04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Philippine government has not yet consented to be bound by the MOA-AD is indubitable. The parties had agreed to a formal signature ceremony in the presence of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the alter ego of the President of the Philippines. The ceremony never took place. The MOA-AD itself expresses that consent was to manifested by the affixation of signatures, not the affixation of initials. In addition, the subsequent announcement by the President that the Philippine Government will not sign the MOA-AD further establishes the absence of consent on the part of the Philippines to the MOA-AD. Under domestic law, the MOA-AD cannot receive recognition as a legally binding agreement due to the absence of the indispensable requisite of consent to be bound. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that the MILF or any other interested party will seek enforcement of the MOA with the Philippine courts. A more probable recourse on their part is to seek enforcement of the MOA before an international tribunal. Could the Philippines be considered as being bound by the MOA under international law? Preliminarily, it bears attention that Justice Morales has exhaustively and correctly debunked the proposition that the MOA-AD can be deemed a binding agreement under international law, or that it evinces a unilateral declaration of the Philippine government to the international community that it will grant to the Bangsamoro people all the concessions stated in the MOA-AD. It would thus be improper to analyze whether the MOA-AD had created binding obligations through the lens of international law or through an instrument as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as it should be domestic law alone that governs the interpretation of the MOA-AD. Nonetheless, even assuming that international law principles can be utilized to examine that question, it is clear that the MILF's claim that the MOA-AD is already binding on the Philippine government will not prevail. The successful outcome of negotiation of international agreements is the adoption and authentication of the agreed text.[20] Once a written text is agreed upon and adopted, it is either signed, or initialed and subsequently signed by the diplomats and then submitted to the respective national authorities for ratification.[21] Once a treaty has been adopted, the manner in which a state consents to be bound to it is usually indicated in the treaty itself.[22] Signature only expresses consent to be bound when it constitutes the final stage of a treaty-making process.[23] Reisman, Arsanjani, Wiessner & Westerman explain the procedure in the formation of international agreements, including the distinction between initialing and signing: Treaties are negotiated by agents of states involved. Usually, once the agents agree on a text, the authenticity of this agreed-upon mutual commitment is confirmed by the agents placing their initials on the draft agreement ("initialing"). Their principals, usually the heads of state or their representatives, then sign the treaty within a time period specified in the treaty, and submit it to internal processes, usually legislative authorities, for approval. Once this approval is secured, the heads of state express the consent of their state to be bound by depositing an instrument of ratification with the depositary power (in the case of a multilateral treaty) or with the other state party (in the case of a bilateral elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/47263 145/203