No manifestly obvious and fundamental provision of the Philippines internal law was violated in the circumstances of the Philippine ratification of the Second Optional Protocol, and any argument made to that effect would fail in international law. The Second Optional Protocol was signed by the Philippines' Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Philippine government. As a matter of international law, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is entirely capable of binding the State, and the international community of states was, and is, justified in treating the act of ratification as effective. The circumstances of ratification do not meet any of the three necessary criteria to trigger the exception in Article 46. No fundamental internal law of the Philippines was violated by the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol. Indeed, the better view is that the domestic law of the Philippines permits treaty actions of the nature of the Second Optional Protocol to be conducted by executive action. While the Constitution generally requires treaties to be concurred by the Senate, an international agreement, which is in the nature of an executive agreement (infra.), does not require Senate concurrence. Such becomes valid and binding in the Philippines through executive or presidential ratification. This is because executive agreements become binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress.18 For over 50 years, the Philippines has recognized the validity of executive agreements which had been entered into by the executive branch of government.19 An executive agreement does not require Senate concurrence for efficacy. It is to be recalled, that under the Philippine Constitution, international agreements may be in the form of treaties (require legislative concurrence after executive ratification) or executive agreements (similar to treaties, except that they do not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower range of subject matters).20 The Court has reasoned that under international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in terms of binding effect as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. Under Philippine domestic law, neither violates the Constitution.21 In Bayan Muna v. Romulo, the Supreme Court definitively held that the categorization of subject matters that may be covered by executive agreements is not cast in stone. The Court cited the dynamic nature of international law. One type of executive agreement is a treaty-authorized or a treaty-implementing executive agreement, which cover the same matters subject of the underlying treaty.22 A Protocol, which carries the same object and purpose of a treaty, may be treated in domestic law as a valid executive agreement. An identical approach is taken in the United States, where in US v. Belmont, the United States Supreme Court declared that a treaty not requiring ratification by the 18 Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204605 (July 19, 2016). See, for instance, Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618 (Feb. 01, 2011). 20 Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618 (Feb. 01, 2011). 21 Id. 22 Id. 19 Page 8 of 23