Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    SOLON - PIL Assignment

    Uploaded by

    Donnie Ray Solon
    The document discusses whether a treaty can repeal a statute. It agrees with the Supreme Court decision that a treaty cannot repeal a statute for several reasons: 1) Treaties are negotiated by the executive branch subject to checks from Congress, so Congress can limit the president's negotiating powers. 2) If Congress enacts a statute to implement a treaty, it shows legislative approval and the treaty gains authority from the statute. 3) Statutes undergo more scrutiny from elected representatives compared to treaties, which only involve limited congressional participation. 4) In cases of conflict, statutes that underwent rigorous congressional scrutiny necessarily carry more democratic weight than treaties negotiated by one person. Therefore, statutes must prevail over treaties.

    Copyright:

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

    SOLON - PIL Assignment

    Uploaded by

    Donnie Ray Solon
    19 views3 pages
    The document discusses whether a treaty can repeal a statute. It agrees with the Supreme Court decision that a treaty cannot repeal a statute for several reasons: 1) Treaties are negotiated by the executive branch subject to checks from Congress, so Congress can limit the president's negotiating powers. 2) If Congress enacts a statute to implement a treaty, it shows legislative approval and the treaty gains authority from the statute. 3) Statutes undergo more scrutiny from elected representatives compared to treaties, which only involve limited congressional participation. 4) In cases of conflict, statutes that underwent rigorous congressional scrutiny necessarily carry more democratic weight than treaties negotiated by one person. Therefore, statutes must prevail over treaties.

    Original Title

    SOLON_ PIL Assignment

    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 whether a treaty can repeal a statute. It agrees with the Supreme Court decision that a treaty cannot repeal a statute for several reasons: 1) Treaties are negotiated by the executive branch subject to checks from Congress, so Congress can limit the president's negotiating powers. 2) If Congress enacts a statute to implement a treaty, it shows legislative approval and the treaty gains authority from the statute. 3) Statutes undergo more scrutiny from elected representatives compared to treaties, which only involve limited congressional participation. 4) In cases of conflict, statutes that underwent rigorous congressional scrutiny necessarily carry more democratic weight than treaties negotiated by one person. Therefore, statutes must prevail over treaties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views3 pages

    SOLON - PIL Assignment

    Uploaded by

    Donnie Ray Solon
    The document discusses whether a treaty can repeal a statute. It agrees with the Supreme Court decision that a treaty cannot repeal a statute for several reasons: 1) Treaties are negotiated by the executive branch subject to checks from Congress, so Congress can limit the president's negotiating powers. 2) If Congress enacts a statute to implement a treaty, it shows legislative approval and the treaty gains authority from the statute. 3) Statutes undergo more scrutiny from elected representatives compared to treaties, which only involve limited congressional participation. 4) In cases of conflict, statutes that underwent rigorous congressional scrutiny necessarily carry more democratic weight than treaties negotiated by one person. Therefore, statutes must prevail over treaties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    SOLON, Donnie Ray O Public International Law

    20-1-01343 Atty Gabato

    1. Do you agree with the Decision of the Supreme Court insofar as a treaty may not repeal a
    statute?

    Yes. While it is true that The president, being vested with the power and as primary
    architect of foreign policy, negotiates and enters into international agreements , such power is
    not absolute and subject to the system of checks and balances as provided by the
    Constitution. Considering that effecting treaties is a shared function between the executive
    and the legislative branches, Congress may expressly authorize the president to enter into a
    treaty with conditions or limitations as to negotiating prerogatives . As stated to the decision
    on Pangilinan v Cayetano, A statute that were subsequently passed to implement a prior
    treaty signifies legislative approbation of prior executive action , This lends greater weight to
    what would otherwise have been a course of action pursued through executive discretion .
    When such a statute is adopted, the president cannot withdraw from the treaty being
    implemented unless the statute itself is repealed . When a treaty was entered into upon
    Congress's express will, the president may not unilaterally abrogate that treaty . In such an
    instance, the president who signed the treaty simply implemented the law enacted by
    Congress. While the president performed his or her function as primary architect of
    international policy, it was in keeping with a statute . The president had no sole authority , and
    the treaty negotiations were premised not only upon his or her own diplomatic powers , but on
    the specific investiture made by Congress. This means that the president negotiated not
    entirely out of his or her own volition , but with the express mandate of Congress , and more
    important, within the parameters that Congress has set.

    Considering that when a treaty entered into contravene to the Constitution or any
    existing statute, treaties and international agreements must give way , and the statute must
    always prevail. It is because the statute undergoes scrutiny of hundreds of elected legislators
    as compared with treaties which has only limited congressional participation .

    In enacting statutes, both houses of Congress participate . A bill then undergoes three
    readings in each chamber. When such bill passed by either chamber is scrutinized by the
    other, and both chambers consolidate their respective versions through a bicameral
    conference. And only after extensive participation by the people's elected representatives-
    members of the Senate who are elected at large, and, those in the House of Representatives
    who represent districts or national, regional, or sectoral party-list organizations-is a bill
    presented to the president for signature.

    Having a statute went through rigorous scrutiny of the elected congressional


    representatives and senators, statutes enacted by Congress necessarily carry greater
    SOLON, Donnie Ray O Public International Law
    20-1-01343 Atty Gabato

    democratic weight than an agreement negotiated by a single person , for this instance treaties
    and agreements.

    Thus a valid treaty or executive agreement had a force in effect just as much as a
    statute, it cannot supersede any statute passed by the state since a statute had preeminence
    over international agreements. And in case of conflict between a law and a treaty , it is the
    statute that must prevail and as a result a treaty cannot and will not be able to repeal a statute
    by itself. Following the same principle a treaty which was made enable and was implemented
    in the country by a statute cannot be withdrawn by the Chief Executive alone and must
    require the concurrence of the congress for him to be able to repeal the same.
    SOLON, Donnie Ray O Public International Law
    20-1-01343 Atty Gabato

    2. Name an instance where the Supreme Court, prior to Pangilinan, applied lex posterior
    derogat priori, and critique if the ruling in the said case can be reconciled with
    Pangilinan.

    In the case of Secretary of Justice v Lantion

    “The principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal a statute
    and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the
    land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if
    they are in conflict with the constitution”

    In this case, the Supreme Court tries to harmonize the RP-US Extradition Treaty, as
    implemented by Presidential Decree No. 1069. Instead on cancelling out the treaty as against
    the local statutes, the Supreme Court applies principle of Fair play and does not tries to
    negate the two conflicting treaty and statute. Following this jurisprudence, Pangilinan case
    can also be reconciled with the same means. Considering that the Rome Statute has an
    enabling law which is RA 9851, the Pangilinan case should have been decided reconciling
    the treaty and the Statute and if it is desired to withdraw the signature to the rome Statute
    there should have been concurrence from the congress.

    You might also like