Practice question
The executive branch calls a proposed international instrument an executive agreement. Its legal team argues that this title conclusively answers whether Senate concurrence is needed and that courts can never examine its substance. The document is materially disputed as creating commitments beyond existing authority. What is the sound constitutional assessment?
- The title conclusively establishes validity
- A court must treat every international document as a treaty without examining it
- The title permits the President to alter statutes
- The instrument's substance and legal basis must be examined; executive-agreement form is not an automatic escape from constitutional requirements
- The foreign signatory alone decides Philippine constitutional requirements
Legal references
- Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 212426 and 212444, January 12, 2016, main decision, EDCA and executive agreements: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/jan2016/gr_212426_2016.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 21, Senate concurrence in treaties: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.