Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997
WIGBERTO E. TAADA and ANNA DOMINIUE COSETENG, a! "#"$#%! o& '(# P()*)++)n# S#na'# and a! 'a,+ay#%!-
GREGORIO ANDO.ANA and /O0ER ARRO1O a! "#"$#%! o& '(# 2o3!# o& R#+%#!#n'a')4#! and a! 'a,+ay#%!-
NICANOR P. PER.AS and 2ORACIO R. MORA.ES, $o'( a! 'a,+ay#%!- CI5I. .IBERTIES UNION, NATIONA.
ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION, CENTER 6OR A.TERNATI5E DE5E.OPMENT INITIATI5ES, .I0AS7
0A1ANG 0AUN.ARAN 6OUNDATION, INC., P2I.IPPINE RURA. RECONSTRUCTION MO5EMENT, DEMO0RATI0ONG
0I.USAN NG MAGBUBU0ID NG PI.IPINAS, INC., and P2I.IPPINE PEASANT INSTITUTE, )n %#+%#!#n'a')on o& 4a%)o3!
'a,+ay#%! and a! non78o4#%n"#n'a* o%8an)9a')on!, petitioners,
vs.
EDGARDO ANGARA, A.BERTO ROMU.O, .ETICIA RAMOS7S2A2ANI, 2E2ERSON A.5ARE:, AGAPITO AUINO,
RODO.6O BIA:ON, NEPTA.I GON:A.ES, ERNESTO 2ERRERA, /OSE .INA, G.ORIA. MACAPAGA.7ARRO1O,
OR.ANDO MERCADO, B.AS OP.E, /O2N OSMEA, SANTANINA RASU., RAMON RE5I..A, RAU. ROCO,
6RANCISCO TATAD and 6REDDIE WEBB, )n '(#)% %#!+#;')4# ;a+a;)')#! a! "#"$#%! o& '(# P()*)++)n# S#na'# <(o
;on;3%%#d )n '(# %a')&);a')on $y '(# P%#!)d#n' o& '(# P()*)++)n#! o& '(# A8%##"#n' E!'a$*)!()n8 '(# Wo%*d T%ad#
O%8an)9a')on- SA.5ADOR ENRIUE:, )n ()! ;a+a;)'y a! S#;%#'a%y o& B3d8#' and Mana8#"#n'- CARIDAD
5A.DE2UESA, )n (#% ;a+a;)'y a! Na')ona* T%#a!3%#%- RI:A.INO NA5ARRO, )n ()! ;a+a;)'y a! S#;%#'a%y o& T%ad# and
Ind3!'%y- ROBERTO SEBASTIAN, )n ()! ;a+a;)'y a! S#;%#'a%y o& A8%);3*'3%#- ROBERTO DE OCAMPO, )n ()!
;a+a;)'y a! S#;%#'a%y o& 6)nan;#- ROBERTO ROMU.O, )n ()! ;a+a;)'y a! S#;%#'a%y o& 6o%#)8n A&&a)%!- and
TEO6ISTO T. GUINGONA, )n ()! ;a+a;)'y a! E,#;3')4# S#;%#'a%y, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
The emergence on anuar! ", "##$ of the %orld Trade &rgani'ation, abetted b! the membership thereto of the vast ma(orit!
