Practice question
An executive agreement purports merely to implement an existing Senate-concurred treaty, but one clause is conceded to contradict that treaty’s express limitation and to exceed its permitted framework. Officials defend it solely by the President’s diplomatic leadership. Under Saguisag’s main decision, which answer is best?
- Every executive agreement may freely amend its parent treaty.
- A diplomatic label alone makes the conflict irrelevant.
- An implementing executive agreement must stay within the governing treaty and legal limits; executive leadership does not itself cure the admitted excess.
- The existing treaty automatically disappears upon signing any later executive agreement.
- Courts must prefer the latest title without examining authority.
Legal references
- Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 212426 and 212444, January 12, 2016, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/61546
- 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Sections 1, 16 and 21: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.