A full treaty is only necessary when an agreement involves changes in Philippine national policy, and the agreement must therefore be submitted to the Senate for ratification. On the other hand, if an agreement implements only existing obligations, laws or directives, an executive agreement will suffice.- Paolo Miguel Q. Bernardo, Contributor The American approach is somewhat similar to ours. For them, there are executive agreements in three forms: 1) agreements made on the basis of the president`s constitutional authority (executive agreements); 2.) Agreements reached in accordance with the laws of Congress (executive agreements of Congress); 3.) agreements reached under a previous treaty that had been duly ratified. Finally, does the President have the power to unilaterally withdraw the country from an international agreement? Some senators do not think so. Senator Drilon proposed a resolution stating that «the termination or revocation of international contracts and agreements concluded by the Senate will only be valid and effective after approval by the Senate. A contract requires Senate approval to be valid, whereas an executive agreement only requires the signature of the president or his representative, without the need for Senate approval. The Edca was signed by the Minister of Defence, Voltaire Gazmin, and was not submitted for ratification by the Senate. Jemy Gatdula is the Principal Fellow of the Philippine Council for Diplomatic Relations and is responsible for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence at the Philippine Law Academy. The President`s executive means the enforcement (execution) of laws, including contracts. However, contrary to the legislation, contracts have integrated termination clauses. The power of the president to «execute» a contract therefore logically implies the power to apply, if necessary, this termination clause; Who calls if an agreement is a contract or an executive agreement? Under EO 459/s.1997, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Supreme Court has long held that, under international law, executive agreements and treaties are virtually the same in their ability to link the Philippine government to an agreement with another government. «There is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their relationship with the states concerned,» the Tribunal said. Honestly, the Philippines itself should have treated the VFA as an executive agreement. The reason why a contract has been filed (i.e. Senate approval is required) is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps a prudent interpretation of Article XVIII.25 of our Constitution, which states that «military bases, troops or foreign facilities in the Philippines can only be admitted under a treaty duly signed by the Senate. First, the distinction between contracts and executive treaties: what is the difference? None in international law. The two international agreements are also binding on the parties.

In practice, in national law, none; The differences, if any, are due to the procedural aspect.