President Duterte`s disturbing remarks about an executive agreement that appeared to have been written on the water prompted Judge Antonio Carpio to virtually oppose his own pumice in the case of Executive Secretary Magallona (G.R. 187167, August 16, 2011). Justice Carpio, a strong critic of the government`s attitude towards China following our own arbitration victory, said that the Constitution was superior to UNCLOS on the issue of the Philippine EEZ. Let us return to the oral executive agreement that Senator Tolentino liked: how to cure it? As you say, yamang nandiyan na tayo. Can President Rodrigo Roa Duterte enter a valid oral executive agreement with China to allow Chinese fishing vessels to enter the Philippines` exclusive economic zone? Senator Tolentino, who has struggled no less with an experienced senator and not my lawyer himself, Franklin Drilon, after his privileged speech, defended President Duterte`s alleged oral agreement with Prime Minister Xi Jinping as the exercise of his powers as “chief architect of Philippine foreign policy.” The question of whether President Duterte exercised this power with caution or not in the case of the VFA is another question. Nevertheless, this column has repeatedly argued that the President in general, but perhaps with some controversial exceptions, has the power to unilaterally withdraw the country from an international agreement. The reasons are summarized: who calls if an agreement is a contract or an executive agreement? Under EO 459/s.1997, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. First, the distinction between contracts and executive treaties: what is the difference? None in international law. The two international agreements are also binding on the parties. In practice, in national law, none; The differences, if any, are due to the procedural aspect. The Oxford Public International Law online dictionary defines it as a “contract entered into and ratified by the executive without the formal authorization of a legislative body, in a state where treaties are generally ratified only with such authorization… He adds that the concept of an executive agreement only deals with the status of the convention within the domestic law of the state concerned….
For international purposes, the instrument is only a treaty or an international agreement… The American approach is a bit like ours. For them, there are executive agreements in three forms: 1) agreements made on the basis of the president`s constitutional authority (executive agreements); 2.) Agreements reached in accordance with the laws of Congress (executive agreements of Congress); 3.) agreements reached under a previous treaty that had been duly ratified.