017 - Tanada v. Angara

Tanada v.
Angara
May 2, 1997| Panganiban, J. | Comparison with Police Power and
Eminent Domain
Digester: Mercado, Carlo Robert M.
SUMMARY: The WTO Agreement was signed and ratified by the
executive branch and then concurred in by the Senate. A Rule 65
petition was filed assailing the ratification as being violative of the
provisions on national economy and Filipino First Policy, and the
legislative power of Congress, more specifically the power to tax.
The SC held that while said provisions are self-executing thus
enforceable without the need for implementing legislation,
ratification of the Agreement does not contravene said provisions.
DOCTRINE: 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.
The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be
considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1)
limitations imposed by the very nature of membership in the family
of nations and (2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.
The Philippines has entered into many other international pacts
both bilateral and multilateralthat involve limitations on
Philippine sovereignty.
In the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has effectively agreed to
limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of taxation, eminent
domain and police power.
NOTE: All three (Police Power, Eminent Domain, and Taxation)
may be limited by treaty stipulations. The case did not distinguish
in this regard.
FACTS:
April 15, 1994: The World Trade Organization Agreement
(Agreement) was signed by the Philippines by the DTI
Secretary and ratified by the President.
December 14, 1994: Through Senate Resolution No. 97, the
Senate concurred with the ratification
December 29, 1994: A Rule 65 petition was filed seeking to
assail the Senates ratification of the WTO Agreement for
violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a

selfreliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified
Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor,
domestic materials and locally produced goods. (Art II, Sec 19
and Art XII, Sec 10 and 12 of the Constitution)
RULING: Petition denied.
Whether the issues at hand are political questions NO.
Art VIII, Sec 1 emphasizes the judicial departments duty and
power to strike down grave abuse of discretion on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of government including
Congress.
The Court will only exercise its constitutional duty to
determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its
three annexes.
o This Court will not review the wisdom of the
decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting
the country into the WTO, or pass upon the merits of
trade liberalization as a policy espoused by said
international organization
o Neither will it rule on the propriety of the
governments economic policy of reducing/removing
tariffs, taxes, subsidies, quantitative restrictions,
and other import/trade barriers.
Whether the Agreement contravenes Art II, Sec 19 and Art
XII, Sec 10 and 12 of the Constitution NO.
The following provisions are self-executing provisions
It is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
this Court held that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is
complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or
implementing laws or rules for its enforcement . . . It is per se
judicially enforceable.
BUT, ratification of the WTO Agreement does not amount to a
violation of such provisions
However, the issue here is not whether this paragraph of Sec.
10 of Art. XII is self executing or not. Rather, the issue is
whether, as a rule, there are enough balancing provisions in
the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify the Philippine
concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And we hold that there

are.
o 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.
o 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.
o In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality
and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign
competition that is unfair.
The constitutional policy of a selfreliant and independent
national economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of
foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates
neither economic seclusion nor mendicancy
Other reasons why WTO Agreement does not violate said

provisions (Alternatively, why the Agreement is advantageous to
RP)
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 members
vote equal in weight
The WTO Agreement grants developing countries a more
lenient treatment, giving their domestic industries some
protection from the rush of foreign competition.
GATT itself has provided builtin protection from unfair foreign
competition and trade practices
[TOPIC] Whether the Agreement limits, restricts, or
impairs the exercise of legislative power by Congress,
specifically, the power to tax- NO.
The Agreement provides that (e)ach Member shall ensure the
conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative
procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed
Agreements.
Petitioner claims that this clause unduly limits,

restricts and impairs Philippine sovereignty,
specifically the legislative power vested in the
Congress
o More specifically, petitioners claim that said
WTO proviso derogates from the power to tax,
which is lodged in the Congress.
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and
allencompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject to
restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the
Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of
nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a
hermittype isolation
o The Constitution adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of
the land
o 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.
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.
o The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in
fact and in reality be considered absolute.
Certain restrictions enter into the picture: (1)
limitations imposed by the very nature of
membership in the family of nations and (2)
limitations imposed by treaty stipulations 1
The Philippines has entered into many other international
pactsboth bilateral and multilateralthat involve limitations
on Philippine sovereignty.2
o In the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has
effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its
o
1 As aptly put by John F. Kennedy, Today, no nation can

build its destiny alone. The age of selfsufficient
nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is
here.
2 A number of agreements were enumerated by the
OSG in its Compliance
sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain

and police power.
Whether the Agreement unduly impairs or interferes with
the exercise of judicial power by this court in promulgating
rules on evidence? - NO
By and large, the arguments adduced in connection with our
disposition of the third issuederogation of legislative power
will apply to this fourth issue also
o Suffice it to say that the reciprocity clause more
than justifies such intrusion, if any actually exists.
Since the Philippines is a signatory to most
international conventions on patents, trademarks
and copyrights, the adjustment in legislation and
rules of procedure will not be substantial
Whether the concurrence of the Senate included the other
documents related to the Agreement is valid - YES
Petitioners allege that the Senate concurrence in the WTO
Agreement and its annexesbut not in the other documents
referred to in the Final Act (Ministerial Declaration and
Decisions and the Understanding on Commitments in
Financial Services) is defective and insufficient
o SC rules that concurrence in the Agreement was
sufficient
o The Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were
deemed adopted without need for ratification. They
were approved by the ministers by virtue of Article
XXV: 1 of GATT
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial

Services also approved in Marrakesh does not apply
to the Philippines.
Moreover, the Agreement itself expresses what

multilateral agreements are deemed included as its
integral parts
Article II states that associated legal
isntruments in Annex 4,as well as the GATT
are also part of the Agreement
It should be added that the Senate was wellaware of
what it was concurring in as shown by the members
deliberation on August 25, 1994.
NOTES:
Art II, Sec. 19. The State shall develop a selfreliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Art XII, Sec. 10. The Congress shall enact measures that will
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose
capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to
qualified Filipinos.
Art XII, Sec. 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of
Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and
adopt measures that help make them competitive.

017 - Tanada v. Angara

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

017 - Tanada v. Angara

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

017 - Tanada v. Angara

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanada v.

violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a

concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And we hold that there

Other reasons why WTO Agreement does not violate said

Petitioner claims that this clause unduly limits,

1 As aptly put by John F. Kennedy, Today, no nation can

sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain

The Understanding on Commitments in Financial

Moreover, the Agreement itself expresses what

You might also like