Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Interpreting and construing phrase in a treaty
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.
It bears stress that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption.27 The burden of proof is upon him who claims the exemption in his favor and he must be able to justify his claim by the clearest grant of organic or statute law. Private respondent is claiming for a refund of the alleged overpayment of tax on royalties; however, there is nothing on record to support a claim that the tax on royalties under the RP-US Tax Treaty is paid under similar circumstances as the tax on royalties under the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty.
2. Bayan vs Zamora , G.R. No. 138570, Oct. 10, 2000
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Definition of a treaty
Requisites for a treaty to be rendered effective under Sec. 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution
Is there a difference between treaties and executive agreements?
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Definition of a treaty
Requisites for a treaty to be rendered effective under Sec. 25, Article XVIII of the Constitution
Is there a difference between treaties and executive agreements?
A treaty, as defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is “an international instrument concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and whatever its particular designation. The are many other terms used for a treaty or international agreement, some of which are: act, protocol, agreement, compromis d’ arbitrage, concordat, convention, declaration, exchange of notes, pact, statute, charter and modus vivendi.
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state
This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.To require the other contracting state, the United States of America in this case, to submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to the phrase.
Section 25, Article XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state
This Court is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or acknowledges the agreement as a treaty.To require the other contracting state, the United States of America in this case, to submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to the phrase.
It is inconsequential whether the United States treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a treaty. To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty.
In international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. International law continues to make no distinction between treaties and executive agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations.
3. Lim vs Executive Secretary , G.R. No. 151445, Apr. 11, 2002
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Interpretations of International Agreements
Treaty vs Municipal Law
In interpreting treaties the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements, state: i) a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith ill accordance with the ordinary meaning ii) in interpreting the purpose it shall comprise of any agreement and any instrument made iii) shall be taken into account, together with the context and iv) a special meaning to a term shall be given if intended by the parties.
From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Hence, "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith." Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to "invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."
Interpretations of International Agreements
Treaty vs Municipal Law
In interpreting treaties the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements, state: i) a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith ill accordance with the ordinary meaning ii) in interpreting the purpose it shall comprise of any agreement and any instrument made iii) shall be taken into account, together with the context and iv) a special meaning to a term shall be given if intended by the parties.
From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Hence, "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith." Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to "invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."
4. Pimentel vs Executive Secretary , G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Power to ratify treaties
Senate’s limitation on ratification of treaties
Under E.O. 459, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) prepares the ratification papers and forward the signed copy to the President for ratification. After the President has ratified it, DFA shall submit the same to the Senate for concurrence.
The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Power to ratify treaties
Senate’s limitation on ratification of treaties
Under E.O. 459, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) prepares the ratification papers and forward the signed copy to the President for ratification. After the President has ratified it, DFA shall submit the same to the Senate for concurrence.
The President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.” The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.
It should be emphasized that under the Constitution the power to ratify is vested in the President subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The President has the discretion even after the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative whether or not to ratify a treaty.
The signature does not signify final consent, it is ratification that binds the state to the provisions of the treaty and renders it effective.
Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, concurrence to the ratification. It is within the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this court via writ of mandamus,
The signature does not signify final consent, it is ratification that binds the state to the provisions of the treaty and renders it effective.
Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, concurrence to the ratification. It is within the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. Such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this court via writ of mandamus,
5. Abaya vs Ebdane , G.R. No. 167919, Feb. 14, 2007
Supreme Court’s Ruling :Definition of an “exchange note” under international law
Rules on treaties by title (differ in names)
An "exchange of notes" is a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.
Although these instruments differ from each other by title, they all have common features and international law has applied basically the same rules to all these instruments. These rules are the result of long practice among the States, which have accepted them as binding norms in their mutual relations. Therefore, they are regarded as international customary law. Since there was a general desire to codify these customary rules, two international conventions were negotiated.
The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("1969 Vienna Convention"), which entered into force on 27 January 1980, contains rules for treaties concluded between States. The 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations ("1986 Vienna Convention"), which has still not entered into force, added rules for treaties with international organizations as parties. Both the 1969 Vienna Convention and the 1986 Vienna Convention do not distinguish between the different designations of these instruments. Instead, their rules apply to all of those instruments as long as they meet the common requirements.
Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress.
6. Dept. of Budget Management- PS vs Kolonwell Trading , G.R. No. 175608, June 8, 2007
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Observance of treaties (pacta sunt servanda)
Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda which is in fact embodied in the afore-quoted Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, the RP, as borrower, bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118- PH. Applying this postulate in the concrete to this case,the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question. Since, this is what has been agreed in the said Loan Agreement.
