Read the following cases and answer the questions below: -

Tanada vs. Angara G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997 –

Bayan vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. 138570 October 10, 2000 (and related
petitions)

Commissioner of Customs, et al., vs. Eastern Sea Trading 3 SCRA 351

IPAP vs. Hon. Ochoa G.R. No. 204605 July 19, 2016

Saguisag vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 212426 January 12, 2016

1. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states as follows: “Section 21. 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.” Does this mean that all
international agreements under our legal system require the concurrence of
the Philippine Senate to be valid and effective in the Philippines?

Answer:

No, Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution does not embody all
international agreements under our legal system. Thus, the constitution
recognizes two types of international agreement which are either foreign loans or
treaties. In the former it only requires the concurrence of the Monetary Board
while the latter needs the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the members
of Congress.

2. What is the essential difference between a treaty and an executive

agreement? Why is this distinction important under our legal system?

Answer:

A treaty is one entered into by a state which requires the concurrence of two-
thirds of the members of Congress as mentioned in the 1987 Constitution. On the
other hand, the Constitution does not define an executive agreement but
according to Black’s Law Dictionary is a “treaty-like agreement with another country in
which the President may bind the country without submission to the Senate”.

3. Under international law what is the difference between a treaty and an

executive agreement as to their binding effect upon the parties.

Answer:
 International law is derived from two sources which are international
agreements and customary practices. International agreements as above
mentioned may be treaties or executive agreements. The former are legally
binding agreements and the latter is described as having political or nonlegal
agreements, the two agreements may have certain differences but they have
similar moral and political weight between the parties.

4. Enumerate the conditions under which foreign armed forces may be allowed
within the Philippine territory.

Answer:

As provided in the cases of Bayan vs Zamora, Section 25, Article XVIII disallows
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are
sufficiently met, viz: 
(a) it must be under a treaty;
(b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by congress,
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and
(c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.

5. Which Court in the Philippines has jurisdiction to decide on the constitutionality

of an international agreement?

6. What is the effect of international law and treaties upon the sovereignty of our
country?

Answer:

By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater
benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with
coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to
limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown by the foregoing treaties Philippines
has entered, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution, based on the
rationale that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.”
7. In the IPAP case, how did the Court justify that the Madrid Protocol did not need
prior concurrence by the Senate?