of countries has revolutioni'ed international business and economic relations amongst states. )t has irreversibl! propelled the
*orld to*ards trade liberali'ation and economic globali'ation. +iberali'ation, globali'ation, deregulation and privati'ation, the
third,millennium bu'' *ords, are ushering in a ne* borderless *orld of business b! s*eeping a*a! as mere historical relics
the heretofore traditional modes of promoting and protecting national economies li-e tariffs, e.port subsidies, import /uotas,
/uantitative restrictions, ta. e.emptions and currenc! controls. 0inding mar-et niches and becoming the best in specific
industries in a mar-et,driven and e.port,oriented global scenario are replacing age,old 1beggar,th!,neighbor1 policies that
unilaterall! protect *ea- and inefficient domestic producers of goods and services. )n the *ords of Peter 2ruc-er, the *ell,
-no*n management guru, 1)ncreased participation in the *orld econom! has become the -e! to domestic economic gro*th
and prosperit!.1
Brief Historical Background
To hasten *orld*ide recover! from the devastation *rought b! the 3econd %orld %ar, plans for the establishment of three
multilateral institutions 4 inspired b! that grand political bod!, the 5nited Nations 4 *ere discussed at 2umbarton &a-s and
Bretton %oods. The first *as the %orld Ban- 6%B7 *hich *as to address the rehabilitation and reconstruction of *ar,ravaged
and later developing countries8 the second, the )nternational Monetar! 0und 6)M07 *hich *as to deal *ith currenc! problems8
and the third, the )nternational Trade &rgani'ation 6)T&7, *hich *as to foster order and predictabilit! in *orld trade and to
minimi'e unilateral protectionist policies that invite challenge, even retaliation, from other states. 9o*ever, for a variet! of
reasons, including its non,ratification b! the 5nited 3tates, the )T&, unli-e the )M0 and %B, never too- off. %hat remained
*as onl! :ATT 4 the :eneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. :ATT *as a collection of treaties governing access to the
economies of treat! adherents *ith no institutionali'ed bod! administering the agreements or dependable s!stem of dispute
settlement.
After half a centur! and several di''!ing rounds of negotiations, principall! the ;enned! Round, the To-!o Round and the
5rugua! Round, the *orld finall! gave birth to that administering bod! 4 the %orld Trade &rgani'ation 4 *ith the signing of
the 10inal Act1 in Marra-esh, Morocco and the ratification of the %T& Agreement b! its members. 1
+i-e man! other developing countries, the Philippines (oined %T& as a founding member *ith the goal, as articulated b!
President 0idel <. Ramos in t*o letters to the 3enate 6infra7, of improving 1Philippine access to foreign mar-ets, especiall! its
ma(or trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its e.ports, particularl! agricultural and industrial products.1 The
President also sa* in the %T& the opening of 1ne* opportunities for the services sector . . . , 6the reduction of7 costs and
uncertaint! associated *ith e.porting . . . , and 6the attraction of7 more investments into the countr!.1 Although the Chief
E.ecutive did not e.pressl! mention it in his letter, the Philippines 4 and this is of special interest to the legal profession 4
*ill benefit from the %T& s!stem of dispute settlement b! (udicial ad(udication through the independent %T& settlement
bodies called 6"7 2ispute 3ettlement Panels and 6=7 Appellate Tribunal. 9eretofore, trade disputes *ere settled mainl!
through negotiations *here solutions *ere arrived at fre/uentl! on the basis of relative bargaining strengths, and *here
naturall!, *ea- and underdeveloped countries *ere at a disadvantage.
The Petition in Brief
Arguing mainl! 6"7 that the %T& re/uires the Philippines 1to place nationals and products of member,countries on the same
footing as 0ilipinos and local products1 and 6=7 that the %T& 1intrudes, limits and>or impairs1 the constitutional po*ers of both
Congress and the 3upreme Court, the instant petition before this Court assails the %T& Agreement for violating the mandate
of the "#?@ Constitution to 1develop a self,reliant and independent national econom! effectivel! controlled b! 0ilipinos . . .
6to7 give preference to /ualified 0ilipinos 6and to7 promote the preferential use of 0ilipino labor, domestic materials and locall!
produced goods.1
3impl! stated, does the Philippine Constitution prohibit Philippine participation in *orld*ide trade liberali'ation and economic
globali'ationA 2oes it proscribe Philippine integration into a global econom! that is liberali'ed, deregulated and privati'edA
These are the main /uestions raised in this petition for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus under Rule B$ of the Rules of
Court pra!ing 6"7 for the nullification, on constitutional grounds, of the concurrence of the Philippine 3enate in the ratification
b! the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation 6%T& Agreement, for brevit!7
and 6=7 for the prohibition of its implementation and enforcement through the release and utili'ation of public funds, the
assignment of public officials and emplo!ees, as *ell as the use of government properties and resources b! respondent,
heads of various e.ecutive offices concerned there*ith. This concurrence is embodied in 3enate Resolution No. #@, dated
2ecember "C, "##C.
