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.
-
Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution
The words of the law are not always
absolute as behind general rules are exceptions.
The President of the Philippines is
the spokesman of the nation on external affairs. Inherent to this duty is the
power to conclude treaties conformably to the rule that 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. However, the records of the
Constitutional Commission show that international agreement was not intended to
include executive agreement and therefore, can be ratified by the President
without Senate concurrence. To my belief, this exemption is detrimental in so
far the State is concerned.
The executive agreement privilege of
the President is an encroachment to the Doctrine of Checks and Balances. As
Justice Cruz explained in his book, the doctrine is intended to prevent a
concentration of authority in one person or group of persons that might lead to
an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our
republican institutions. The Constitution makes no mention of executive
agreement as an exemption to the general rule of Senate concurrence for any
international agreement. Executive Order No. 459 issued by then President Fidel
V. Ramos defined Treaties as international agreements entered into by the
Philippines which require legislative concurrence after executive ratification.
This term may include compacts like conventions, declarations, covenants and
acts. Whereas, Executive Agreement is similar to treaties except that they do
not require legislative concurrence. Clearly, there is no distinction between
the two as both are international agreements except on Legislative concurrence.
The records of the Constitutional Commission provide that executive agreements
are generally made to implement a treaty already enforced, or to determine the
details for the implementation of the treaty. And the sole discretion to
determine whether an agreement is just a mere executive one is incumbent to the
Department of Foreign Affairs, an executive office. Applying the Doctrine of
Checks and Balances, executive agreement must still be scrutinized by the
Senate having the prime duty to enact laws necessary for the State. For any
international agreement, once signed by the President, forms part of the
national law of the land. The Supreme Court explains in Pimentel v. Office of
the Secretary that the participation of the legislative branch in the
treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive
in the field of foreign relations. By requiring the concurrence of the
legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the Constitution
ensures a healthy system of checks and balance necessary in the nation’s
pursuit of political maturity and growth.
The President is elected by a
majority vote of the people with the confidence that he will lead the nation
towards its goals and aspirations. The Constitution provides powers for
effective and efficient enforcement of his roles as the Chief Executive of the
land. But this must not be construed to be absolute that he can solely bind the
whole nation on international relations without the concurrence of the people.
In this case, Senate would best represent the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment