E.O.

459; 1997: PROVIDING FOR THE GUIDELINES IN THE NEGOTIATION

OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND ITS RATIFICATION
Every negotiation of all treaties and executive agreements (E.A.) as well as its
amendment shall be coordinated and made only with the participation of the DFA. The
composition of any PH negotiation panel shall be coordinated with the DFA. Before any
international meeting or negotiation of a treaty or E.A., authorization must be secured by the
lead agency from the President through the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
The issuance of full powers must be made by the President of the PH who may delegate
this function to the SFA. The ff, shall not require full powers prior to negotiating or signing a
treaty or an EA: 1) SFA, 2) Heads of PH Diplomatic Missions, 3) Representatives accredited by
the PH to an international conference

In cases involving negotiations of agreements, the composition of the Philippine panel or

delegation shall be determined by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs and the lead agency if it is not the Department of Foreign Affairs. The lead
agency in the negotiation of a treaty or an executive agreement, or any amendment thereto,
shall convene a meeting of the panel members prior to the commencement of any negotiations
for the purpose of establishing the parameters of the negotiating position of the panel. No
deviation from the agreed parameters shall be made without prior consultations with the
members of the negotiating panel.

A treaty or an executive agreement enters into force upon compliance with the domestic
requirements stated in this Order. No treaty or executive agreement shall be given provisional
effect unless it is shown that a pressing national interest will be upheld thereby. The Department
of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the concerned agencies, shall determine whether a treaty
or an executive agreement, or any amendment thereto, shall be given provisional effect.

For Treaties and All executive agreements shall be transmitted to the Department of
Foreign Affairs after their signing for the preparation of the ratification papers. The transmittal
shall include the highlights of the agreements and the benefits which will accrue to the
Philippines arising from them.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, pursuant to the endorsement by the concerned

agency, shall transmit the agreements to the President of the Philippines for his ratification. The
original signed instrument of ratification shall then be returned to the Department of Foreign
Affairs for appropriate action.
GONZALES VS HECHANOVA

Facts:

Executive Secretary Hechanova authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased from
private sources. Gonzales, a rice planter, and president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn
Planters Association, filed a petition questioning said act because Republic Act No. 3452 which
allegedly repeals or amends Republic Act No. 2207 — explicitly prohibits the importation of
foreign rice by the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency.

Hechanova countered that the importation is authorized by the President for military stock pile
purposes (the president is duty-bound to prepare for the challenge of threats of war or
emergency without waiting for special authority). He also contends that there is no prohibition on
importation made by the “Government itself”. He also further that the Government has already
entered into 2 contracts with Vietnam and Burma; that these contracts constitute valid
executive agreements under international law; and, that such agreements became binding and
effective upon signing thereof by the representatives of both parties. Hechanova also maintains
that the status of petitioner as a rice planter does not give him sufficient interest to file the
petition herein and secure the relief therein prayed for and that Gonzales has not exhausted all
administrative remedies available to him before coming to court".

Issue: May an international agreement be invalidated by our courts?

Held:

Yes. The Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative, by providing, in
Section 2 of Article VIII thereof, that the Supreme Court may not be deprived "of its jurisdiction
to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error as the law or the
rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in — (1) All cases in
which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or
regulation is in question". In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty,
not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of
Congress.
Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136, July 9, 2004

The Court would further observe that some human rights conventions, and in particular
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, contain provisions which States parties
may invoke in order to derogate, under various conditions, from certain of their conventional
obligations.  In this respect, the Court would however recall that the communication notified by
Israel to the Secretary-General of the United Nations under Article 4 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerns only Article 9 of the Covenant, relating to the
right to freedom and security of person; Israel is accordingly bound to respect all the other
provisions of that instrument.

There is no clause of this kind in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.  On the other hand, Article 12, paragraph 3, of that instrument provides that
restrictions on liberty of movement as guaranteed under that Article “shall not be subject to any
restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security,
public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are
consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant”.  As for the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 4 thereof contains a general
provision as follows:
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those
rights provided by the State in conformity with the present Covenant, the State may subject
such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be
compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general
welfare in a democratic society.”

The Court would observe that the restrictions provided for under Article 12, paragraph 3,
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are, by the very terms of that
provision, exceptions to the right of freedom of movement contained in paragraph 1.  In addition,
it is not sufficient that such restrictions be directed to the ends authorized; they must also be
necessary for the attainment of those ends.  As the Human Rights Committee put it, they “must
conform to the principle of proportionality” and “must be the least intrusive instrument amongst
those which might achieve the desired result.

The Court would further observe that the restrictions on the enjoyment by the
Palestinians living in the territory occupied by Israel of their economic, social and cultural rights,
resulting from Israel’s construction of the wall, fail to meet a condition laid down by Article 4 of
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that is to say that their
implementation must be “solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic
society”.