“6. The custody of U.S. personnel, for whom the Philippines is supposed to be responsible, must, at the request of the Commission of the Offence, be immediately with the U.S. military authorities, if they wish, pending the completion of all legal proceedings. The United States military authorities, after formal notification by the Philippine authorities, immediately make available to these authorities these personnel for investigations or judicial proceedings relating to the offence in which the person has been charged in exceptional cases and present to the United States Government its position on the provisional custody, which the United States Government takes full account of. In the event that the Philippines` legal proceedings are not completed within one year, the United States will be relieved of any obligations arising from this paragraph. The one-year period does not contain the time required for the appeal. In addition, the one-year period will not be time to delay the scheduled court proceedings, as the US authorities do not do so after being informed in a timely manner by the Philippine authorities of the presence of the accused. I respectfully draw attention to the fact that the VFA, which uses these three types of executive agreements as a basis for classification, would not fall into the category of an executive agreement concluded by the President under the power conferred by an earlier treaty, since the VFA, although in its preamble, refers to the Mutual Defence Treaty38, which the Mutual Defence Treaty does not give the US President the power to conclude executive agreements for the implementation of the treaty.
The question sometimes arises as to whether an executive agreement has been reached under a contract. These questions, however, concerned a simple interpretation of the contract.39 In Wilson/. Girard, 354 US 524 (1957), had the opportunity for the United States Supreme Court to interpret Article III of the Security Treaty between the United States of America and Japan, which states that “the conditions governing the disposition of the United States Armed Forces in Japan and via Japan are determined by administrative arrangements between the two governments.” 40 In accordance with this provision of the treaty, the Executive has entered into an administrative agreement covering, among other things, the jurisdiction of the United States regarding offences committed in Japan by members of the United States military. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the validity of the administrative agreement as reached by the President under the power conferred on it by Article III of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty to establish administrative arrangements between the two governments on “the conditions that govern the engagement of the United States armed forces in And above Japan.” There is no doubt that constitutional restrictions on contracts also apply only to executive agreements.