Taada vs Angara

Facts:
-

PH Senate and the President ratified the WTO agreement whereby countriessignatories have increased participation in the world economy through
reduction of tariffs on exports, agreements on technical barriers, and dispute
settlements that encourage investments in the country and protect the less
developed countries as regards trade disputes.
The other senators who participated in the deliberations and voting for the
ratification filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the said
legislative act
They contend that the same is violative of Sec. 19, Article II, and Secs. 10 and
12, Article XII, all of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provisions provide
for a self-reliant and independent national economy controlled by Filipinos,
granting preference to qualified Filipinos in conferring rights, privileges, and
concessions, and regulating foreign investments in the country.
Sol-Gen argues that the Filipino First Policy must be read in harmony with Art.
12 provisions on the promotion of trade policies that serve the general
welfare and exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, and on making
the economy competitive in the domestic and foreign markets.
One of the provisions of the GATT that was emphasized by petitioners as
violative of the Filipino First Policy in the Constitution is the par. 4 Art. 3 of the
said agreement, The products of the territory of any contracting party
imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded
treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of
national origin in respect of laws, regulations and requirements.
It is also the submission of the petitioners that paragraph 1, Article 34 of the
General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) intrudes on the power of the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and
procedures because it imposes on member-countries to provide for a rule of
disputable presumption against defendants who are charged of infringing a
patented process when the latter is new and there is a substantial likelihood
that the patented process was used to produce the product.
Petitioners allege that the Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and its
annexes -- but not in the other documents referred to in the Final Act, namely
the Ministerial Declaration and Decisions and the Understanding on
Commitments in Financial Services -- is defective and insufficient and thus
constitutes abuse of discretion. They contend that the second letter of the
President to the Senate which enumerated what constitutes the Final Act should
have been the subject of concurrence of the Senate.

Issues:

1. Does the petition involve a political question?

2. Are the provisions of the WTO Agreement in contravention with the 1987
Constitution?
3. Do they impair the exercise of legislative power by Congress?
4. Do they unduly impair or interfere with the judicial power of SC?
5. Is the concurrence of Senate with the agreement sufficient?
Ruling:
1. No. It is a justiciable controversy over which the Court has jurisdiction. Judicial
power involves the determination of whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the executive or legislative branch of the government. In the case at bar, it is
the duty of the Court to determine whether the Congress and the President
overstepped their mandate and violated the Constitution by ratifying the
WTO agreement.
2. No. The Constitution has enough balancing provisions to allow the enate to
ratify the WTO agreement.
a. Declaration of principles is not self-executing. The Congress shall pass
laws to clearly define and effectuate those principles. It is not
advisable for the judiciary to exercise its judicial power under Art. XIII,
Sec. 1 on the invocation of constitutional statutory policies when
petitioners cannot point out a specific and operable legal right that are
less general that the constitutional provisions, for if the judiciary does,
it may overstep its boundaries by diving into social and economic
policy making, and may deprive the executive and legislative
departments of their right to promulgate norms and standards to
implement the non-self-executing constitutional provisions.
b. The Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did
not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the
development of the Philippine economy. 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 fact, the
Constitution encourages policies that make the economy competitive
on both domestic and foreign markets. The Constitutional provision on
Filipino First policy is applicable only on national patrimony, as stated
by the Court in the case of Manila Prince Hotel.
c. 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. The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect
weak and developing economies such as the right to equal voting, to
withdraw, a lesser reduction on domestic support for agricultural
products as compared to developed countries, and more. Poor

countries can protect their common interests more effectively through

the WTO than through one-on-one negotiations with developed
countries. Within the WTO, developing countries can form powerful
blocs to push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the
Organization. It has a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade
environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust
industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets.
3. The WTO Agreement provides that (e)ach Member shall ensure the
conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its
obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements. while sovereignty has
traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic
level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to
by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of
nations. 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 fulfilment
of the obligations undertaken. Even the UN Charter and the other treaties
that the PH entered into with other countries put limitations on the States
sovereignty.
4. The said provision does not unduly impair the judiciarys rights. It does not
alter our rules on evidence since RA 165 or the Patent Law provides for
similar presumption on infringement of patented design or utility model. And
in fact, despite the rule on the disputable presumption, the patent owner still
has the burden of proof to prove that there is such a product, that the
patented process is new or that there is substantial likelihood... Reciprocity
clause justifies the intrusion.
5. The Final Act is not the treaty itself but rather the summary of the
proceedings of a protracted conference that has taken place over the years.
DTI Sec. Navarro signed the Final Act that directs him to submit to the
respective competent authorities of member-nations the WTO Agreement for
consideration, and to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions. The
senators are well-aware of what they are ratifying as illustrated by the
deliberations that took place in connection with the WTO agreement. The
senators made statements that the Constitution requires them to ratify not
the Final Act but the WTO Agreement itself because the former just specifies
what is being submitted to Senate for ratification.