TANADA vs ANGARA

Facts: This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other
lawmakers, taxpayers, and various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of
the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. Petitioners believe that this
will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and against to the
“Filipino First” policy. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its
major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports,
particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new
opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with
exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits
as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free
market” espoused by WTO.

Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our

constitution, since the said Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers
of the Philippines because it meant that Congress could not pass legislation
that would be good for national interest and general welfare if such legislation
would not conform to the WTO Agreement.

Issues:
Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization and the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included
in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that agreement’ cited by petitioners
directly contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent of Section 19,
Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.

Rulings:
No. Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily
rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates
neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international community.”
The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak and developing
economies, which comprise the vast majority of its members. Unlike in the UN
where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security
Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality,
with each member’s vote equal in weight to that of any other. Hence,within the
WTO, developing countries can form powerful blocs to push their economic
agenda more decisively than outside the Organization. Which is not merely a
matter of practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus, the
basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of
developing countries like the Philippines to “share in the growth in international
trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development.”
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. 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.
Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
may intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedures. With regard to Infringement of a
design patent, WTO members shall be free to determine the appropriate
method of implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own internal
systems and processes.

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.. After all, states, like individuals,
live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and
benefits, they also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise
absolute rights. As shown by the foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a
portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution, based
on the rationale that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles
of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of
cooperation and amity with all nations.”