Comparative Cases on the Law of Treaties

1. Lim vs Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 151445, Apr. 11, 2002

- In interpreting treaties the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which contains provisos governing interpretations of international agreements, state: i) a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith ill accordance with the ordinary meaning ii) in interpreting the purpose it shall comprise of any agreement and any instrument made iii) shall be taken into account, together with the context and iv) a special meaning to a term shall be given if intended by the parties.

- From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Hence, "every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith." Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to "invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."

2. Bayan vs Zamora
G.R. No. 138570, Oct. 10, 2000

- The issue her is whether or not the Visiting Forces Agreement entered by the Republic of the Philippines and the United Sates is constitutional or unconstitutional.

- The Supreme Court held that the Visiting Forces Agreement is constitutional having been duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate. The Republic of the Philippines cannot require the United States to submit the agreement to the US Senate for concurrence, for that would be giving a strict construction to the phrase "recognized as a treaty". US treats VFA as an executive agreement because as governed by international law, an executive agreement is just as binding as a treaty.

3. Abaya vs Ebdane
G.R. No. 167919, Feb. 14, 2007

- It is well to understand the definition of an “exchange of notes” under international law. The term is defined in the United Nations Treaty as a record of routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists of the of the exchange of two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the accepting State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats, or departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure or sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval.

- 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 “ any treaty or international or executive agreement affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippines government is a signatory shall be observed”, the DPWH, as the executing agency of the projects financed by Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, rightfully awarded the contract for the implementation of civil works for the CP I project to private respondent China Road and Bridge Corporation.

- The Loan Agreement was subsequently executed and it declared that it was so entered by the parties “ in the light of the contents of the Exchange of Notes between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Philippines, concerning Japanese loans to be extended with a view to promoting the economic stabilization and development efforts of the Philippines. Under the circumstances , the JBIC may well be considered an adjunct of the Japanese government.

4. Comm.of Internal Revenue vs S.C.Johnson and Son, Inc.
G.R. No. 127105, June 25, 1999

- Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

- It bears stress that tax refunds are in the nature of tax exemptions. As such they are regarded as in derogation of sovereign authority and to be construed strictissimi juris against the person or entity claiming the exemption.27 The burden of proof is upon him who claims the exemption in his favor and he must be able to justify his claim by the clearest grant of organic or statute law. Private respondent is claiming for a refund of the alleged overpayment of tax on royalties; however, there is nothing on record to support a claim that the tax on royalties under the RP-US Tax Treaty is paid under similar circumstances as the tax on royalties under the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty.

5. Akbayan vs Aquino
GR 170516, July 16, 2008

- It must still go through the procedures required by the laws of each country for its entry into force, viz:
Article 164. Entry into Force
- This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which the Governments of the Parties exchange diplomatic notes informing each other that their respective legal procedures necessary for entry into force of this Agreement have been completed. It shall remain in force unless terminated as provided for in Article 165.

President Arroyo’s endorsement of the JPEPA to the Senate for concurrence is part of the legal procedures which must be met prior to the agreement’s entry into force.The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the “full text” thereof.The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to obtain, not merely the text of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations. Needless to say that the President’s power to enter into treaties is unlimited but for the requirement of Senate concurrence, since the President must still ensure that all treaties will substantively conform to all the relevant provisions of the Constitution. While possessing vast legislative powers, may not interfere in the field of treaty negotiations.

- Article VII, Section 21 provides for Senate concurrence, such pertains only to the validity of the treaty under consideration, not to the conduct of negotiations attendant to its conclusion. Moreover, it is not even Congress as a whole that has been given the authority to concur as a means of checking the treaty-making power of the President, but only the Senate.Thus, as in the case of petitioners suing in their capacity as private citizens, petitioners-members of the House of Representatives fail to present a “sufficient showing of need” that the information sought is critical to the performance of the functions of Congress, functions that do not include treaty-negotiation.

6. Dept. of Budget Management- PS vs Kolonwell Trading
G.R. No. 175608, June 8, 2007

- Under the fundamental international law principle of pacta sunt servanda which is in fact embodied in the afore-qouted Section 4 of RA 9184, the Philippines, as borrower , bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and obligation under Loan NO. 7118-Ph. Applying this postulate in the concrete to this case, the IABAC was legally obliged to comply with, or accord primacy to, the WB Guidelines on the conduct and implementation of the bidding/ procurement process in question.

-The Court is unable to lend concurrence to the trial court’s and respondents positions on the interplay of the protest and jurisdictional issues. Section 55 of RA 9184 sets three (3) requirements that must be met by the party desiring to protest the decision of the Bids and Awards Committee. These are:1) the protest must be in writing , in the form of a verified position paper; 2) the protest must be submitted to the head of the procuring entity; and 3) the payment of a non-refundable protest fee. Surely, the absence of provisions on protest fee and reglementary period does not signify the deferment of the implementation of the protest mechanism as a condition sine qua non to resort to judicial relief. As applied to the present case, the respondent had to file a protest and pursue it until its completion before going to court. There was hardly any need to wait for the specific filing period to prescribed by the IRR because the protest, as a matter of necessity, has to be lodged before court action.