RECEIVB
EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
Third Regular Session 
)
E-FILED
Oct 13 2021 m
1- 
10:45 a.m. )
SENATE
Introduced by SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA
AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR SENATE CONCURRENCE IN THE ABROGATION, 
TERMINATION OR REPEAL OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 1, proclaims it a basic Principle of our 
system of government that “[t]he Philippines is a democratic and republican State,” 
and that “[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates 
from them.”
Section 2 further proclaims, again as a basic Principle, that “[t]he Philippines 
renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted 
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy 
of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”
Article VII, Section 21, provides that “[n]o treaty or international agreement 
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the 
Members of the Senate.”
Art. XVIII on Transitory Provisions, Section 4, provides that “All existing 
treaties or international agreements which have not been ratified shall not be renewed 
or extended without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the Members of the 
Senate.”
On 16 March 2021, the Supreme Court, in the case of Sen. Francis Pangilinan, 
et al V. Cayetano, G.R. No. 238875, proclaimed that “the President’s discretion to 
withdraw [from treaties] is qualified by the extent of legislative involvement on the


manner by which a treaty was entered into or came into effect. The President cannot 
unilaterally withdraw from treaties that were entered into pursuant to the legislative 
intent manifested in prior laws, or subsequently affirmed by succeeding laws. Treaties 
where Senate concurrence for accession is expressly premised on the same 
concurrence for withdrawal likewise cannot be the subject of unilateral withdrawal. 
The imposition of Senate concurrence as a condition may be made 
piecemeal, through individual Senate resolutions pertaining to specific 
treaties, or though encompassing legislative action, such as a law, a joint 
resolution by Congress, or a comprehensive Senate resolution.” (Emphasis 
supplied)
Thus, according to the Supreme Court, a law may be passed to impose Senate 
concurrence as a condition prior to withdrawal from treaties.
On 11 August 2021, in a forum organized by the University of the Philippines 
College of Law, Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said 
that “[i]f the Senate does not assert its prerogative to concur, it will lose its prerogative 
to concur. There is constant battle among branches of government. The moment you 
concede your prerogative to another branch, that could bind you in the future;”1
Justice Cai’pio is further quoted saying, “I think what the Senate should do is to 
say that the President can never unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without the 
consent of the Senate, and they should be very categorical about that. The moment you 
show any doubt about your prerogative, you will lose it and this is exactly what 
happened here;”2
The role of the Senate in treaty-making has been considered essential since the 
drafting of the United States Constitution, from which our Constitution was derived. 
In his paper entitled “The Treaty-Making Power of the President and the Senate”, 
former U.S. Senator Augustus Bacon emphasized the role of the Senate saying, 
“[ijndeed, the importance of the Senate in the making of treaties was held in such
1 Lopez, Virgil. Carpio: Senate should assert power in treaty withdrawal following decision on ICC case. GMA 
News Online (11 August 2021). Retrieved from:
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/798910/carpio-senate-should-assert-power-in-treaty-
withdrawal-following-decision-on-icc-case/story/
2 Ibid.


esteem that a serious and determined effort was made to require two-thirds of the 
entire Senate to ratify a treaty, whether present or not.3”
He added that “[o]f the treaty-making power, of the duty of the President, and 
of the duty of the Senate, it may properly be said that there is imposed by the 
constitution a reciprocal and a common duty, one in which each has the advantage of 
the services of the other, one in which there can be no compulsion, one in which each 
can defeat the work of the other, one in which the cooperation and the combination of 
the two, from the inception to the end, is necessary in order to comply fully with the 
intention and design of the Constitution-makers in this regard.”
He added that “[i]t is a salutary practice for the President to be advised by the 
Senate whether there should or should not be an attempt to make a treaty, or to 
interfere in any manner with the affairs of other nations. There are Senators who have 
been in office for a generation and whose advice and counsel would be valuable to any 
President, however learned and able and patriotic he might be. It has rarely happened 
that a President, is superior, in either natural or acquired ability, to the average ability 
of the Senate. It has frequently happened that the President chosen has been without 
any experience in national public affairs. There may be at some time in the future an 
impulsive and strong-willed or, even possibly, a weak President. An election to the 
Presidency does not ipso facto endow one with all knowledge and all wisdom; and it is 
not an unreasonable suggestion that, in the aggregate of ninety Senators, many of them 
men of great capacity and of large experience, there is more of knowledge of public 
affairs, more of conservatism, more of correct judgment of the requirements of public 
interest, than is possessed by any one man in the United States, whoever he may be.”
In our histoiy, the concurrence of the majority of Congress was required by the 
1935 Constitution before entering into treaties and other international agreements. 
This legislative role was largely removed during the 1973 Constitution, which allowed 
the chief executive to “enter into international treaties or agreement as the national 
welfare and interest may require.”**
3 The North American Review, Apr. 1906, Vol. 182, No. 593 (Apr. 1906). Pg 507. Retrieved from: 
https:/Avww.jstor.org/stablc/pdf/25105548.pdf
4 1973 Philippine Constitution, Art. XIV, Section 15.