The Facts
&n April "$, "##C, Respondent Ri'alino Navarro, then 3ecretar! of The 2epartment of Trade and )ndustr! 63ecretar!
Navarro, for brevit!7, representing the :overnment of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Marra-esh, Morocco, the
0inal Act Embod!ing the Results of the 5rugua! Round of Multilateral Negotiations 60inal Act, for brevit!7.
B! signing the 0inal Act, 2 3ecretar! Navarro on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, agreedD
6a7 to submit, as appropriate, the %T& Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent
authorities, *ith a vie* to see-ing approval of the Agreement in accordance *ith their procedures8 and
6b7 to adopt the Ministerial 2eclarations and 2ecisions.
&n August "=, "##C, the members of the Philippine 3enate received a letter dated August "", "##C from the President of the
Philippines, = stating among others that 1the 5rugua! Round 0inal Act is hereb! submitted to the 3enate for its concurrence
pursuant to 3ection =", Article <)) of the Constitution.1
&n August "E, "##C, the members of the Philippine 3enate received another letter from the President of the
Philippines > li-e*ise dated August "", "##C, *hich stated among others that 1the 5rugua! Round 0inal Act, the Agreement
Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation, the Ministerial 2eclarations and 2ecisions, and the 5nderstanding on
Commitments in 0inancial 3ervices are hereb! submitted to the 3enate for its concurrence pursuant to 3ection =", Article <))
of the Constitution.1
&n 2ecember #, "##C, the President of the Philippines certified the necessit! of the immediate adoption of P.3. "F?E, a
resolution entitled 1Concurring in the Ratification of the Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation.1 5
&n 2ecember "C, "##C, the Philippine 3enate adopted Resolution No. #@ *hich 1Resolved, as it is hereb! resolved, that the
3enate concur, as it hereb! concurs, in the ratification b! the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the
%orld Trade &rgani'ation.1 ? The te.t of the %T& Agreement is *ritten on pages "E@ et seq. of <olume ) of the EB,
volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and includes various agreements and associated legal instruments
6identified in the said Agreement as Anne.es ", = and E thereto and collectivel! referred to as Multilateral Trade Agreements,
for brevit!7 as follo*sD
ANNEG "
Anne. "AD Multilateral Agreement on Trade in :oods
:eneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "##C
Agreement on Agriculture
Agreement on the Application of 3anitar! and
Ph!tosanitar! Measures
Agreement on Te.tiles and Clothing
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
Agreement on Trade,Related )nvestment Measures
Agreement on )mplementation of Article <) of he
:eneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
"##C
Agreement on )mplementation of Article <)) of the
:eneral on Tariffs and Trade "##C
Agreement on Pre,3hipment )nspection
Agreement on Rules of &rigin
Agreement on )mports +icensing Procedures
Agreement on 3ubsidies and Coordinating
Measures
Agreement on 3afeguards
Anne. "BD :eneral Agreement on Trade in 3ervices and Anne.es
Anne. "CD Agreement on Trade,Related Aspects of )ntellectual
Propert! Rights
ANNEG =
5nderstanding on Rules and Procedures :overning
the 3ettlement of 2isputes
ANNEG E
Trade Polic! Revie* Mechanism
&n 2ecember "B, "##C, the President of the Philippines signed 7 the )nstrument of Ratification, declaringD
N&% T9ERE0&RE, be it -no*n that ), 0)2E+ <. RAM&3, President of the Republic of the Philippines,
after having seen and considered the aforementioned Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade
&rgani'ation and the agreements and associated legal instruments included in Anne.es one 6"7, t*o 6=7
and three 6E7 of that Agreement *hich are integral parts thereof, signed at Marra-esh, Morocco on "$ April
"##C, do hereb! ratif! and confirm the same and ever! Article and Clause thereof.
