Topic: Self-Executing Provisions

Tañada VS. Angara

G. R. No. 118295
May 2, 1997

FACTS: On December 16, 1994, Former President Fidel V. Ramos, upon the concurrence of the
Philippine Senate, signed the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organizations (WTO)
consequently making the Philippines as one of its founding members.

Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was filed praying for:
 nullification of the said concurrence of the Philippine Senate
 prohibition of its implementation and enforcement through the release of public funds, the
assignment of public officials and employees as well as the use of governmental properties
and resources

Petitioners vigorously argued that the “letter, spirit and intent” of the Constitution mandating
“economic nationalism” specifically Sec. 19, Art. II and Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution are violated by the so-called “parity provisions” and “national treatment” clauses
scattered in various parts of the WTO Agreement and its annexes.

The 1987 Constitution expresses the following provisions:

 Sec. 19, Art. II - The State shall develop self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos;
 Sec. 10, Art. XII - 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; and
 Sec. 12, Art XII – The State shall promote preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials
and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.

Respondents counter that:

 such Charter provisions are not self-executing and merely set out general policies

ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 19, Art. II and Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII of the Philippine Constitution are
self-executing provisions

RULING: The Principles in Art. II of the Constitution are not intended to be self-executing principles
ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or 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, Inc. VS. Morato, the principles and state policies enumerated in Art. II
and some sections of Art. XII are not 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.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.