Constantino Jr vs Cuisia

1. Assailing the constitutionality of contracts entered into pursuant to the Philippine

Comprehensive Financing Program for 1992.
2. The respondents are members of the Philippine panel tasked to negotiate with the countrys
foreign creditors pursuant to the Financing Program.
3. Aquino government entered into three restructuring agreements with representatives of foreign
creditor governments:
4. Petitioners characterize the program consisting two debt-relief options:
a. Cash buyback of portions of the Philippine foreign debt at a discount;
b. Allowed creditors to convert existing Philippine debt instruments into any of the three kinds
of bonds/securities:
- new money bonds with a 5-year grace period and 17 years maturity, the purchase of which
would allow the creditors to convert eligible debt papers into bearer bonds with the same
terms
-interest-reduction bonds with a maturity of 25 years
-principal-collateralized interest-reduction bonds with a maturity of 25 years.

5. Respondents said that three basic options from which foreign bank lenders could choose:
a. To lend money,
b. to exchange existing restructured Philippine debts with an interest reduction bond;
c. or to exchange the same Philippine debts with a principal collateralized interest reduction
bond.

6. Petitioners: The program is violation of section 20, article VII. The buyback and
securitization/bond conversion schemes are neither loans nor guarantees and hence beyond the
power of the President to execute.
7. The language of the Constitution is simple and clear as it is broad.
8. It makes no prohibition on the issuance of certain kinds of loans or distinctions as to which kind
of debt instruments are more onerous than others.
9. The only restriction, aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that the loans
must be subject to limitations provided by law.
10. Petitioners point out that a supposed difference between contracting a loan and issuing bonds is
that the former creates creditor-debt relationship while the latter does not.
11. They explain that a contract of loan enables the debtor to restructure or novate the loan, which
benefit is lost upon conversion of the loans into bonds. The novatable character of loans are
surrendered for the irrevocable and unpostponable demandability of the a bearer bond.
12.

Saguisag vs Ochoa
1. Presidents power in foreign relations is limited by:
a. Section 2 of Article II on the conduct of war
b. Sections 20 and 21 of Article VII on foreign loans, treaties, and international agreements
c. Sections 4(2) and 5(2)(a) of Article VIII on the judicial review of executive acts
d. Sections 4 and 25 of Article VIII on treaties and international agreements
2. The treaty-making power of the President is shared by the Senate.
3. Mutual Defense Treaty:
 a. It allowed for mutual assistance in maintaining and developing their individual and collective
capacities to resist an armed attack;
b. It provided for their mutual self-defense in the event of an armed attack against the
territory of either party.
4. EDCA authorizes the US military forces to have access to and conduct activities within certain
Agreed Locations in the country. It was not transmitted to the Senate on the executives
understanding that to do so was no longer necessary.
5. Issue: WON the Executive Department committed gave abuse of discretion in entering into
EDCA in the form of an executive agreement.
6. The constitutionally restricted authority pertains to the entry of the bases, troops or facilities
and not to the activities to be done after the entry.
7. Bernas: there are two kinds of executive agreement:
a. First kind proceeds from an executive act which affects external relations independent of
the legislative; might take form of protocols or exchanges of notes or conventions
b. Second kind is an executive act in pursuance of legislative authorization; maybe in the
nature of commercial agreements
8. International agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those
involving international agreements of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties.
9. Executive agreements merely involve arrangements on the implementation of existing policies,
rules, laws or agreements. They are concluded:
a. To adjust the details of a treaty
b. Pursuant to or upon confirmation by an act of the Legislature; or
c. In the exercise of the Presidents independent powers under the Constitution.
10. Executive agreements hinge on prior constitutional or legislative authorizations.
11. First, executive agreements must remain traceable to an express or implied authorization under
the Constitution, statutes or treaties. They cannot expressly create new international obligations
that are not expressly allowed or reasonably implied in the law they purport to implement.
12. Second, treaties are by their very nature, considered superior to the executive agreements.
Because of the participation of the Senate, a treaty is regarded as having the same status as a
statute.
13. The following are the limitations of the Presidents power in concluding international
agreements:
a. Policy of freedom from nuclear weapons within the Philippine territory
b. Fixing of tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other
duties which must be pursuant to the authority granted by the Congress;
c. Grant of any tax exemption which must be pursuant to a law concurred in by a majority of
all the members of congress
d. Contrating or guaranteeing of foreign loans that must be previously concurred in by the
Monetary Board;
e. Authorization of the presence of foreign ml=ilitary bases, troops, or facilities which must be
in the form of a treaty concurred in by the Senate
14. The court does not look into whether an international agreement should be in the form of a
treaty or an executive agreement. The task of the court is to determine whether the
international agreement is consistent with the applicable limitations.

Nicolas vs Romulo
1. The Philippines should have custody of Smith because VFA is void and unconstitutional.
2. The VFA is merely an implementing agreement to the main RP-US Military Defense Treaty.
 3. As an implementing agreement, it was not necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for
advice and consent, but merely to the US Cogress under the Case-Zocblocki Act within 60 days
of its ratification. It is for this reason that the US has certified that it recognizes the VFA as a
binding international agreement (ie a treaty).
4. Petitioners: VFA also violates the rule-making power of the Court. Section 5, article VIII.
5. Petitioners: VFA also violates the equal protection clause. Section 1, article III.
6. The rule in international law: the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the
sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties.
7. The Romulo-Kenney agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy
are not in accord with the provisions in VFA because such detention is not by Philippine
authorities.
8. VFA is a self-executing agreement, because the agreement is intended to carry out obligations
and undertakings under the US-RP MDT.
9. VFA is covered by Case-Zablocki Act. VFA has been registered under this Act.

Comm of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading

1. EST was a shipping company charged in the importation from Japan of onion and garlic into the
Philippines. In 1956, the Commissioner of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the
import goods because EST was not able to comply with Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45. The
said circulars were pursuant to EO 328 w/c sought to regulate the importation of such non-
dollar goods from Japan (as there was a Trade and Financial Agreement b/n the Philippines and
Japan then). EST questioned the validity of the said EO averring that the said EO was never
concurred upon by the Senate. The issue was elevated to the Court of Tax Appeals and the latter
ruled in favor of EST. The Commissioner appealed.
2. International agreements involving political issues or changes of national policy and those
involving international arrangements of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties.
But international agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying out well-established
national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more or less temporary
nature usually take the form of executive agreements.
3. It would seem to be sufficient, in order to show that the trade agreements under the act of 1934
are not anomalous in character, that they are not treaties, and that they have abundant
precedent in our history, to refer to certain classes of agreements heretofore entered into by
the Executive without the approval of the Senate.
4. They cover such subjects as the inspection of vessels, navigation dues, income tax on shipping
profits, the admission of civil aircraft, customs matters, and commercial relations generally,
international claims, postal matters, the registration of trade-marks and copyrights, etc. Some of
them were concluded not by specific congressional authorization but in conformity with policies
declared in acts of Congress with respect to the general subject matter, such as tariff acts; while
still others, particularly those with respect to the settlement of claims against foreign
governments, were concluded independently of any legislation.

Beltran vs Macasiar
1. The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure
the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction.
2. The privilege of immunity from suit may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any
other person in the Presidents behalf.
3. An accused on a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the
presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused.
4. There is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege.