{"id":245527,"date":"2020-02-20T07:01:45","date_gmt":"2020-02-20T12:01:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=245527"},"modified":"2020-02-20T07:01:45","modified_gmt":"2020-02-20T12:01:45","slug":"senate-nod-in-treaty-abrogation-needs-cha-cha-pimentel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/02\/20\/senate-nod-in-treaty-abrogation-needs-cha-cha-pimentel\/","title":{"rendered":"Senate nod in treaty abrogation needs Cha-Cha: Pimentel"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
In an interview, Pimentel said the framers of the 1987 Constitution had taken the time to put the provision on the Senate\u2019s participation in the ratification of a treaty but failed to \u201cinsert a sentence\u201d for a Senate concurrence on treaty abrogation. (File photo<\/a>: Senator Koko Pimentel\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA<\/strong>\u00a0— The Constitution may have to be amended if the Senate wants to have a say in the abrogation of a treaty, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III said on Thursday.<\/p>\n

In an interview, Pimentel said the framers of the 1987 Constitution had taken the time to put the provision on the Senate\u2019s participation in the ratification of a treaty but failed to \u201cinsert a sentence\u201d for a Senate concurrence on treaty abrogation.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe question is: was this omission intentional?\u00a0Malaking bagay yan sa<\/em>\u00a0(That\u2019s a big issue in) constitutional law because when you state power and then you intentionally not state power, that means you are withholding that unstated power,\u201d he said following a hearing on Senate Resolution 305 which calls for Senate concurrence in withdrawing from a treaty.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf we want greater Senate participation in foreign policy, and the Constitution is written this way, therefore we have to amend the Constitution\u2026 we need to change the wording,\u201d Pimentel said.<\/p>\n

Pimentel, who is also a lawyer, also warned that invoking the \u201cmirror principle\u201d may lead to severe drawbacks in the future.<\/p>\n

In legal terms, the mirror principle simply states that the process of withdrawal should \u201cmirror\u201d the process of approval.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor me, it\u2019s difficult to read in the Constitution what is not written there because if we start reading something which is not written there for this particular case, then how about in the future, we might be reading some other things not there, even those not relating to treaties,\u201d Pimentel said.<\/p>\n

He said he does not agree with the notion to ask the Supreme Court for an interpretation of the said provision.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe cannot force an interpretation out of given wordings, given texts,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

The chair of the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations clarified though that he is only expressing his personal opinion, and assured that he is keeping an open mind on the panel hearings.<\/p>\n

He said he will also abide by the decision of the majority when the time comes for him to write the committee report.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, he still believed that with the current wordings in the Constitution, the argument that Senate concurrence in treaty abrogation is necessary faces an uphill battle in the hearings.<\/p>\n

\u201cBecause you have to prove that it is somehow there, although not written and it is implied, although not clearly there. We keep an open mind, but\u00a0medyo lamang yung<\/em>\u00a0(leading a bit is) there\u2019s no need for Senate concurrence in treaty abrogation because it is not in the Constitution,\u201d Pimentel said.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA\u00a0— The Constitution may have to be amended if the Senate wants to have a say in the abrogation of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":174987,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-245527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-jose-cielito-reganit","mauthors-philippine-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245527"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":245529,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245527\/revisions\/245529"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/174987"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}