Govt

vs Monte
In June 1863 a devastating earthquake occurred in the Philippines. The Spanish Government then provided
$400,000.00 as aid for the victims and it was received by the Philippine Treasury. Out of the said amount, $80,000.00
was left untouched; it was then invested in the Monte de Piedad Bank which in turn invested the amount in jewelries.
But when the Philippine government later tried to withdraw the said amount, the bank cannot provide for the
amount. The government then filed a complaint. The bank argued that the Philippine government is not an affected
party hence has no right to institute a complaint. The bank argues that the government was not the intended
beneficiary of the said amount.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine government is competent to file a complaint against the respondent bank.
HELD: Yes. The Philippine government is competent to institute action against Monte de Piedad, this is in accordance
with the doctrine of Parens Patriae. The government being the protector of the rights of the people has the inherent
supreme power to enforce such laws that will promote the public interest. No other party has been entrusted with
such right hence as “parents” of the people the government has the right to take back the money intended for the
people.

Cabanas vs Pilapil
Florentino Pilapil insured himself and he indicated in his insurance plan that his child will be his beneficiary. He also
indicated that if upon his death the child is still a minor; the proceeds of his benefits shall be administered by his
brother, Francisco Pilapil. The child was only ten years of age when Florentino died and so Francisco then took charge
of Florentino’s insurance proceeds for the benefit of the child.
On the other hand, the mother of the child Melchora Cabanas filed a complaint seeking the delivery of the insurance
proceeds in favor and for her to be declared as the child’s trustee. Francisco asserted the terms of the insurance
policy and that as a private contract its terms and obligations must be binding only to the parties and intended
beneficiaries.
ISSUE: Whether or not the state may interfere by virtue of “parens patriae” to the terms of the insurance policy.
HELD: Yes. The Constitution provides for the strengthening of the family as the basic social unit, and that whenever
any member thereof such as in the case at bar would be prejudiced and his interest be affected then the judiciary if
a litigation has been filed should resolve that case according to the best interest of that person. The uncle here
should not be the trustee, it should be the mother as she was the immediate relative of the minor child and it is
assumed that the mother shall show more care towards the child than the uncle will. The application of parens
patriae here is in consonance with this country’s tradition of favoring conflicts in favor of the family hence preference
to the parent (mother) is observed.


Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh
Facts of the case: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese occupation, with the Court of
First Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon
refused to continue hearings on the case, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had
invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an
enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in
the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government under the Japanese).
The court resolved three issues:
1. Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid and
remained valid even after the American occupation;
2. Whether or not the October 23, 1944 proclamation MacArthur issued in which he declared that “all laws,
regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth are null
and void and without legal effect in areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control” invalidated all
judgments and judicial acts and proceedings of the courts;
3. And whether or not if they were not invalidated by MacArthur’s proclamation, those courts could continue
hearing the cases pending before them.
Ratio: Political and international law recognizes that all acts and proceedings of a de facto government are good
and valid. The Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines under the Japanese occupation
may be considered de facto governments, supported by the military force and deriving their authority from the
laws of war.
Municipal laws and private laws, however, usually remain in force unless suspended or changed by the conqueror.
Civil obedience is expected even during war, for “the existence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen
the bonds of society, or do away with civil government or the regular administration of the laws. And if they were
not valid, then it would not have been necessary for MacArthur to come out with a proclamation abrogating them.
The second question, the court said, hinges on the interpretation of the phrase “processes of any other
government” and whether or not he intended it to annul all other judgments and judicial proceedings of courts
during the Japanese military occupation.
IF, according to international law, non-political judgments and judicial proceedings of de facto governments are
valid and remain valid even after the occupied territory has been liberated, then it could not have been
MacArthur’s intention to refer to judicial processes, which would be in violation of international law.
A well-known rule of statutory construction is: “A statute ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations
if any other possible construction remains.”
Another is that “where great inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great mischief done, such
construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the
makers of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words.”
Annulling judgments of courts made during the Japanese occupation would clog the dockets and violate
international law, therefore what MacArthur said should not be construed to mean that judicial proceedings are
included in the phrase “processes of any other governments.”
In the case of US vs Reiter, the court said that if such laws and institutions are continued in use by the occupant,
they become his and derive their force from him. The laws and courts of the Philippines did not become, by being
continued as required by the law of nations, laws and courts of Japan.
It is a legal maxim that, excepting of a political nature, “law once established continues until changed by some
competent legislative power. IT IS NOT CHANGED MERELY BY CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY.” Until, of course, the new
sovereign by legislative act creates a change.
Therefore, even assuming that Japan legally acquired sovereignty over the Philippines, and the laws and courts of
the Philippines had become courts of Japan, as the said courts and laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon
them have continued in force until now, it follows that the same courts may continue exercising the same
jurisdiction over cases pending therein before the restoration of the Commonwealth Government, until abolished
or the laws creating and conferring jurisdiction upon them are repealed by the said government.
DECISION: Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to take
cognizance of and continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case no. 3012.

