Practice question
An authorized Philippine representative signs a proposed treaty expressly subject to later ratification. The President has not ratified it or chosen to submit it for Senate concurrence. A petitioner seeks mandamus, arguing that the signature alone makes transmission and ratification purely ministerial. No other specific legal duty is identified. Under Pimentel, which is best?
- The representative's signature irrevocably completes Philippine ratification
- The Senate may automatically ratify for the President without submission
- Signature and ratification are distinct, and the asserted ministerial duty does not follow merely from signature
- Mandamus must issue whenever a proposed treaty is popular
- A Senate committee can supply the President's unperformed act
Legal references
- Pimentel v. Office of the Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_158088_2005.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 21: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.