Practice question
An executive agreement merely supplies implementation details fully within an existing valid treaty and applicable law. It is not the principal instrument first allowing foreign military presence. A challenger objects solely that every implementing agreement must undergo a new Senate concurrence vote. Under Saguisag, which is best?
- Every implementing agreement is automatically a treaty requiring a new vote.
- No agreement concerning military activities can ever be implemented.
- Saguisag recognizes valid implementing executive agreements within the existing law or treaty’s limits; the categorical objection is insufficient.
- An executive agreement can freely amend the Constitution.
- A party’s label conclusively prevents all judicial scrutiny.
Legal references
- Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. Nos. 212426 and 212444, January 12, 2016, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/jan2016/gr_212426_2016.html
- 1987 Constitution: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353 Article VII, Section 21; Article XVIII, Section 25.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.