Summary of ratio:
1. International law says the acts of a de facto government are valid and civil laws continue even during occupation
unless repealed.
2. MacArthur annulled proceedings of other governments, but this cannot be applied on judicial proceedings
because such a construction would violate the law of nations.
3. Since the laws remain valid, the court must continue hearing the case pending before it.
***3 kinds of de facto government: one established through rebellion (govt gets possession and control through
force or the voice of the majority and maintains itself against the will of the rightful government)
through occupation (established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy
in the course of war; denoted as a government of paramount force)
through insurrection (established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in
insurrection against the parent state)

Peralta vs Director of prisons

TANADA VS ANGARA

G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997

Wigberto E. Tanada et al, in representation of various taxpayers and as non-governmental

organizations, petitioners,

vs.

EDGARDO ANGARA, et al, respondents.

Facts:

This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers, taxpayers, and various NGO’s to
nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.

Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and against to the “Filipino
First” policy. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the
reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new
opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the
country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a
“free market” espoused by WTO.

Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since the said Agreement is an
assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant that Congress could not pass legislation that
would be good for national interest and general welfare if such legislation would not conform to the WTO
Agreement.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.

2. Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and the
Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that
agreement’ cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent of Section 19,
Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise of legislative
power by Congress.
4. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by this Honorable
Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
5. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’ implied rejection of the treaty embodied in the Final
Act.

Discussions:

• 1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any
branch or instrumentality of the government.
• Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy controlled
by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It
contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international community.” The WTO itself
has some built-in advantages to protect weak and developing economies, which comprise the vast majority of
its members. Unlike in the UN where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security
Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with each member’s vote equal in
weight to that of any other. Hence, poor countries can protect their common interests more effectively
through the WTO than through one-on-one negotiations with developed countries. Within the WTO,
developing countries can form powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the
Organization. Which is not merely a matter of practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in law.
Thus, the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing countries like the
Philippines to “share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic
development.”
• In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally
accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. A
state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. Paragraph 1,
Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedures. With regard to Infringement of a design patent, WTO members
shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own
internal systems and processes.
• The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is balanced by the
adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and the
adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations. The Senate, after
 deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby
making it “a part of the law of the land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power.

Rulings:

1. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the
petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged
to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle
the dispute. As explained by former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, “the judiciary is the final arbiter on the
question of whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.”
2. While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at
the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of
equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade
practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did
not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While
the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the
country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity,
frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
3. 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.”
4. The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent as it is
with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our judicial system.
5. The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act required from its
signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement. Moreover, the Senate was well-aware
of what it was concurring in as shown by the members’ deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the
letter of President Ramos dated August 11, 1994, the senators of the Republic minutely dissected what the
Senate was concurring in.

