Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230, (1963)

    Uploaded by

    Madelinia
    The document discusses a case where a rice planter filed a petition questioning the validity of the government's attempt to import foreign rice. It was argued that the importation was prohibited by law but was allowed under executive agreements signed with other countries. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the importation was not authorized and the executive agreements were null and void since they were inconsistent with existing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230, (1963)

    Uploaded by

    Madelinia
    1K views2 pages
    The document discusses a case where a rice planter filed a petition questioning the validity of the government's attempt to import foreign rice. It was argued that the importation was prohibited by law but was allowed under executive agreements signed with other countries. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the importation was not authorized and the executive agreements were null and void since they were inconsistent with existing law.

    Original Description:

    Constitututional Law

    Original Title

    Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230, (1963).doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a rice planter filed a petition questioning the validity of the government's attempt to import foreign rice. It was argued that the importation was prohibited by law but was allowed under executive agreements signed with other countries. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the importation was not authorized and the executive agreements were null and void since they were inconsistent with existing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230, (1963)

    Uploaded by

    Madelinia
    The document discusses a case where a rice planter filed a petition questioning the validity of the government's attempt to import foreign rice. It was argued that the importation was prohibited by law but was allowed under executive agreements signed with other countries. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the importation was not authorized and the executive agreements were null and void since they were inconsistent with existing law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Page 1 of 2

    Topic: Section 21 Art. VII Foreign Relations: Senate Concurrence in International


    Agreements
    RAMON A. GONZALES (Petitioner),
    - versus
    RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, as Executive Secretary, MACARIO PERALTA, JR., as
    Secretary of Defense, PEDRO GIMENEZ, as Auditor General, CORNELIO
    BALMACEDA, as Secretary of Commerce and Industry, and SALVADOR MARINO,
    Secretary of Justice (Respondents).
    G.R. No. L-21897

    October 22, 1963

    FACTS:
    Executive Secretary authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased from
    private sources. (There was a Procurement Committee created.)
    Gonzales, a rice planter, filed a petition question the validity of the attempt to import
    foreign rice. He contends it is against RA 3452 which prohibits importation of rice and
    corn by the Rice and Corn Admin or any other government agency.
    RA 3452 AN ACT TO ADOPT A PROGRAM TO STABILIZE THE PRIZE OF
    PALAY, RICE AND CORN, TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR
    PRODUCTION, AND TO CREATE A RICE AND CORN
    ADMINISTRATION TO IMPLEMENT THE SAME, AND TO PROVIDE
    FUNDS THEREFOR.
    Hechanova countered that the importation is authorized by the President for military
    stock pile purposes. (that the president is duty-bound to prepare for the challenge of
    threats of war or emergency without waiting for special authority)
    Hechanova further contends that there is no prohibition on importation made by the
    Government itself.
    Hechanova also argued that the Government has already entered into 2 contracts with
    Vietnam and Burma. That these contracts constitute valid executive agreements under
    international law; that such agreements became binding and effective upon signing
    thereof by the representatives of both parties.
    It is argued that when there is a conflict between a treaty and a statute
    (the statute prohibiting importation), then the conflict must be resolved in favor of
    the one which is latest in point of time (in this case, the treaty).
    ISSUE:
    What is the nature of the government contracts with Vietnam and Burma? Which
    should prevail, the contracts or RA 3452?
    HELD:
    SC: The parties to said contracts do not appear to have regarded the same as
    executive agreements. Even assuming that said contracts are executive agreements,
    they are null and void, because they are inconsistent with RA 3452.

    Page 2 of 2

    Although the President may enter into executive agreements without previous legislative
    authority, he may not, by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which is
    prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto.
    Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce the laws
    enacted by Congress. He may not defeat legislative enactments by indirectly repealing
    the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act
    prohibited by said laws.
    **Also, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the case. The Constitution authorizes
    the nullification of a treaty not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also
    when it runs counter to the act of Congress.
    DECISION:
    WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that respondent Executive
    Secretary had and has no power to authorize the importation in question; that he
    exceeded his jurisdiction in granting said authority; said importation is not sanctioned by
    law and is contrary to its provisions; and that, for lack of the requisite majority, the
    injunction prayed for must be and is, accordingly denied. It is so ordered.

    You might also like