To emphasi'e, the %T& Agreement ratified b! the President of the Philippines is composed of the Agreement Proper and
1the associated legal instruments included in Anne.es one 6"7, t*o 6=7 and three 6E7 of that Agreement *hich are integral
parts thereof.1
&n the other hand, the 0inal Act signed b! 3ecretar! Navarro embodies not onl! the %T& Agreement 6and its integral
anne.es aforementioned7 but also 6"7 the Ministerial 2eclarations and 2ecisions and 6=7 the 5nderstanding on Commitments
in 0inancial 3ervices. )n his Memorandum dated Ma! "E, "##B, 8 the 3olicitor :eneral describes these t*o latter documents
as follo*sD
The Ministerial 2ecisions and 2eclarations are t*ent!,five declarations and decisions on a *ide range of
matters, such as measures in favor of least developed countries, notification procedures, relationship of
%T& *ith the )nternational Monetar! 0und 6)M07, and agreements on technical barriers to trade and on
dispute settlement.
The 5nderstanding on Commitments in 0inancial 3ervices d*ell on, among other things, standstill or
limitations and /ualifications of commitments to e.isting non,conforming measures, mar-et access,
national treatment, and definitions of non,resident supplier of financial services, commercial presence and
ne* financial service.
&n 2ecember =#, "##C, the present petition *as filed. After careful deliberation on respondentsH comment and petitionersH
repl! thereto, the Court resolved on 2ecember "=, "##$, to give due course to the petition, and the parties thereafter filed
their respective memoranda. The court also re/uested the 9onorable +ilia R. Bautista, the Philippine Ambassador to the
5nited Nations stationed in :eneva, 3*it'erland, to submit a paper, hereafter referred to as 1Bautista Paper,1 9 for brevit!,
6"7 providing a historical bac-ground of and 6=7 summari'ing the said agreements.
2uring the &ral Argument held on August =@, "##B, the Court directedD
6a7 the petitioners to submit the 6"7 3enate Committee Report on the matter in controvers! and 6=7 the
transcript of proceedings>hearings in the 3enate8 and
6b7 the 3olicitor :eneral, as counsel for respondents, to file 6"7 a list of Philippine treaties signed prior to the
Philippine adherence to the %T& Agreement, *hich derogate from Philippine sovereignt! and 6=7 copies of
the multi,volume %T& Agreement and other documents mentioned in the 0inal Act, as soon as possible.
After receipt of the foregoing documents, the Court said it *ould consider the case submitted for resolution. )n a Compliance
dated 3eptember "B, "##B, the 3olicitor :eneral submitted a printed cop! of the EB,volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral
Trade Negotiations, and in another Compliance dated &ctober =C, "##B, he listed the various 1bilateral or multilateral treaties
or international instruments involving derogation of Philippine sovereignt!.1 Petitioners, on the other hand, submitted their
Compliance dated anuar! =?, "##@, on anuar! EF, "##@.
The Issues
)n their Memorandum dated March "", "##B, petitioners summari'ed the issues as follo*sD
A. %hether the petition presents a political /uestion or is other*ise not (usticiable.
B. %hether the petitioner members of the 3enate *ho participated in the deliberations and voting leading to
the concurrence are estopped from impugning the validit! of the Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade
&rgani'ation or of the validit! of the concurrence.
C. %hether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation contravene the
provisions of 3ec. "#, Article )), and 3ecs. "F and "=, Article G)), all of the "#?@ Philippine Constitution.
2. %hether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation undul! limit, restrict and
impair Philippine sovereignt! specificall! the legislative po*er *hich, under 3ec. =, Article <), "#?@
Philippine Constitution is 1vested in the Congress of the Philippines18
E. %hether provisions of the Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation interfere *ith the
e.ercise of (udicial po*er.
0. %hether the respondent members of the 3enate acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or
e.cess of (urisdiction *hen the! voted for concurrence in the ratification of the constitutionall!,infirm
Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation.
