Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Abaya V Ebdane

    Uploaded by

    Chap Choy
    The document discusses a loan agreement between the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the Philippine government. There is a question of whether the loan agreement constitutes a treaty or executive agreement. The Supreme Court held that the loan agreement, taken together with an earlier Exchange of Notes between the Japanese and Philippine governments, forms an executive agreement. Executive agreements do not require Senate ratification but become binding through executive action alone. The Exchange of Notes consisted of letters between the two countries confirming the terms of loans from Japan to the Philippines.

    Copyright:

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

    Abaya V Ebdane

    Uploaded by

    Chap Choy
    56 views2 pages
    The document discusses a loan agreement between the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the Philippine government. There is a question of whether the loan agreement constitutes a treaty or executive agreement. The Supreme Court held that the loan agreement, taken together with an earlier Exchange of Notes between the Japanese and Philippine governments, forms an executive agreement. Executive agreements do not require Senate ratification but become binding through executive action alone. The Exchange of Notes consisted of letters between the two countries confirming the terms of loans from Japan to the Philippines.

    Original Title

    Abaya v Ebdane

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a loan agreement between the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the Philippine government. There is a question of whether the loan agreement constitutes a treaty or executive agreement. The Supreme Court held that the loan agreement, taken together with an earlier Exchange of Notes between the Japanese and Philippine governments, forms an executive agreement. Executive agreements do not require Senate ratification but become binding through executive action alone. The Exchange of Notes consisted of letters between the two countries confirming the terms of loans from Japan to the Philippines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views2 pages

    Abaya V Ebdane

    Uploaded by

    Chap Choy
    The document discusses a loan agreement between the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the Philippine government. There is a question of whether the loan agreement constitutes a treaty or executive agreement. The Supreme Court held that the loan agreement, taken together with an earlier Exchange of Notes between the Japanese and Philippine governments, forms an executive agreement. Executive agreements do not require Senate ratification but become binding through executive action alone. The Exchange of Notes consisted of letters between the two countries confirming the terms of loans from Japan to the Philippines.

    Copyright:

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

    FACTS:

    On May 7, 2004 Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Department of Public Works and Highways
    (DPWH) issued a Resolution which recommended the award to China Road & Bridge Corporation of the
    contract for the implementation of civil works for a project which consists of the
    improvement/rehabilitation of a road in Catanduanes. The bid was more than ₱200 million overpriced
    based on the Approved Budget of the Contract.

    This Loan Agreement No. PH-204 was executed by and between the Japan Bank for International
    Cooperation (JBIC) and the Philippine Government pursuant to the exchange of Notes executed by and
    between Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to the
    Philippines, and then Foreign Affairs Secretary Siazon, in behalf of their respective governments. Based
    on the exchange of notes, the two countries have reached an understanding concerning Japanese loans
    to be extended to the Philippines

    The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement No. PH-P204 between the JBIC and the Philippine
    Government is neither a treaty, an international nor an executive agreement that would bar the
    application of RA 9184. (In case of conflict between the terms of the Treaty or International or
    Executive Agreement and this IRR, the former shall prevail.) They point out that to be considered a
    treaty, an international or an executive agreement, the parties must be two sovereigns or States
    whereas in the case of Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, the parties are the Philippine Government and
    the JBIC, a banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese
    Government.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Loan Agreement No. PH-204 between the JBIC and the Philippine Government is a
    kind of a treaty or International or Executive Agreement.

    HELD:

    The Loan Agreement No. PH-204 taken in conjunction with the Exchange of Notes dated December 27,
    1999 between the Japanese Government and the Philippine Government is an executive agreement.
    Loan Agreement No. PH-P204 is an integral part of the Exchange of Notes. It forms part of the Exchange
    of Notes such that it cannot be properly taken independent thereof.

    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.

    …treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, memoranda of understanding,


    modus vivendi and exchange of notes all are refer to international instruments binding at international
    law.

    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.
    Thougths/Conclusion:

    Under the fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is, in fact,
    embodied in Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that "[a]ny treaty or international or executive
    agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory
    shall be observed.

    Notes:

     A full-fledged treaty is required only when an agreement involves changes in Philippine


    national policy, and the agreement must therefore be submitted to the Senate for ratification.
     On the other hand, when an agreement merely implements already existing treaty obligations,
    laws or policy, an executive agreement will suffice.

     Treaties are formal documents which require ratification by the Senate


     executive agreements become binding through executive action without the need of a vote by
    the Senate or by Congress.

    The Exchange of Notes consisted of two documents: (1) a Letter from the Government of Japan, signed
    by Ambassador Ara, addressed to then Secretary of Foreign Affairs Siazon, confirming the
    understanding reached between the two governments concerning the loans to be extended by the
    Government of Japan to the Philippines; and (2) a document denominated as Records of Discussion
    where the salient terms of the loans as set forth by the Government of Japan, through the Japanese
    delegation, were reiterated and the said terms were accepted by the Philippine delegation. Both
    Ambassador Ara and then Secretary Siazon signed the Records of Discussion as representatives of the
    Government of Japan and Philippine Government, respectively.

    You might also like