Practice question
The President directs negotiators to develop a proposed treaty, and an authorized representative signs an instrument expressly subject to ratification. After review, the President decides not to ratify or submit it for Senate concurrence. An advocacy group insists that signature alone creates a ministerial duty to finish the process and asks a court to choose ratification as the preferable policy. Under Pimentel, which is best?
- The asserted duty does not follow merely from signature, and a court does not replace the President's ratification discretion on that theory
- Every signed instrument must be ratified regardless of its terms
- The group's preference replaces executive judgment
- The Senate may direct the foreign representative to ratify for the President
- The representative's signature has already performed both ratification and concurrence
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Sections 1, 16 and 21; Article VIII, Section 1: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_158088_2005.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.