In the order, without any clear evidence of serious abuse of the discretion on the part of the respondents, this Court – as the last arbiter of legal controversies and firm guardians of the rights of the people – is not the power to conduct a heist and interfere in such purely executive and legislative matters of character and nature. For the Constitution no less, outlines the different limits and limits within which each of the three political branches of government can exercise powers exclusively and essentially by law. The VFA was granted treaty status because it was ratified by the Senate. As such, it carries the authority of both the Speaker and the Senate. Not only does it have repercussions as an integral part of international law, but it also carries the powers and effects of rule of law in the Philippines. It amended or enforced the legislation in force before it came into force, particularly those that apply to the entry and free movement of foreigners within the country. The VFA, as a contract, had the approval of both the Senate and the President. As such, it had the same effect as a status. This wording speaks to three things: foreign military bases, troops or facilities. My first question is: if the country succeeds in such a treaty, should it cover the three bases, troops or facilities – or could the treaty cover only one or two? The President`s executive means the enforcement (execution) of laws, including contracts. However, contrary to the legislation, contracts have integrated termination clauses. The power of the president to “execute” a contract therefore logically implies the power to apply, if necessary, this termination clause; Applying the above constitutional provisions, it is clear that a two-thirds majority of all members of the Senate is required for statutory approval to be effectively obtained and considered as current.
Although Section XVIII of Section 25 stipulates that the VFA contract must be “duly presented by the Senate” in this case, it is very true that this provision must be brought into relation in light of the clear mandate of Section 21, Article VII, which provides in practice that compliance with a treaty or international agreement with a two-thirds majority of all members of the Senate. Art. B. Paragraph XVIII should not be dealt with in isolation in Section 21, Article VII. In this regard, the Supreme Court has recognized that it is indeed the constitutional power of the President to decide whether the Philippines should be bound by an executive agreement or treaty to international obligations. “MR. CUEVAS. . . . . .
The question we considered it to be a treaty is because the subject that was dealt with there had a certain consistency; and second, there is a change in some of our laws. 13 Ironically, they are also at the head of two countries whose constitutions require a super-majority of their respective stables for the union of their governments in a treaty, if any, an indication of the key role that their constitutions teach the legislature in foreign relations. In the wake of the Belmont and Pink cases, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of a single executive agreement to Ladies and Moore v. Regan.58 This case concerned the Algiers Agreement, an executive agreement negotiated and concluded by President Carter, confirmed by President Reagan to resolve the Iran hostage crisis in 1981. The agreement provided, among other things, that the United States and Iran agreed to quash certain claims among themselves and to create a special tribunal to resolve other claims, including those of the United States.