You are on page 1of 1

CONSTI 1 DIGESTS | CANDELARIA | ABELLAR ARCILLA ATIENZA BANTA BAYANI BELLO BUGAY CUALOPING DE LUIS DE VESA GANDINGCO GOMEZ

GUIANG LIM MANGAYA MENDOZA


NIERRA ONG PENILLA RACELA REYES REYES TRIAS VALDEZ VILLAMOR WENCESLAO

ART VII SEC 21


66. USAFFE Veterans Association v Treasurer of the Philippines
(Nierra)
G.R. No. L-10500 | June 30, 1959 | Bengzon, J.
Senate Concurrence in International Agreements
PETITIONERS: USAFFE Veterans Association
RESPONDENTS: Treasurer of the Philippines
DOCTRINE: Executive agreements may be entered into with other
states without the concurrence of the Senate; The act of appropriating
funds to comply with an Executive Agreement constitutes a ratification
thereof
SUMMARY (RECIT READY): The Romulo-Snyder Agreement was entered
into by the Philippines and the United States. The Philippines undertook
to repay its debt of $35 million dollars, which was taken from funds
initially intended for the war effort in the Pacific. Petitioners contend that
the Philippine Government had no authority to return such funds to the
United States and that the Romulo-Snyder Agreement was invalid
because it was not approved by 2/3 of the membership of the Senate.
The Court ruled that the Executive Branch, through its Foreign Secretary,
Romulo, had the authority to enter into such an agreement. Also, it held
that because the agreement was an Executive Agreement and not a
Treaty, concurrence by Senate was unnecessary.
FACTS:

Romulo-Snyder Agreement was entered into in 1950

The agreement provided that the Philippine Government would


return to the United States, in 10 annual installments, a total of
$35 Million dollars advanced by the United States to, but unspent
by, the National Defense Forces of the Philippines.

USAFFE Veterans Association (USAFFE) pray that the RomuloSnyder Agreement be annulled and that the money be used to
pay all pending claims of the veterans represented by USAFFE.

Petitioners contend that U.S. Secretary of Treasury Snyder and


Philippine Foreign Secretary Romulo had no authority to enter the
Romulo-Snyder agreement.
Historical Background

In 1941, foreseeing the War in the Pacific, US President Roosevelt


called into service the Armed forces of the United States and all
Military Forces of the Military Commonwealth, through
Proclamation No. 740 of President Quezon

Control over the United States Army in the Far East (USAFFE)
and the Philippine Army was given to Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Public Act No. 353 of the United States provided an appropriation


of $269,000,000 for the maintenance of such Armed Forces
A total of P570,863,000 was directly transferred to the Philippine
Armed Forces for:
o Payment in arrears for services rendered
o Supplies
$35 million remain unspent
President Quirino, considering the dire need of the
Philippines, proposed to the US Government that the $35
million be retained as a loan to be paid in 10 years
Romulo-Snyder Agreement was signed in Washington in 1950

ISSUE: Whether of not the concurrence of the Senate was necessary for
the validity of the
Romulo-Snyder Agreement.
HELD: No. The Concurrence of the Senate was not necessary.
RATIO: The Romulo-Snyder agreement was an EXECUTIVE
AGREEMENT not a treaty. 1

In the Case of Altman v US it was held that an international


compact between two sovereign nations dealing with commercial
relations between the said countries is an executive agreement
and not technically a treaty.2

There are two types of Executive Agreements: (1) Presidential


Agreements and (2) Congressional-Executive Agreements.
o The Romulo-Snyder Agreement may fall under either type
of executive agreement.

Initially it was a Presidential Agreement

Subsequent ratification of congress through


appropriation of funds turned it into a
Congressional-Executive agreement.
o Therefore, it was not necessary for the Senate to ratify
the agreement in order for it to bind the Philippine
Government because it was an executive agreement and
not a treaty.

1 The distinction between executive agreements and treaties is purely a


constitutional one and has no international legal significance.

2 Treaties require the concurrence of 2/3 of the members of Senate