Reagan vs CIR

William Reagan is a US citizen assigned at Clark Air Base to help provide technical assistance to the US Air Force
(USAF). In April 1960 Reagan imported a 1960 Cadillac car valued at $6,443.83. Two months later, he got permission
to sell the same car provided that he would sell the car to a US citizen or a member of the USAF. He sold it to Willie
Johnson, Jr. for $6,600.00 as shown by a Bill of Sale. The sale took place within Clark Air Base. As a result of this
transaction, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue calculated the net taxable income of Reagan to be at 17,912.34
and that his income tax would be 2,797.00. Reagan paid the assessed tax but at the same time he sought for a refund
because he claims that he is exempt. Reagan claims that the sale took place in “foreign soil” since Clark Air Base, in
legal contemplation is a base outside the Philippines. Reagan also cited that under the Military Bases Agreement,
he, by nature of his employment, is exempt from Philippine taxation.
ISSUE: Is the sale considered done in a foreign soil not subject to Philippine income tax?
HELD: No. The Philippines is independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There
is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount.
Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its
jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Military Bases Agreement that
lends support to Reagan’s assertion. The Base has not become foreign soil or territory. This country’s jurisdictional
rights therein, certainly not excluding the power to tax, have been preserved, the Philippines merely consents that
the US exercise jurisdiction in certain cases – this is just a matter of comity, courtesy and expediency. It is likewise
noted that he indeed is employed by the USAF and his income is derived from US source but the income derived
from the sale is not of US source hence taxable.

Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949

D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)

MORAN, C.J.:

I. THE FACTS

Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines
during the Japanese occupation, was charged before the Philippine Military Commission of war crimes.
He questioned the constitutionality of E.O. No. 68 that created the National War Crimes Office and prescribed rules
on the trial of accused war criminals. He contended the Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on
Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and therefore he is charged of crimes not based on law, national and
international.

II. THE ISSUES

Was E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional?

III. THE RULING

[The Court DENIED the petition and upheld the validity and constitutionality of E.O. No. 68.]

YES, E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional.

Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, that –
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.

In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the present day including the
Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established by
the United Nation all those person military or civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a war of
aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto in violation of the
laws and customs of war, of humanity and civilization are held accountable therefor. Consequently in the
promulgation and enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity
with the generally accepted and policies of international law which are part of the our Constitution.

xxx xxx xxx

Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts
committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a
signatory to the first and signed the second only in 1947. It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the
Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principals of
international law. In facts these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations the United State
and Japan who were signatories to the two Convention. Such rule and principles therefore form part of the law of
our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them for our Constitution has
been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of
international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

Ichong vs Hernandez

Conflict with fundamental law; Police power

ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ

G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely
affected. by Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner,
vs.
JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila, respondents.

Facts:

Driven by aspirations for economic independence and national security, the Congress enacted Act No. 1180
entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business.” The main provisions of the Act, among others, are:

(1) Prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations, among others, from
engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade; and
(2) Prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of additional
stores or branches of retail business.

Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely
affected by the said Act, brought an action to obtain a judicial declaration, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance,
Jaime Hernandez, and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing
its provisions. Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the Act, contending that:

• It denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property without
due process of law.
• The subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof.
• The Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines.

Issue/s:

Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles.

Discussions:

A generally accepted principle of international law, should be observed by us in good faith. If a treaty would be in
conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power
which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty.

Ruling/s:

Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, the Supreme Court saw no conflict
between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does
not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under
like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal
protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class,
if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between
those who fall within such class and those who do not.”

