Bar Questions

1. May a treaty violate international law? If your answer is in the affirmative, explain when such may happen. If your answer is in the negative, explain why.

No, a treaty does not generally violate international law. A treaty to be valid must posses the following essential elements: a) treaty making capacity; b) authorized representatives; c)freedom of consent; d) lawful subject-matter; and e) compliance with constitutional processes.Therefore, a violation of the international law makes subject-matter unlawful. Any agreement which is contrary to international law makes a treaty null and void. Although it has been provided that one of the functions of treaty is...to make it possible for the parties to modify the rules of international customary law by means of optional principles or standards, but it does not mean that it can be violated. Instead, it serves to augment and strengthen the existence of international laws.




2. The President alone without the concurrence of the Senate abrogated a treaty. Assume that the other country-party to the treaty is agreeable to the abrogation provided it complies with the Philippine Constitution. If a case involving the validity of the treaty abrogation is brought to the Supreme Court, how should it be resolved?


The President of the Philippines has the sole right or duty to make or enter into treaties. The Constitution does not provide for the authority to abrogate. But since it has been stressed in the Constitution of the Philippines that the power to ratify treaties is vested in the President and not, as is commonly believed, in the Legislature,thus,it can be inferred that the power to abrogate is rightfully lodged in the same authority.