Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
'. ; " !
:-r-r- -.l-lJj->--\.L
I
30 June 2015
JUii 3 0
2015
I
_'r:l
t_
BY
TINTE
oFllGt ur
I nE
Court
ill illl
Dear Madame Chief Justice:
To
lollor
x/0
This is to respectfully enclose, for the presumable infbrmation of the Supreme Cour1.
the copy of Senate Resolution No. 1414, entitled "Resolution expressing the strong sense of
the Senate that any treaty ratified by the President of the Philippines should be concurred in
by the Senate, otherwise the treaty becomes invalid and ineffective."
Thank yclu fbr your forbearance.
Sincerely yours,
6i*,#$*, "fuW
Committee on Foreign Relations
Encl.:
As stated.
lvlain: 4lF Narsan Blg.,3 Wcst Fourth St., West'l'riangle, Quezon City
'lelephones 372-4573.371-9156,41 l-4380 * Fax 376-5936
Enrail
Senale: Room 52l-A, Senate ofthe t hilippines, Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City
'l'elephones 552-6693 * 552-6601 to 80 loc. 5561,5562,5563 * Fax
552-6692
SENATE
P. s. R.
No.
)
)
)
l{lll
'15
JUN
29
itF.{'tilVLir it}
d"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
t
RESOLUIION
1l
WHEREAS, the Office of the President argues that the document is not a
treaty but is instead an executive agreement that allegedly does not require Senate
12
concuffence;
10
13
14
15
t6
t7
l8
19
20
2t
22
23
WHEREAS, the only constitutional ground for the position taken by the
Executive is the mere inclusion of the term "executive agreement" in the
Constitution which provides: "All cases involving the constitutionality of an....
executive agreement...." (Article 8, Section 4,para.2) as one of items included in
the list of cases which the Supreme Court has power to decide;
WHEREAS, there is no other provision in the Confiitution concerning a socalled executive agreement, and there is no mention at all of its definition, its
requirements, the role of the Senate, or any other characteristic of, or protocol for,
any such so-called "executive agreement";
is a term
wandering alone
in
P3:25
the
.a
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
r0
1l
r2
13
t4
l5
t6
WHEREAS, on the one hand, the Constitution is c/ear and categorical that
Senate concurence is absolutely necessary for the validity and effectivity of any
treaty, particularly any treaty that promotes for foreign military bases, troops, and
facilities, such as the EDCA;
2t
22
23
WHEREAS, the Senate is aware of and obeys the ruling of the Supreme
Court in Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Seuetary,462 SCRA 622 (2005);
24
28
WHEREAS, the ruling cited above does not apply to the EDCA case,
because the Senate makes no attempt to force the President of the Philippines to
submit the EDCA treaty for concurrence by the Senate; by this resolution, the
Senate merely takes a definitive stand on the non-negotiaQle power of the Senate to
decide whether a treaty will be valid and effective, depending on Senate
29
concuffence;
30
17
18
t9
20
25
26
27
3t
32
JJ
Be it further resolved that this resolution expressing the strong sense of the
Senate be formally submitted to the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice.
Adopted,
/"
Y-
vfk-
W
FERDIN
sERq
TANO
:TAR
/v'rtl
osvrEfir A III
R.
,"*^z[^rt
JOSEPH VICTOR
EJERCITO
COS JR.
. PIMENTEL
EJER
TEOFISTO
GUINGONA III
VILLA
I
M. LAPID
CYNTHIA A. VILLAR
JR.
III