TANADA, ET.AL VS. ANGARA, ET.ALGR NO.

118295
MAY2, 1997
FACTS: Senat or . Tanada, t oget her wi t h ot her l awmaker s, t axpayer s, and
various NGOs , as petitioners, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, to decidethe validity of
the action of the President of the Philippines, Fidel V. Ramos, and theSenate in ratifying the
World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement and its three (3)annexes, due to grave abuse
of discretion on the part therein. The petitionersbeli eve that this wi l l be detrimental
to the growth of our Nati onal Economy andagainst to the Filipino First
policy.ISSUES:1.Does the petiti on present a j usticiable controversy? Otherwise
stated,
doest h e p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e d a p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n o v e r wh i c h t h e c o u r t
h a s n o jurisdiction?2 . D o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e W T O a g r e e m e n t
a n d i t s t h r e e ( 3 ) a n n e x e s contravene section 19, Article II, and
sections 10 and 12, Article XII, of thePhilippine Constitution?3. Do t he pr ovi si ons of
t he sai d agr eement and i t s annexes l i mi t , r est r i ct , or impair the exercise of
legislative power by congress?4. Do sai d pr ovi si ons undul y i mpai r or i nt er f er e
wi t h t he exxer ci se of j udi ci al power by this court in promulgating rules of
evidence?5. Was t he concur r ence of t he senat e i n t he WTO
Agr eement and i t s
annexessuf f i ci ent and/ or val i d, consi der i ng t hat i t di d not i ncl ude t he Fi n
al Act , M i n i s t e r i a l D e c l a r a t i o n s a n d D e c i s i o n s , a n d t h e U n d e r
s t a n d i n g o n Commitments in Financial Services?RULING:1.The petition
raises justiciable controversy in seeking to nullify the act of thePhilippine Senate on the ground
that it contravenes the constitution. Thequestion thus posed is judicial rather than political. Its
the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute.2.The WTO provisions do not contravene with
our Constitution. The charterprovisions in the Constitution are not self-executing, rather, just
declarationof principles which are not ready for enforcement through the courts and onlyserve
as guides by the judiciary in their exercise of judicial review, and as anaid by the legislatures in
its enactment of laws. Constitution does not rule outforeign competition. It also
favors consumers, and not industries orenterprises. Lastly, Constitution was designed to
meet future events andcontingencies.3.International treaties and agreements like this, by their
inherent nature reallylimit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. Nations by their
voluntaryact, may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greaterbenefits
derived from that treaty or agreement.4.WTO Agreement provisi ons in articl e 34 of
TRIPS, does not contain anunreasonable burden, consistent as it is with due process and
the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our judicial system.




Tanada vs angara GR 118295

Tanada vs angara
GR 118295

Facts: This is a petition filed for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus assailing the constitutionality of the World Trade
Organization Agreement which was concurred upon by majority of
the Senate. .The WTO agreement violates Section 19, Article II of the Constitution, providing for the
development of a self-reliant and independent national economy, and Sections 10 and 12 of Article XII thereof,
providing for the Filipino first policy.

Issue: Whether or not such WTO Agreement is unconstitutional?

Held: NO, the 1987 Constitution DOES NOT prohibit our country from
participating in worldwide trade liberalization and economic globalization and from
integrating into a global economy that is liberalized, deregulated and privatized.
There are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify
the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement.


Furthermore, the treaty is in harmony with the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and
the adherence of the amity with all nations. The deliberation and
voting of the senate, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its
consent to the WTO agreement, thereby making it a part of the
law of the land.

The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.