Gonzales vs Hechanova

During the term of President Diosdado Macapagal, he entered into two executive agreements with Vietnam and
Burma for the importation of rice without complying with the requisite of securing a certification from the National
Economic Council showing that there is a shortage in cereals or rice. Hence, the then Executive Secretary, Rufino
Hechanova, authorized the importation of 67,000 tons of rice from abroad to the detriment of our local planters.
Ramon Gonzales, then president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association assailed the executive agreements.
Gonzales averred that Hechanova is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction”, because Republic Act 3452
prohibits the importation of rice and corn by “the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2 executive agreements entered into by Macapagal.
HELD: Yes. Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. The
former may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter, except in the exercise of his veto
power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of laws, by indirectly repealing the
same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws. In the
event of conflict between a treaty and a statute, the one which is latest in point of time shall prevail, is not applicable
to the case at bar, Hechanova not only admits, but, also, insists that the contracts adverted to are not treaties. No
such justification can be given as regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation, without
completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and balances which are
fundamental in our constitutional set up.
As regards the question whether an executive or an international agreement may be invalidated by our courts,
suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing that the
SC may not be deprived “of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ
of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in “All cases in
which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question”.
In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the
fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

Reyes vs Bagatsing

Retired Justice JBL Reyes in behalf of the members of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit to rally from Luneta
Park until the front gate of the US embassy which is less than two blocks apart. The permit has been denied by then
Manila mayor Ramon Bagatsing. The mayor claimed that there have been intelligence reports that indicated that
the rally would be infiltrated by lawless elements. He also issued City Ordinance No. 7295 to prohibit the staging of
rallies within the 500 feet radius of the US embassy. Bagatsing pointed out that it was his intention to provide
protection to the US embassy from such lawless elements in pursuant to Art. 22 of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations. And that under our constitution we “adhere to generally accepted principles of international
law”.
ISSUE: Whether or not a treaty may supersede provisions of the Constitution. Whether or not the rallyists should
be granted the permit.
HELD:
I. No. Indeed, the receiving state is tasked for the protection of foreign diplomats from any lawless element. And
indeed the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles of international law. But the
same cannot be invoked as defense to the primacy of the Philippine Constitution which upholds and guarantees the
rights to free speech and peacable assembly. At the same time, the City Ordinance issued by respondent mayor
cannot be invoked if the application thereof would collide with a constitutionally guaranteed rights.
II. Yes. The denial of their rally does not pass the clear and present danger test. The mere assertion that subversives
may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators does not suffice. In this case, no less than the police chief assured that
they have taken all the necessary steps to ensure a peaceful rally. Further, the ordinance cannot be applied yet
because there was no showing that indeed the rallyists are within the 500 feet radius (besides, there’s also the
question of whether or not the mayor can prohibit such rally – but, as noted by the SC, that has not been raised an
an issue in this case).

Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000

D E C I S I O N
(En Banc)

BUENA, J.:

I. THE FACTS

The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America entered into an agreement called the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a treaty by the Philippine government and was
ratified by then-President Joseph Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 of the total membership of the Philippine
Senate.

The VFA defines the treatment of U.S. troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the
guidelines to govern such visits, and further defines the rights of the U.S. and the Philippine governments in the
matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment,
materials and supplies.

Petitioners argued, inter alia, that the VFA violates §25, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, which
provides that “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty
duly concurred in by the Senate . . . and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.”

II. THE ISSUE

Was the VFA unconstitutional?

III. THE RULING

[The Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions, held that the petitioners did not commit grave abuse of
discretion, and sustained the constitutionality of the VFA.]

NO, the VFA is not unconstitutional.

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.

There is no dispute as to the presence of the first two requisites in the case of the VFA. The concurrence
handed by the Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution . . . the
provision in [in §25, Article XVIII] requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum being
unnecessary since Congress has not required it.

xxx xxx xxx

This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting
party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To require the other contracting state, the United States
of America in this case, to submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution,
is to accord strict meaning to the phrase.

Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary
meaning except where technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus attached to them
prevails. Its language should be understood in the sense they have in common use.

Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement
because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as the VFA
possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a
treaty.

xxx xxx xxx

The records reveal that the United States Government, through Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard, has stated
that the United States government has fully committed to living up to the terms of the VFA. For as long as the United
States of America accepts or acknowledges the VFA as a treaty, and binds itself further to comply with its obligations
under the treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the Constitution.