Wigberto E.

Tanada et al, in representation of various taxpayers and as non-governmental

organizations, petitioners, vs.EDGARDO ANGARA, et al, respondents.

Facts: This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers, taxpayers,
and various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Agreement.

 Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy
and against to the “Filipino First” policy.

 The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through
the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products.

 Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated
with exporting and more investment in the country.

 These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the
signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.

 Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since
the said Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it
meant that Congress could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest
and general welfare if such legislation would not conform to the WTO Agreement.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.

2. Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
and the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2)
and three (3) of that agreement’ cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the
letter, spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution.
3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the
exercise of legislative power by Congress.
4. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by
this Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
5. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of the
Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’ implied rejection of
the treaty embodied in the Final Act.
Discussions:

 1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
 Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor
“mendicancy in the international community.” The WTO itself has some built-in advantages
to protect weak and developing economies, which comprise the vast majority of its members.
Unlike in the UN where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security
Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with each
member’s vote equal in weight to that of any other. Hence, poor countries can protect their
common interests more effectively through the WTO than through one-on-one negotiations
with developed countries. Within the WTO, developing countries can form powerful blocs to
push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the Organization. Which is not
merely a matter of practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus, the basic
principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing countries like
the Philippines to “share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs
of their economic development.”
 In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the
doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of
international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. A state
which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.
Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may intrudes on the power of
the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedures. With
regard to Infringement of a design patent, WTO members shall be free to determine the
appropriate method of implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own internal
systems and processes.
 The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is
balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and
amity with all nations. The Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and
overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law
of the land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power.

Rulings:
1. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only
the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. As explained by former
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, “the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of
whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction
or in excess of jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting
to excess of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on
matters of this nature.”
2. While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of
the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises
only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the
Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign
investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the
Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and
investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange
on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
3. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By
their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for
greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like
individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits,
they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown
by the foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a portion of sovereignty may be waived
without violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines “adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres
to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.”
4. The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable burden,
consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement
inherent in our judicial system.
5. The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act
required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement.
Moreover, the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the members’
deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated August
11, 1994, the senators of the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was concurring
in.