(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States communicate with each other the decision of any case in which both the Philippine authorities and the United States have the right to exercise jurisdiction. While proponents of exclusive executive agreements generally indicate that these two cases are considered to have been the subject of judicial imprimature of exclusive executive agreements, the validity of the only executive agreements seems to first be granted by the United States Supreme Court in Monaco in 1933. Mississippi, in which Chief Justice Hughes stated that „the national government, because of its control over our external relations, has the right to use the means of diplomatic negotiations and to obtain such an international settlement that may be appropriate by a treaty, an arbitration agreement or in some other way. 57 (3) The agreement will provide the regulatory mechanism for the circumstances and conditions under which U.S. forces may travel to the Philippines; x x x c) a specific directive regarding the importation and export by the United States Government of equipment, materials, supplies and other goods imported or acquired in the Philippines by the United States Armed Forces or on behalf of the United States Armed Forces in the course of activities covered by the agreement; and the United States used the agreement at least twice to keep the accused military under U.S. jurisdiction.  On January 18, 2006, the U.S. Military retained custody of four soldiers accused of rape while they were visiting Subic Bay during their trial in a Philippine court.  They were detained by U.S.
officials at the U.S. Embassy in Manila. This has led to protests from those who believe that the agreement is unilateral, harmful and contrary to the sovereignty of the Philippines. [Citation required] The agreement has been characterized as immunity from criminal prosecution for U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against Filipinos and treatment of Filipinos as second-class citizens in their own country.   As a result of these problems, some members of the Philippine Congress considered ending the VFA in 2006.   However, the agreement has not been amended. In our view, it is of little importance that the Speaker referred the VFA to the Senate under section 21, Section VII, and that the Senate extended its approval under the same provision. Indeed, in both cases, whether under section 21, Article VII or Section 25, Article XVIII, the basic law is crystalline that Senate approval is required to meet strict constitutional requirements. To the extent that, in this case, it is not public funds generated by tax and, since there are no petitioners` allegations that public funds are being misused or spent illegally, petitioners, as taxpayers, have no legal position to question the legality of the VFA.
On the predominance of executive agreements on state law, it ruled that the „agreed sites“ under the EDCA concern Philippine government territories and facilities that US forces have the „right“ of access, as agreed by the two countries. The Philippines-U.S. Visiting Agreement, sometimes the PH-US Visiting Forces Agreement, is a bilateral agreement between the Philippines and the United States, which consists of two separate documents. The first of these documents is commonly referred to as „VFA“ or „VFA-1″ and the second is referred to as „VFA-2“ or „counterparty agreement.“  A Visiting Forces Agreement is a version of an agreement on the status of the armed forces that applies only to troops temporarily stationed in a country.