WIGBERTO TANADA,et.al. vs.

EDGARDO ANGARA et.al.

G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997
PANGANIBAN, J: KEYWORD: WTO, Sec. 19, Art. II, Sec 10&12, Art XII,
not self-executing
FACTS
● This case questions the constitutionality of the Philippines being part of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), particularly when President Fidel Ramos signed the Instrument of
Ratification and the Senate concurring in the said treaty.
● Brief History

● To hasten worldwide recovery from the devastation wrought by the Second World War, plans
for the establishment of three multilateral institutions were discussed at Dumbarton Oaks and
Breton Woods. These three institutions are the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and
International Trade Organization.
● However, the ITO failed to materialized and what remained was only GATT(General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).
● It was on the Uruguay Round of the GATT that the World Trade Organization(WTO) was then
established.

● On April 15, 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of The Department of Trade
and Industry, 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
● The members of the Philippine Senate received letters from the President of the Philippines for
the concurrence of the said Act.
● The Senate concurred in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization.
● On December 16, 1994, the President of the Philippines signed the Instrument for Ratification
declaring that the WTO Agreement and Multilateral Trade Agreements are ratified and
confirmed.
● Petitioners filed a case assailing the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987
Constitution to “develop a self-reliant 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.
● The petitoners argue that the “letter, spirit and intent” of the Constitution mandating “economic
nationalism” are violated by the so called “parity provisions” and the “national treatment”
clauses scattered in various parts not only of the WTO Agreement and its annexes, but also in
the Ministerial Decisions and Declarations and in the Understanding on Commitments in
Financial Services.
● Petitioners further argue that these provisions contravene constitutional limitations on the role
exports play in national development and negate the preferential treatment accorded to Filipino
labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods.
● On the other hand, respondents through the Solicitor General counter
 (1) that such Charter provisions are not self-executing and merely set out general policies.
(2) that the nationalistic portions of the Constitution invoked by petitioners should not be
read in isolation but should be related to other relevant provisions of Art. XII, particularly, Sec.
1 and 13 thereof;
(3) that read properly, the cited WTO clauses do not conflict with the Constitution;
(4) that the WTO Agreement contains sufficient provisions to protect developing countries
like the Philippines from the harshness of sudden trade liberalization.
ISSUE
◆ Whether or not the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO)
contravene Section 19, Article II and Sec. 10 and 12, Article XII, of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING
◆ The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
DOCTRINE/HELD
◆ No. These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as guides in the exercise of its
power of judicial review and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.

As held in the leading case of Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Morato, the priciples and state policies
enumerated in Art. II and some sections in Art. XII are “self-executing provisions, the disregard of
which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do not embody judicially enforceable
constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation.

In the same light, the court held in the case of Basco vs. Pagcor that broad constitutional
principles need legislative enactments to implement as “ they are basically not self-executing,
meaning a law should be passed by congress to clearly define and effectuate such principles.

◆ Economic Nationalism should be read with other constitutional mandates to attain

balanced development of economy
✔ On the other hand, Secs. 10 and 12 of Article XII, apart from merely laying down general
principles relating to the national economy and patrimony, should be read and understood in
relation to the other sections in said article, especially Secs. 1 and 13 thereof which read:

Sec. 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities,
income,and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the
nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the
quality of life for all especially the underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human
and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets.
However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
practices. In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country
shall be given optimum opportunity to develop.

Sec. 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all
forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

Sec. 1 lays down the basic goals of national economic development, as follows:
1. A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
2. A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services provided by the nation for the
 benefit of the people; and
3. An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all especially the
underprivileged

With these goals in context, the Constitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism (1)
by expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos "in the grant of rights, privileges and
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony" and in the use of "Filipino labor,
domestic materials and locally-produced goods"; (2) by mandating the State to "adopt measures
that help make them competitive; and (3) by requiring the State to "develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

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.
Notes
Sec.19, Article II. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.

Section 10, Article XII

The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises
whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.

Sec. 12, Article XII

The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced
goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.

● Interpretation of the Constitution

Verba legis – whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed;

Ratio legis est anima – words of the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the
intent of the framers;

Ut magis valeat quam pereat – the Constitution should be interpreted as a whole.

SELF-EXECUTING PROVISION – A provision which is complete in itself and becomes

operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies a
sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected. (Manila Prince
Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997)

NON-SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS – Not judicially enforceable constitutional rights, and

can only provide guidelines for legislation. (Tondo Medical Center Employees Association vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007)

These provisions merely lay down general principles.(Manila Prince Hotel vs.Government
Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997)