G.R. No.

118295 May 2, 1997

WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA and ANNA DOMINIQUE COSETENG, as members of the Philippine Senate and as
taxpayers; GREGORIO ANDOLANA and JOKER ARROYO as members of the House of Representatives and as
taxpayers; NICANOR P. PERLAS and HORACIO R. MORALES, both as taxpayers; CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION, CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES,
LIKAS-KAYANG KAUNLARAN FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT,
DEMOKRATIKONG KILUSAN NG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, INC., and PHILIPPINE PEASANT INSTITUTE, in
representation of various taxpayers and as non-governmental organizations, petitioners,
vs.
EDGARDO ANGARA, ALBERTO ROMULO, LETICIA RAMOS-SHAHANI, HEHERSON ALVAREZ, AGAPITO AQUINO,
RODOLFO BIAZON, NEPTALI GONZALES, ERNESTO HERRERA, JOSE LINA, GLORIA. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
ORLANDO MERCADO, BLAS OPLE, JOHN OSMEÑA, SANTANINA RASUL, RAMON REVILLA, RAUL ROCO, FRANCISCO
TATAD and FREDDIE WEBB, in their respective capacities as members of the Philippine Senate who concurred
in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization; SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management; CARIDAD
VALDEHUESA, in her capacity as National Treasurer; RIZALINO NAVARRO, in his capacity as Secretary of Trade
and Industry; ROBERTO SEBASTIAN, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; ROBERTO DE OCAMPO, in his
capacity as Secretary of Finance; ROBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs; and
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, respondents.

The Facts
On April 15, 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of The Department of Trade
and Industry (Secretary Navarro, for brevity), representing the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act, for brevity).
On August 12, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received a letter dated August 11,
1994 from the President of the Philippines, stating among others that "the Uruguay Round Final
Act is hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of
the Constitution."
On August 13, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received another letter from the
President of the Philippines4 likewise dated August 11, 1994, which stated among others that
"the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the
Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial
Services are hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article
VII of the Constitution."
On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 which "Resolved, as it
is hereby resolved, that the Senate concur, as it hereby concurs, in the ratification by the
President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization."
To emphasize, the WTO Agreement ratified by the President of the Philippines is composed of
the Agreement Proper and "the associated legal instruments included in Annexes one (1), two
(2) and three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts thereof."
On the other hand, the Final Act signed by Secretary Navarro embodies not only the WTO
Agreement (and its integral annexes aforementioned) but also (1) the Ministerial Declarations
and Decisions and (2) the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.
On December 29, 1994, the present petition was filed. After careful deliberation on
respondents' comment and petitioners' reply thereto, the Court resolved on December 12,
1995, to give due course to the petition, and the parties thereafter filed their respective
memoranda.
ISSUES/RULING:
1. Whether the petition present a justiciable controversy. Otherwise stated, does the
petition involve a political question over which this court has no jurisdiction?
YES. 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. "The question thus posed is
judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of
the Constitution is upheld." Once a "controversy as to the application or interpretation of a
constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it becomes a legal
issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide." Indeed, certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to
review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials.

2. Whether the provisions of the WTO agreement contravene sec. 19, article II, and
secs. 10 and 12, article XII, of the Philippine Constitution?
NO. All told, 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. Whether the provisions of said agreement limit, restrict, or impair the exercise of
legislative power by congress?
NO. 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. One of the oldest and most
fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda — international agreements must
be performed in good faith. "A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a
legally binding obligation on the parties . . . 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."
In the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its
sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power. The underlying consideration
in this partial surrender of sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other contracting
states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its
citizens. The same reciprocity characterizes the Philippine commitments under WTO-GATT.

4. Whether said provisions unduly impair or interfere 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 issue
— derogation of legislative power — will apply to this fourth issue also. Suffice it to say that the
reciprocity clause more than justifies such intrusion, if any actually exists. Besides, Article 34
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.
So too, since the Philippine is a signatory to most international conventions on patents,
trademarks and copyrights, the adjustment in legislation and rules of procedure will not be
substantial.
5. Whether the Senate’s concurrence was sufficient and/or valid.
YES. By signing said Final Act, Secretary Navarro as representative of the Republic of the
Philippines undertook:
(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of
their respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of
the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and
(b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.
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.
The Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were deemed adopted without need for ratification.
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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.