This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| First, the concept of "executive agreement" is so well-entrenched in this Court's pronouncements on the powers of the President. When the Court validated the concept of "executive agreement," it did so with full knowledge of the Senate's role in concurring in treaties. It was aware of the problematique of distinguishing when an international agreement needed Senate concurrence for validity, and when it did not; and the Court continued to validate the existence of "executive agreements" even after the 1987 Constitution.[172] This follows a long line of similar decisions upholding the power of the President to enter into an executive agreement.[173] | |||||