TANADA v.

ANGARA
G.R. No. 118295
May 2, 1997

FACTS:
1. On April 5, 1994, respondent then DTI Sec. Rizalino Navarro signed the Final Act of
the WTO Agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco
2. On August 12 and 14, 1994, the Senate received from the President two letters
averring the submission of the Final Act and WTO Agreement for concurrence
3. On December 14, 1994, the Senate stated its concurrence to the latter in Resolution
No. 97
4. On December 16, 1994, the President ratified the WTO Agreement (Note: Sec.
Navarro only signed the Final Act)
5. On December 29, 1994, the present petition, which assails the constitutionality of the
WTO Agreement, was filed

ISSUES:
1. Whether the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
2. Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement and its annexes contravene the
Philippine Constitution.
3. Whether the said provisions limit or impair the exercise of legislative power by
Congress.
4. Whether the said provisions impair the exercise of judicial power.
5. Whether the Senate's concurrence was sufficient and/or valid.

HELD:
1. YES.
Since the assailed act allegedly violates the Constitution, it becomes a jusiticiable
controversy that the Court is mandated to decide. In addition, certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus are appropriate remedies for constitutional issues.

2. NO.
Petitioners argue that the WTO’s provisions on trade-related investment measures
(TRIMS) and trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), as well as the General
Agreement on Trade in Services, violate Sec. 19, Art. II and Secs. 10 and 12, Article
XII, of the Constitution. However:
a. Art. II is not self-executing, and thus does not justify a cause of action.
b. On the other hand, while Art. XII mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods
and services, it actually intends to eliminate unfair foreign competition
c. The WTO also protects weak economies via equal voting and preferential
treatment (ex. 24% tariff reduction)

3. NO.
Petitioners hold that the WTO Agreement limits legislative power, specifically
taxation. However, the Constitution and UN Charter, as well as other treaties,
recognize the limitation of sovereignty in adopting international laws.
4. NO.
Petitioners aver that Par. 1, Art. 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of
the Agreement on TRIPS, which concerns patent infringement, intrudes on the SC’s
judicial power. However, a similar presumption already exists in R.A. No. 165
(Patent Law).

5. YES.
The Senate deliberations on August 25, 1994 make it clear that contrary to
petitioners’ arguments, it is the WTO Agreement that is being submitted for
ratification.