:. %hether the respondent members of the 3enate acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or
e.cess of (urisdiction *hen the! concurred onl! in the ratification of the Agreement Establishing the %orld
Trade &rgani'ation, and not *ith the Presidential submission *hich included the 0inal Act, Ministerial
2eclaration and 2ecisions, and the 5nderstanding on Commitments in 0inancial 3ervices.
&n the other hand, the 3olicitor :eneral as counsel for respondents 1s!nthesi'ed the several issues raised b! petitioners into
the follo*ing1D 1@
". %hether or not the provisions of the 1Agreement Establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation and the
Agreements and Associated +egal )nstruments included in Anne.es one 6"7, t*o 6=7 and three 6E7 of that
agreement1 cited b! petitioners directl! contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and intent of 3ection "#,
Article )) and 3ections "F and "=, Article G)) of the "#?@ Constitution.
=. %hether or not certain provisions of the Agreement undul! limit, restrict or impair the e.ercise of
legislative po*er b! Congress.
E. %hether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the e.ercise of (udicial po*er b! this
9onorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
C. %hether or not the concurrence of the 3enate 1in the ratification b! the President of the Philippines of the
Agreement establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation1 implied re(ection of the treat! embodied in the 0inal
Act.
B! raising and arguing onl! four issues against the seven presented b! petitioners, the 3olicitor :eneral has effectivel!
ignored three, namel!D 6"7 *hether the petition presents a political /uestion or is other*ise not (usticiable8 6=7 *hether
petitioner,members of the 3enate 6%igberto E. TaIada and Anna 2omini/ue Coseteng7 are estopped from (oining this suit8
and 6E7 *hether the respondent,members of the 3enate acted in grave abuse of discretion *hen the! voted for concurrence
in the ratification of the %T& Agreement. The foregoing not*ithstanding, this Court resolved to deal *ith these three issues
thusD
6"7 The 1political /uestion1 issue 4 being ver! fundamental and vital, and being a matter that probes into the ver! (urisdiction
of this Court to hear and decide this case 4 *as deliberated upon b! the Court and *ill thus be ruled upon as the first issue8
6=7 The matter of estoppel *ill not be ta-en up because this defense is *aivable and the respondents have effectivel! *aived
it b! not pursuing it in an! of their pleadings8 in an! event, this issue, even if ruled in respondentsH favor, *ill not cause the
petitionHs dismissal as there are petitioners other than the t*o senators, *ho are not vulnerable to the defense of estoppel8
and
6E7 The issue of alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent senators *ill be ta-en up as an integral part
of the disposition of the four issues raised b! the 3olicitor :eneral.
2uring its deliberations on the case, the Court noted that the respondents did not /uestion the locus standi of petitioners.
9ence, the! are also deemed to have *aived the benefit of such issue. The! probabl! reali'ed that grave constitutional
issues, e.penditures of public funds and serious international commitments of the nation are involved here, and that
transcendental public interest re/uires that the substantive issues be met head on and decided on the merits, rather than
s-irted or deflected b! procedural matters. 11
To recapitulate, the issues that *ill be ruled upon shortl! areD
6"7 2&E3 T9E PET)T)&N PRE3ENT A 53T)C)AB+E C&NTR&<ER3JA &T9ER%)3E 3TATE2, 2&E3
T9E PET)T)&N )N<&+<E A P&+)T)CA+ K5E3T)&N &<ER %9)C9 T9)3 C&5RT 9A3 N&
5R)32)CT)&NA
6=7 2& T9E PR&<)3)&N3 &0 T9E %T& A:REEMENT AN2 )T3 T9REE ANNEGE3 C&NTRA<ENE 3EC.
