The Philippines participated in the negotiation of a multilateral treaty, which required signature and ratification for a state to become a party to such treaty. The Philippine ambassador signed the treaty on behalf of the Philippines but the text of the treaty was intentionally not transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence. May the Office of the President be compelled to transmit the text of the treaty for Senate concurrence? Explain.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Answer: No, the Office of the President cannot be compelled to transmit the text of the treaty. Legal Basis: Under Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, treaty- making is an executive prerogative vested in the President as primary architect of foreign policy. In Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court held that signing a treaty merely authenticates its text, whereas ratification is an executive act within the sole discretion of the President. The Senate’s role is limited to
Unlock the full Political Law answers 365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
Quick check
May the Office of the President be compelled by a writ of mandamus to transmit the text of the signed treaty to the Senate for its concurrence?
Under Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution and Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, the President is the sole organ and chief architect of foreign policy who holds exclusive authority over treaty negotiations and ratification. Signing a treaty merely authenticates its text, whereas ratification remains an executive act. The Senate's constitutional role is strictly limited to giving or withholding concurrence after the President submits the treaty. Consequently, the Executive cannot be compelled through a writ of mandamus to submit a signed treaty to the Senate for concurrence.