US treats the VFA as merely an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is just binding as a treaty.
While in the case of Abaya vs Hon Hermogenese Ebdane(july 14,2007) uses the fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda which is, in fact, embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that "any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be observed.

2. In the case of Akbayan vs Aquino decided on july 16,2008 it provides that
the core meaning of the phrase “sole organ of the nation in its external relations” which means the power to directly negotiate treaties and international agreements is vested by our Constitution only in the Executive. Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations but does not have the power to negotiate international agreements directly, while in the case of Pimentel v. Executive Secretary July 6,2005 In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states ,the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him.

3. In the case of Lim vs Executive secretary dated April 11,2002 the court ruled that our constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress

while in the case of

Commissioner vs Sc Johnson and son dated june 25,1999 the court ruled that the purpose of international agreements is to reconcile the national fiscal legislations of the contracting parties in order to help the taxpayer avoid simultaneous taxation in two different jurisdictions.