In our system of government, the President, being the head of state, is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole representative with foreign nations.
As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs.
 |
SHOP HERE VOL. I VOL. II
Hence, the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations.
|
In the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him.
Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate."
The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations.
By requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by the President, the Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate.
The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
Hence, [in this case] (read the factual antecedents here: https://pastepeso.com/2hc4ekq0b ) it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it.
Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus.
This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.
The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the Senate.
[G.R. No. 158088 July 6, 2005]
SENATOR AQUILINO PIMENTEL et al. vs. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, et al.
Read the full decision at https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jul2005/gr_158088_2005.html
We trust you gained some knowledge from this topic. Please leave a comment about this lesson in the comment section below. Also, please consider supporting us by clicking on the advertisement on our website.
 |
"The series that made thousands of lawyers." SHOP HERE |
LAW BOOK FLAGS / FILING TABS
 |
Bhe, para hindi kana malito, at madali mo siyang mahanap?  Lagyan natin ng color ang buhay mo? Este ang books mo? |

 |
Phone screen cleaner
 SHOP HERE!
|
 |
Save time and write with confidence. QuillBot is a paraphrasing and summarizing tool that helps millions of students and professionals cut their writing time by more than half using state-of-the-art AI to rewrite any sentence, paragraph, or article.
|
|
FOLLOW US! for more BAR Q-&-A
|
Comments
Post a Comment