According to Article V of the agreement, the detention of U.S. personnel, whose case falls under Philippine jurisdiction, is „immediately the responsibility of the U.S. military authorities when they request it,“ from the date the crime was committed, until all judicial proceedings are completed. But U.S. military authorities must make the defendants available to Philippine authorities „in good time for investigative or judicial proceedings related to the offense.“ Ironically, they are also leading two countries whose constitutions require a super majority of their respective high houses in order to bind their governments to a treaty – an indication, if so, of the key role their constitutions attach to legislative power in foreign relations. The Philippine Constitution of 1987 contains two provisions that require Senate approval of international treaties or agreements. Article 21, Article VII invoked by the respondents, provides that with respect to the power to conclude international treaties or agreements, the Constitution entrusts the same to the President, subject to the agreement of at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate. In this context, the negotiations of the VFA and the subsequent ratification of the agreement are exclusive acts which concern exclusively the President, in the legitimate exercise of his extensive executive and diplomatic powers, which confer on him nothing less than the Fundamental Law itself. The Senate cannot enter the field of negotiation and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.53 Therefore, the President`s acts or judgments concerning the VFA – in particular acts of ratification and conclusion of a treaty as well as those necessary or incidental to the exercise of such principal acts – fall directly within the scope of its constitutional powers and therefore cannot be effectively abolished; and even less calibrated by the Court of Justice in the absence of clear evidence of a serious abuse of power or assessment.
Our USAFFE Supreme Veterans Court has ruled that executive agreements generally fall into two classes: (1)) agreements with purely executive acts concerning foreign relations with or without legislative authority, so-called presidential agreements, and (2)) agreements entered into under congressional acts called congressional executive agreements. Meanwhile, Bagares argued that executive agreements based on the VFA „would not have a leg to stand on“ if the VFA was abolished. – with the reports of Sofia Tomacruz/Rappler.com „The assignment and related agreements do not require deliberation and approval by the Senate, as is the case in the case of treaties, as is the case in the constitution clause (Article 2, Article 2). P. BERNAS. Yes, but we will accept what they say. If they say that we have done everything we can to make it a treaty, we will accept it as a treaty for us. 41 With the ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to final adoption, and the exchange of notes between the Philippines and the United States of America, it now becomes mandatory and, for our part, according to the principles of international law, it is our duty to be bound by the provisions of the agreement. Thus, no less than Section 2, Article II of the Constitution,46 states that the Philippines adopts the universally recognized principles of international law within the framework of the law of the country and respects the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and friendship with all nations.
„Following the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America on Military Bases, Military Bases, Troops or Foreign Installations, the Philippines is authorized only within the framework of a treaty duly approved by the Senate, ratified by a majority of the votes of the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, at the request of Congress. and recognized as a treaty by the other State Party. A treaty refers to „a pact between two or more independent nations for the common good.“ B. . . .