Verbal Agreement Between Philippines And China

In addition, former Foreign Minister Albert del Rosario and former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales said that any fisheries agreement reached by Duterte could not surpass the Constitution. READ: Sovereignty against sovereign rights: What do we have in West PH Sea?) Duterte again cited Unclos when he tried to justify allowing China to fish in Philippine waters and said that international law agreements should be concluded. Locsin issued the statement after President Salvador Panelo`s spokesman said there was no written agreement between Duterte and Xi allowing the Chinese to fish in the Philippines` exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Batongbacal stated that this meant that all applications for foreign fishing rights in the offshore waters of another coastal state were cancelled by the EEZs. This ensured that coastal states had control over foreign fisheries, since any agreement allowing foreign fishermen in a country`s EEZ required a formal agreement detailing the specific conditions of access to the waters. In his speech, Tolentino said that “verbal agreements” between presidents are respected by international law. The country`s highest court judge added that a Senate inquiry into the alleged deal would be an opportunity to determine exactly what was agreed between Duterte and Xi and whether Philippine law allows it.”But if the president confirms it to the SONA, I think we can`t get out of it. So that`s what we`re related to; We have to respect that,” Carpio said.┬áThe president will have to say that there is no such agreement, because if it exists, we are bound to it,” he added. “The oral agreement cannot be obtained because it is verbal, just as (Senator) Frank (lin) Drilon said you need a document to prove an agreement. That`s exactly what it is,” Locsin said Wednesday in an interview with the abbreviated ABS-CBN when asked whether the oral agreement between President Rodrigo Duterte and Chinese President Xi Jinping was legally binding.

“The president, as the chief architect of our foreign policy, has the power to enter into written or oral executive agreements,” Panelo, who is also the president`s chief jurist, said in a statement. He also said that such agreements are concluded especially when there are security issues that need to be resolved “quickly or slowly to avoid serious conflicts.” “It is up to the Senate to act now, because if it does not act… it will tacitly approve and approve the implementation of an oral agreement that constitutes a treaty that has not been passed by the Senate,” carpio said. After getting a lot of slump out of his statement on July 8, he said he would “maybe” take time in his third SONA to “educate” people about why his deal with Xi was “in accordance with the law.” Therefore, it can be accepted internationally, “if this oral agreement is submitted to the Supreme Court, we follow the Constitution.