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. (Sec. 21, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution)
|
|---|
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".
Issues:
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".
Issues:
1. Does Gonzales have sufficient interest to file the case?
2. Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in this case
3. What is the nature of the government contracts with Vietnam and Burma? Are they valid?
4. May an international agreement be invalidated by our courts?
2. Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in this case
3. What is the nature of the government contracts with Vietnam and Burma? Are they valid?
4. May an international agreement be invalidated by our courts?
Held:
1. Yes. Apart from prohibiting the importation of rice and corn, RA 3452 declares that "the policy of the Government" is to "engage in the purchase of these basic foods directly from those tenants, farmers, growers, producers and landowners in the Philippines who wish to dispose of their products at a price that will afford them a fair and just return for their labor and capital investment. ... ." Pursuant to this provision, petitioner, as a planter with a rice land of substantial proportion, is entitled to a chance to sell to the Government the rice it now seeks to buy abroad. Moreover, since the purchase of said commodity will have to be effected with public funds mainly raised by taxation, and as a rice producer and landowner petitioner must necessarily be a taxpayer, it follows that he has sufficient personality and interest to seek judicial assistance with a view to restraining what he believes to be an attempt to unlawfully disburse said funds.
2. No. The principle requiring the previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable where the question in dispute is purely a legal one", or where the controverted act is "patently illegal" or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter-ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. The case at bar fails under each one of the foregoing exceptions to the general rule.
3. The parties to said contracts do not appear to have regarded the same as executive agreements. But, even assuming that said contracts may properly considered as executive agreements, the same are unlawful, as well as null and void, from a constitutional viewpoint, said agreements being inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452. Although the President may, under the American constitutional system enter into executive agreements without previous legislative authority, he may not, by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto. Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. The former may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter, except in the exercise of his veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of law, by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.
Under Commonwealth Act No. 138, in all purchases by the Government, including those made by and/or for the armed forces, preference shall be given to materials produced in the Philippines. The importation involved in the case at bar violates this general policy of our Government, aside from the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452.
4. 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. (Gonzalez vs. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, October 22, 1963)
1. Yes. Apart from prohibiting the importation of rice and corn, RA 3452 declares that "the policy of the Government" is to "engage in the purchase of these basic foods directly from those tenants, farmers, growers, producers and landowners in the Philippines who wish to dispose of their products at a price that will afford them a fair and just return for their labor and capital investment. ... ." Pursuant to this provision, petitioner, as a planter with a rice land of substantial proportion, is entitled to a chance to sell to the Government the rice it now seeks to buy abroad. Moreover, since the purchase of said commodity will have to be effected with public funds mainly raised by taxation, and as a rice producer and landowner petitioner must necessarily be a taxpayer, it follows that he has sufficient personality and interest to seek judicial assistance with a view to restraining what he believes to be an attempt to unlawfully disburse said funds.
2. No. The principle requiring the previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable where the question in dispute is purely a legal one", or where the controverted act is "patently illegal" or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter-ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. The case at bar fails under each one of the foregoing exceptions to the general rule.
3. The parties to said contracts do not appear to have regarded the same as executive agreements. But, even assuming that said contracts may properly considered as executive agreements, the same are unlawful, as well as null and void, from a constitutional viewpoint, said agreements being inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452. Although the President may, under the American constitutional system enter into executive agreements without previous legislative authority, he may not, by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto. Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. The former may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter, except in the exercise of his veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of law, by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.
Under Commonwealth Act No. 138, in all purchases by the Government, including those made by and/or for the armed forces, preference shall be given to materials produced in the Philippines. The importation involved in the case at bar violates this general policy of our Government, aside from the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452.
4. 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. (Gonzalez vs. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897, October 22, 1963)
0 Comments
Post a Comment