Observance of treaties (pacta sunt servanda)
Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda which is in fact embodied in the afore-quoted Section 4 of R.A. No. 9184, the RP, as borrower, bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan No. 7118- PH. Applying this postulate in the concrete to this case,the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/procurement process in question. Since, this is what has been agreed in the said Loan Agreement.
7. Akbayan vs Aquino , GR 170516, July 16, 2008
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Non-disclosure of initial drafts of a treaty (exception of right to information)
Diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege
Deliberative process privilege during treaty negotiation process
Presindent- sole organ of the nation in its negotiations with foreign countries
The categories of information that may be considered privileged includes matters of diplomatic character and under negotiation and review.
Whether a claim of executive privilege is valid depends on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made.
The categories of information that may be considered privileged includes matters of diplomatic character and under negotiation and review. The negotiations of the representatives of the Philippines as well as of Japan must be allowed to explore alternatives in the course of the negotiations in the same manner as judicial deliberations and working drafts of opinions are accorded strict confidentiality.
The Court in Chavez v. PCGG held that “information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interest.”
Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential – since there should be “ample opportunity for discussion before a treaty is approved” – the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japanese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that “historic confidentiality” would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations.
The diplomatic negotiations privilege bears a close resemblance to the deliberative process and presidential communications privilege. It may be readily perceived that the rationale for the confidential character of diplomatic negotiations, deliberative process, and presidential communications is similar, if not identical.
The earlier discussion on PMPF v. Manglapus shows that the privilege for diplomatic negotiations is meant to encourage a frank exchange of exploratory ideas between the negotiating parties by shielding such negotiations from public view. Similar to the privilege for presidential communications, the diplomatic negotiations privilege seeks, through the same means, to protect the independence in decision-making of the President, particularly in its capacity as “the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”
The decision of the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia in Fulbright & Jaworski v. Department of the Treasury enlightens on the close relation between diplomatic negotiations and deliberative process privileges:
Negotiations between two countries to draft a treaty represent a true example of a deliberative process. Much give-and-take must occur for the countries to reach an accord. The policies behind the deliberative process privilege support non-disclosure. Much harm could accrue to the negotiations process if these notes were revealed.
Still in PMPF v. Manglapus, the Court adopted the doctrine in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp “that the President is the sole organ of the nation in its negotiations with foreign countries.”
Morever, such assertion of privileges should be invoked by the President or through the Executive Secretary “by order of the President.”- that the power to directly negotiate treaties and international agreements is vested by our Constitution only in the Executive.
Supreme Court’s Ruling :
Non-disclosure of initial drafts of a treaty (exception of right to information)
Diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege
Deliberative process privilege during treaty negotiation process
Presindent- sole organ of the nation in its negotiations with foreign countries
The categories of information that may be considered privileged includes matters of diplomatic character and under negotiation and review.
Whether a claim of executive privilege is valid depends on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made.
The categories of information that may be considered privileged includes matters of diplomatic character and under negotiation and review. The negotiations of the representatives of the Philippines as well as of Japan must be allowed to explore alternatives in the course of the negotiations in the same manner as judicial deliberations and working drafts of opinions are accorded strict confidentiality.
The Court in Chavez v. PCGG held that “information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements may be subject to reasonable safeguards for the sake of national interest.”
Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential – since there should be “ample opportunity for discussion before a treaty is approved” – the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japanese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that “historic confidentiality” would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations.
The diplomatic negotiations privilege bears a close resemblance to the deliberative process and presidential communications privilege. It may be readily perceived that the rationale for the confidential character of diplomatic negotiations, deliberative process, and presidential communications is similar, if not identical.
The earlier discussion on PMPF v. Manglapus shows that the privilege for diplomatic negotiations is meant to encourage a frank exchange of exploratory ideas between the negotiating parties by shielding such negotiations from public view. Similar to the privilege for presidential communications, the diplomatic negotiations privilege seeks, through the same means, to protect the independence in decision-making of the President, particularly in its capacity as “the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations.”
The decision of the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia in Fulbright & Jaworski v. Department of the Treasury enlightens on the close relation between diplomatic negotiations and deliberative process privileges:
Negotiations between two countries to draft a treaty represent a true example of a deliberative process. Much give-and-take must occur for the countries to reach an accord. The policies behind the deliberative process privilege support non-disclosure. Much harm could accrue to the negotiations process if these notes were revealed.
Still in PMPF v. Manglapus, the Court adopted the doctrine in U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp “that the President is the sole organ of the nation in its negotiations with foreign countries.”
Morever, such assertion of privileges should be invoked by the President or through the Executive Secretary “by order of the President.”- that the power to directly negotiate treaties and international agreements is vested by our Constitution only in the Executive.
