USAFFE Veterans Association Inc. v Treasurer of the Philippines

• Jurisdiction: Filipinas
• Court: Supreme Court (Philippines)
• Date: 30 June 1959

Philippines, Supreme Court.

USAFFE Veterans Association Inc

and

Treasurer of the Philippines

Treaties Nature of executive agreements Effect of executive agreements Validity Whether agreement lacking legislature's consent binding in international law Loan agreement between Philippines and United States Approval of loan by Head of State but absence of ratification by Senate The law of the Philippines

Note.On 6 November 1950, the Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Carlos P. Romulo, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, John W. Snyder, concluded an agreement whereby US $35,000,000, which had been appropriated by the United States Congress during the Second World War and transferred to the Philippines to meet expenses connected with the mobilization, operation and maintenance of the Army of the Philippines, would be retained by the Philippine Government as a loan. The Agreement, which was not submitted to the Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence, provided for repayment in ten annual instalments.

In October 1954, the plaintiff initiated an action in the Manila Court of first instance seeking that the Agreement be annulled, that officers of the Philippine Republic be restrained from disbursing funds pursuant to the Agreement, and the funds be turned over to the Finance Service of the Armed Forces for the payment of veterans' claims. The petition of the plaintiff was denied and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Court of first instance was affirmed.

With regard to the validity of the Agreement, the Court said:

[T]here is no doubt that President Quirino approved the negotiations. And he had power to contract budgetary loans under Republic Act No 213, amending Republic Act No 16. The most important argument, however, rests on the lack of ratification of the Agreement by the Senate of the Philippines to make it binding on this Government. On this matter the defendants explain as follows:

That the agreement is not a treaty as that term is used in the Constitution, is conceded. The agreement was never submitted to the Senate for concurrence (Article VII, Section 10(7)). However, it must be noted that a treaty is not the only form that an international agreement may assume. For the grant of the treaty-making power to the Executive and the Senate does not exhaust the power of the Government over international relations. Consequently, executive agreements may be entered into with other...