Gonzales vs.

Hechanova
(State concurrence in international agreements nature of executive agreements)
FACTS
Respondent Executive Secretary authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of foreign
rice to be purchased from private sources, and created a rice procurement committee
composed of the other respondents herein for the implementation of said proposed
importation
Petitioner was averring that the respondents are acting without or in excess of
jurisdiction
o Because RA 3452 (which allegedly repeals or amends RA 2207) explicitly
prohibits the importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn Administration or
any other government agency

Respondents contended that the Government of the Philippines entered into 2 contracts
for the purchase of rice with Vietnam and Burma
o That these contracts constitute valid executive agreements under international
law;
o That these are binding upon signing of the representative parties thereto
o That in case of conflict with the statute and treaty, under American jurisprudence,
the one which is the latest in point of time should be favored
o They also said that the contracts have been consummated (Philippines already
paid the price)

ISSUE
Whether RA 3452 prevails over the executive agreements
HELD
NO
The Court is not satisfied that the status of the alleged executive agreements have been
sufficiently established
The parties to the contracts do not appear to have regarded the same as executive
agreements
Even if assuming that the contracts properly constitute as executive agreements it is
still null and void because from a constitutional viewpoint, said agreement are
inconsistent with provisions of RA 2207 and 3453
Although the president may (under the American constitutional system) enter into EAs
without legislative authority, he may not by EA, enter into a transaction which is
prohibited by prior statutes enacted

The function of the executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress; he cannot

defeat legislative enactments by indirectly repealing them through EAs that
provide for the acts which were prohibited by the said laws Congress enacted
The invoked American theory that in case of conflict between a treaty and a statute, that
one latest point in time should prevail not applicable in this case because the
respondents themselves insist that the contracts are not treaties
o Treaties to which the US a signatory requires the advice and consent of the
Senate
o No such justification can be given with regard to the EAs not authorized by
previous legislation because it would upset the principle of separation of powers
o

Minor issue: The merit of the petitioners cause

The respondents question the sufficiency of the petitioners cause of action on the theory
that the importation is not governed by RA 2207 and 3452 but was authorized by the
President as commander-in-chief, in the exercise of his authority in Section 2 of
Commonwealth Act No. 1- which says in case of necessity, the President may take
preventive measures for restoration of peace, and that he is duty-bound to prepare for
challenges of threats of war and emergency
The Court said that RA 3425 which repealed RA 2207 are applicable in this case
because it involves importation of rice and corn into the Philippines
On the contention of the respondents that they were not included in the clause
government agency (refer to the facts) because the importations were made by the
government itself the Court ruled that it was devoid of merit because each and every
officer of the government are agents thereof
RECIT-READY DIGEST:
The respondent executive secretary authorized importation of foreign rice and corn
purchased from private sources
The petitioner contested that the respondents were violating RA 3542 which prohibits
importation of rice and corn by the Rice and Corn Administration or any other
government agency
The respondent invoked that the contracts they entered into with Vietnam and Burma are
valid executive agreements and that according to American jurisprudence, in case of
conflict between a statute and a treaty, the one latest point in time should prevail, thus
the treaty should prevail
So the issue now is whether the statute (RA 3425) prevails over the said executive
agreements
The Court said that NO first, because the respondents do not regard the same as

executive agreements but mere contracts, and therefore their contention that in case of
conflict the treaty should prevail will not apply; second, assuming that the contracts were
properly constitute an EA, that the same will still be void because it was not entered into
without legislative authority (and therefore violates Section 21, Article VII of the
Constitution)