The 1986 Constitutional Commission proposed to restore the role of the Senate 
in international agreements. Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna said that, “[t]he philosophy 
here is that henceforth any international commitments of the country should have the 
ratification of the popular representatives of the people;”5
It is acknowledged that the President is the chief architect of foreign policy. The 
President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments, 
extend or withhold recognition, maintain diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and 
otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In the realm of treaty-making, the 
President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states. Nonetheless, while the 
President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the Constitution 
provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the 
members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him.6
The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty-making process was 
deemed essential to provide a check on the executive in the field of foreign relations. 
By requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by the 
President, the Constitution ensures a healthy system of checks and balance necessary 
in the nation’s pursuit of political maturity and growth.?
Indeed, even as the President has near exclusive access to information and 
expertise from our Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and his many sources of 
intelligence, the Senate has two crucial things which the whole of the executive branch 
does not: a direct mandate from our people and the constitutional power to disagree 
with him in treaty-making.
Even with decades worth of experience and training in foreign affairs, our DFA 
can only advise the President. They are under the control of the Office of the President 
and are not clothed with the power to check Presidential prerogative.
As popular representatives of the people, the Senate is given the power to 
participate in the treaty-making process. According to the Supreme Court, “while a 
treaty ratified by the President is binding upon the Philippines in the international
5 Bcrnas, SJ. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers. (1995) Pg. 488
6 Pimcniel v. Executive Secretary. G.R. No. 158088. 6 July 2005.
7 Ibid.


plane, it would need the concurrence of the legislature before it can be considered as 
valid and effective in the Philippine domestic jurisdiction. Prior to and even without 
concurrence, the treaty, once ratified, is valid and binding upon the Philippines in the 
international plane. But in order to take effect in the Philippine domestic plane, it 
would have to first undergo legislative concurrence as required under the 
Constitution.”8
Since a treaty has the approval of both the President and the Senate, it has the 
same impact as a statute.?
The Senate represents the legislative will of the whole country. As such, it stands 
to reason that Senate express its power to give or withhold concurrence to treaties and 
international agreements which likewise necessitated legislative concurrence prior to 
their ratification. In as much as a law requires both executive and legislative action 
before it is repealed, it is submitted that a treaty, akin to a law, should also require 
both executive and legislative action.
Othei*wise, it would lead and, indeed, has already led to an absurd situation, 
whereby an action of unilateral withdrawal by the Executive, not sanctioned by the 
Filipino people through their duly elected representatives in the Legislature, would be 
legally and constitutionally invalid and, supposedly, ineffective domestically, yet has 
been considered binding on the Philippines as a State on the international level. Such 
a situation does not only create a legal conundrum, but also leads to a very real and 
dangerous erosion of our international standing and relationships in the international 
community, by putting into question the strength and reliability of our commitment 
to fulfilling our international obligations.
Since the Constitution and the Laws abhor absurdities, and explicitly states that 
the Philippines is a democi'atic and republican state, wherein sovereignty resides in 
the people, and that it “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law 
as part of the law of the land” and “adheres to the policy of’, among others, “amity with 
all nations”, it is imperative, in the interest of abiding by the principle of pacta sunt
s IPAP V. Ochoa. G.R. No. 204605. 19 July 2016. Separate Coneurring Opinion J. Brion. 
9 Sagiiisag v. Ochoa. G.R. No. 212426. 26 July 2016. Dissenting Opinion J. Brion.


servanda, which is arguably the oldest principle of international law,10 to resolve this 
untenable contradiction in a manner consistent with the basic principles, including 
the system of checks and balances, set forth in our Constitution.
This bill, therefore, seeks to explicitly require the concurrence of at least two- 
thirds of the Senate to any act of withdrawal from, or abrogation of, a treaty or an 
international agreement, before the same becomes effective.
This bill aims to protect the interests of our people by making sure that the 
constitutional checks that are in place during our entiy into treaties remain so during 
our withdrawal from the same.
In view of the foregoing, the passage of this bill is earnestly sought.
/ 
p-—
iIeilam. delima
10 “Pacta Sunt Servanda,” https://wvvvv.britannica.com/tonic/pacta-sunt-servanda. last accessed on 3 September 
2021.


EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
Third Regular Session 
)
SENATE
S. No. 2436
RECEIVE0
E-FILED
Oct 13 2021 m
cru
oi date: 
co
time:
10:45 a.m
NOtX
Introduced by SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA
AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR SENATE CONCURRENCE IN THE ABROGATION, 
TERMINATION, OR REPEAL OF TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled:
1 
Section i. No treaty or international agreement duly ratified and entered into
2 
by the Republic of the Philippines shall be abrogated, terminated, or othenvise
3 
repealed by the President without the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of the Senate.
4 
Sec. 2. Repealing Clause. - All provisions of laws, presidential decrees, letters
5 
of instruction and other presidential issuances that are incompatible or inconsistent
6 
with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed.
7 
Sec. 3. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days after its
8 
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
9 
circulation.
Approved,