TAADA v.

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

PANGANIBAN, J.

FACTS:

On April 15, 1994, respondent Rizalino Navarro, then DTI Secretary, signed the Final Act
Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations on behalf of the
Government of the Philippines. On August 13, 1994, the final act in establishing the World
Trade Organization, which the Philippine government signed and ratified, was submitted to
the Senate for concurrence, which was also certified as urgent by the President (Ramos) on
the 9th of December 1994. Thus, on December 14, 1994, the Senate adopted Resolution no.
97 where it concurs with the ratification by the President of the Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization. Petitioners argue that the Senate committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting ot lack or excess of jurisdiction in concurring the ratification by the
President of the WTO agreement. Furthermore, petitioners argue that the letter, spirit, and
intent of the Constitution in Article II, Sec. 19, and Article XII, Sections 10 and 12, are
unduly violated by the WTO Agreement parity provisions. Such parity provisions state that
products and nationals of other territories shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than
that accorded to products and nationals of national origin in respect to laws and regulations.

ISSUES:
1. W/N the petition presents a political question of which the court has no jurisdiction.
2. W/N the provisions of the agreement establishing the WTO contravenes the
provisions of Sec. 19, Art. II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Article XII, of the 1987
Constitution.
3. W/N certain provisions of the agreement unduly limit, restrict, or impair the exercise
of legislative power by Congress.

HELD
1. NO. Seeking to nullify an act of the Senate on the grounds of violating the
Constitution does indeed present a justiciable controversy. However, the Court ruled
that the Senate is well within its powers to concur with the ratification by the
President of the WTO agreement as granted to them by Sec. 21 of Article VII of the
Constitution, and did not gravely abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
2. NO. The mentioned provisions of the Constitution by the petitioners are not self-
executing. Said provisions serve merely as a guide for legislators to create the laws
and statutes that are needed by the country. While the Constitution seems to have a
bias for goods and services rendered to by Filipinos in general, this does not mean
that the Constitution creates an atmosphere of economic isolationism in the country.
Foreign competition, while seems to be limited under the Constitution, does not entail
a total embargo of foreign goods and services. In fact, it allows an exchange on the
basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
Furthermore, the Constitution, according to the Court, is a Constitution that is skewed
towards the consumers, and the Court opines that the WTO Agreement is indeed
favorable to the Filipino consumer.
3. NO. The Constitution, inasmuch as it declares the sovereign will of the Filipino
people, also gives the government, in representing the people, due power to limit its
sovereignty in international agreements by entering into it voluntarily. While the
WTO agreement states that each member shall ensure conformity of its laws,
regulations[,] and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the
annexed Agreements., this does not expressly mean that the power of Congress shall
be hogtied. The point is that 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.