aada v.

Angara
G.R. No. 118295 | May 2, 1997
Petitioners: Wigberto Tanada, et al. Respondents: Edgardo Angara, et al.
Summary:
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Philippines acceding to the Worl
d Trade Organization for being violative of provisions which are supposed to giv
e preference to Filipino workers and economy and on the ground that it infringes
legislative and judicial power. The
WTO, through it provisions on most favored nation
and national treatment, require that nationals and other member countries are pl
aced in the same footing in terms of products and services. However, the Court b
rushed off these contentions and ruled that the WTO is constitutional. Sections
10 and 12 of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) should be read in rela
tion to Sections 1 and 13 (promoting the general welfare). Also, Section 10 is s
elfexecuting only to rights, privileges, and concessions covering national economy a
nd patrimony but
not every aspect of trade and commerce.
There are balancing provisions in the Constitution allowing the Senate to ratif
y the WTO agreement. Also, the C
onstitution doesn t rule out foreign competition. States waive certain amount of s
overeignty when entering into
treaties.
Facts:
?
This case questions the constitutionality of the Philippines being part of the
World Trade Organization, particularly when President Fidel Ramos signed the Ins
trument of Ratification and the Senate concurring in the said treaty.
?
Following World War 2, global financial leaders held a conference in Bretton Wo
ods to discuss global economy. This led to the establishment of three great inst
itutions: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), In
ternational Monetary Fund and International Trade Organization.
?
However, the ITO failed to materialized. Instead, there was the General Agreeme
nt on Trades and Tariffs. It was on the Uruguay Round of the GATT that the WTO w
as then established.
?
The WTO is an institution regulating trade among nations, including the reducti
on of tariff and barriers.
?
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, t
o give preference to qualified Filipinos and to promote the preferential use of
Filipino labor, domestic materials
and locally produced goods.
?
It is petitioners position that the national treatment
TO Agreement place nationals and products of mem
ber countries on the same footing as
Filipinos and local products,

and

parity provisions

in contravention of the Filipino First

policy of the Constitution. They allegedly render meaningless the
phrase effectively controlled by Filipinos.

of the W

Issue 1:
Does the petition present a justiciable controversy? YES!
In seeking to nullify the Senate s act as being unconstitutional, the petition no
doubt raises a justicia
ble controversy. It becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judic
iary to settle the dispute
Issue 2:
Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement contravene Section 19, Article II and Sec
tion 10 & 12, Artilce XII of the 1987 Constitution? NO!
Petitioners Contentions
:
?
Petitioners argue that the letter, spirit and intent of the Constitution mandating
economic nationalism
are violated by the socalled parity provisions and national treatment clauses scattered in parts of
WTO Agreement
o
This is in view of the most-favored nation clause (MFN) of the TRIMS (trade-rel
ated investment measures), TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of intellectual property
rights), Trade in Services, and par. 4 of Article III of GATT 1994.
o
shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like product
s of national
origin
?
Sec. 19, Art II:The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
?
Sec. 10, Art XII: Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formati
on and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. In t
he grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy an
d patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
?
Sec. 12, Art XII: The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labo
r, domestic materials and locally produ
ced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.
Ruling:
?
These provisions are not self-executing
o
Merely guides in the exercise of judicial review and in making laws.
?
Secs. 10 and 12 of Article XII should be read and understood in relation to the
other sections in said article, especially Sec. 1 and 13:
o
A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
o
A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services