"#, ART)C+E )), AN2 3EC3. "F AN2 "=, ART)C+E G)), &0 T9E P9)+)PP)NE C&N3T)T5T)&NA
6E7 2& T9E PR&<)3)&N3 &0 3A)2 A:REEMENT AN2 )T3 ANNEGE3 +)M)T, RE3TR)CT, &R )MPA)R
T9E EGERC)3E &0 +E:)3+AT)<E P&%ER BJ C&N:RE33A
6C7 2& 3A)2 PR&<)3)&N3 5N25+J )MPA)R &R )NTER0ERE %)T9 T9E EGERC)3E &0 52)C)A+
P&%ER BJ T9)3 C&5RT )N PR&M5+:AT)N: R5+E3 &N E<)2ENCEA
6$7 %A3 T9E C&NC5RRENCE &0 T9E 3ENATE )N T9E %T& A:REEMENT AN2 )T3 ANNEGE3
3500)C)ENT AN2>&R <A+)2, C&N3)2ER)N: T9AT )T 2)2 N&T )NC+52E T9E 0)NA+ ACT,
M)N)3TER)A+ 2EC+ARAT)&N3 AN2 2EC)3)&N3, AN2 T9E 5N2ER3TAN2)N: &N C&MM)TMENT3 )N
0)NANC)A+ 3ER<)CE3A
The First IssueD Does the ourt
Ha!e "urisdiction #!er the ontro!ersy$
)n see-ing to nullif! an act of the Philippine 3enate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt
raises a (usticiable controvers!. %here an action of the legislative branch is seriousl! alleged to have infringed the
Constitution, it becomes not onl! the right but in fact the dut! of the (udiciar! to settle the dispute. 1The /uestion thus posed is
(udicial rather than political. The dut! 6to ad(udicate7 remains to assure that the supremac! of the Constitution is
upheld.1 12 &nce a 1controvers! as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court
6as in the instant case7, it becomes a legal issue *hich the Court is bound b! constitutional mandate to decide.1 1=
The (urisdiction of this Court to ad(udicate the matters 1> raised in the petition is clearl! set out in the "#?@
Constitution, 15 as follo*sD
udicial po*er includes the dut! of the courts of (ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights *hich
are legall! demandable and enforceable, and to determine *hether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lac- or e.cess of (urisdiction on the part of an! branch or instrumentalit! of the
government.
The foregoing te.t emphasi'es the (udicial departmentHs dut! and po*er to stri-e do*n grave abuse of discretion on the part
of an! branch or instrumentalit! of government including Congress. )t is an innovation in our political la*. 1? As e.plained b!
former Chief ustice Roberto Concepcion, 17 1the (udiciar! is the final arbiter on the /uestion of *hether or not a branch of
government or an! of its officials has acted *ithout (urisdiction or in e.cess of (urisdiction or so capriciousl! as to constitute
an abuse of discretion amounting to e.cess of (urisdiction. This is not onl! a (udicial po*er but a dut! to pass (udgment on
matters of this nature.1
As this Court has repeatedl! and firml! emphasi'ed in man! cases, 18 it *ill not shir-, digress from or abandon its sacred
dut! and authorit! to uphold the Constitution in matters that involve grave abuse of discretion brought before it in appropriate
cases, committed b! an! officer, agenc!, instrumentalit! or department of the government.
As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is no other plain, speed! or ade/uate remed! in the ordinar!
course of la*, *e have no hesitation at all in holding that this petition should be given due course and the vital /uestions
raised therein ruled upon under Rule B$ of the Rules of Court. )ndeed, certiorari, prohibition andmandamus are appropriate
remedies to raise constitutional issues and to revie* and>or prohibit>nullif!, *hen proper, acts of legislative and e.ecutive
officials. &n this, *e have no e/uivocation.
%e should stress that, in deciding to ta-e (urisdiction over this petition, this Court *ill not revie* the %isdom of the decision of
the President and the 3enate in enlisting the countr! into the %T&, or pass upon the merits of trade liberali'ation as a polic!
espoused b! said international bod!. Neither *ill it rule on the &ro&riety of the governmentHs economic polic! of
reducing>removing tariffs, ta.es, subsidies, /uantitative restrictions, and other import>trade barriers. Rather, it *ill onl!
e.ercise its constitutional dut! 1to determine *hether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or
e.cess of (urisdiction1 on the part of the 3enate in ratif!ing the %T& Agreement and its three anne.es.
