In the United States against Guy W. Capps, Inc.,70, a first instance decision, the issue of the supremacy of executive agreements over federal statutes, the 4th Arrondissement held that "the executive convention was non-avenue because it was not approved by Congress and against provisions of a statute that dealt with the matter it was dealing with... 71 The U.S. Supreme Court itself "suggested that the president could act in external affairs without congressional authority, but not that he could violate an act of Congress." 72 The reason is that the power of the President of the United States to enter into international agreements derives from his position as Chief Executive Officer. Under Section 7, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the president does not have the authority to repeal existing federal laws. Therefore, it cannot proceed with an indirect repeal by a single executive agreement.73 Overall, the VFA is an agreement that defines the treatment of U.S. troops and personnel visiting the Philippines. It sets guidelines for the settlement of military personnel visits and also sets out the criminal justice, ship and aircraft transportation, import and export of equipment, equipment and supplies. The EDCA allows U.S.
forces to use and access "agreed locations" in the country for security cooperation, humanitarian and disaster relief operations, as well as to "pre-position and store" equipment and equipment for the same purpose. The agreement contains various procedural safeguards to protect due process rights and prohibit dual threats.  [VIII 2-6] The agreement also exempts Filipino personnel from visa formalities and ensures expedited entry and exit;  [IV] requires the United States to accept Philippine driver`s licenses;  [V] authorizes Philippine personnel to carry weapons to U.S. military facilities during deployment;  [VI] provides for exemptions and import/export duties for Filipino personnel;  [X, XI] requires the United States to provide medical care to Filipino personnel;  [XIV] and exempts Philippine vehicles, ships and aircraft from landing or port charges, shipping or overflight charges, road tolls or any other charge for the use of U.S. military installations.  [XV] MR SUAREZ. In other words, we do not impress previous agreements with a valid character, nor do we say that they are null and void from the outset, as many of us have said here. One of the priorities of this controversy is the definition of the provision of the Constitution for the exercise by the Senate of the constitutional power to anchor itself with the VFA.
The petitioners argue that Section 25, Article XVIII is applicable when one considers that the VFA has the presence of foreign military personnel in the Philippines. On the other hand, the respondent in the Eube, unless, according to J.C., under section 21, Section VII, applies to the extent that the VFA is not a basic agreement, but an agreement that includes only temporary visits by United States personnel participating in joint military exercises. What would be the impact of the abolition of the agreement on the country? The petitioners merely say that the term "recognized as a treaty" in Section 25, Section XVIII, means that the VFA should have the Council and the approval of the U.S. Senate, in accordance with its own constitutional process, and that it should not be considered solely as an executive agreement of the United States. The increase in the use of executive agreements after the Second World War can be attributed to several factors.