'econd IssueD The (T# )greement
and *conomic Nationalism
This is the lis mota, the main issue, raised b! the petition.
Petitioners vigorousl! argue that the 1letter, spirit and intent1 of the Constitution mandating 1economic nationalism1 are
violated b! the so,called 1parit! provisions1 and 1national treatment1 clauses scattered in various parts not onl! of the %T&
Agreement and its anne.es but also in the Ministerial 2ecisions and 2eclarations and in the 5nderstanding on Commitments
in 0inancial 3ervices.
3pecificall!, the 1flagship1 constitutional provisions referred to are 3ec "#, Article )), and 3ecs. "F and "=, Article G)), of the
Constitution, *hich are *orded as follo*sD
Article ))
2EC+ARAT)&N &0 PR)NC)P+E3
AN2 3TATE P&+)C)E3
... ... ...
3ec. "#. The 3tate shall develop a self,reliant and independent national econom! effectivel! controlled b!
0ilipinos.
... ... ...
Article G))
NAT)&NA+ EC&N&MJ AN2 PATR)M&NJ
... ... ...
3ec. "F. . . . The Congress shall enact measures that *ill encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises *hose capital is *holl! o*ned b! 0ilipinos.
)n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national econom! and patrimon!, the 3tate
shall give preference to /ualified 0ilipinos.
... ... ...
3ec. "=. The 3tate shall promote the preferential use of 0ilipino labor, domestic materials and locall!
produced goods, and adopt measures that help ma-e them competitive.
Petitioners aver that these sacred constitutional principles are desecrated b! the follo*ing %T& provisions /uoted in their
memorandumD 19
a7 )n the area of investment measures related to trade in goods 6TR)M3, for brevit!7D
Article =
National Treatment and Kuantitative Restrictions.
". %ithout pre(udice to other rights and obligations under :ATT "##C, no Member shall
appl! an! TR)M that is inconsistent *ith the provisions of Article )) or Article G) of :ATT
"##C.
=. An illustrative list of TR)M3 that are inconsistent *ith the obligations of general
elimination of /uantitative restrictions provided for in paragraph ) of Article G) of :ATT
"##C is contained in the Anne. to this Agreement.1 6Agreement on Trade,Related
)nvestment Measures, <ol. =@, 5rugua! Round, +egal )nstruments, p. =="=", emphasis
supplied7.
The Anne. referred to reads as follo*sD
ANNEG
)llustrative +ist
". TR)M3 that are inconsistent *ith the obligation of national treatment provided for in paragraph C of Article
))) of :ATT "##C include those *hich are mandator! or enforceable under domestic la* or under
administrative rulings, or compliance *ith *hich is necessar! to obtain an advantage, and *hich re/uireD
6a7 the purchase or use b! an enterprise of products of domestic origin or from an!
domestic source, *hether specified in terms of particular products, in terms of volume or
value of products, or in terms of proportion of volume or value of its local production8 or
6b7 that an enterpriseHs purchases or use of imported products be limited to an amount
related to the volume or value of local products that it e.ports.
=. TR)M3 that are inconsistent *ith the obligations of general elimination of /uantitative restrictions
provided for in paragraph " of Article G) of :ATT "##C include those *hich are mandator! or enforceable
under domestic la*s or under administrative rulings, or compliance *ith *hich is necessar! to obtain an
advantage, and *hich restrictD
6a7 the importation b! an enterprise of products used in or related to the local production
that it e.ports8
6b7 the importation b! an enterprise of products used in or related to its local production
b! restricting its access to foreign e.change inflo*s attributable to the enterprise8 or
6c7 the e.portation or sale for e.port specified in terms of particular products, in terms of
volume or value of products, or in terms of a preparation of volume or value of its local
production. 6Anne. to the Agreement on Trade,Related )nvestment Measures, <ol. =@,
5rugua! Round +egal 2ocuments, p. =="=$, emphasis supplied7.
The paragraph C of Article ))) of :ATT "##C referred to is /uoted as follo*sD
The products of the territor! of an! contracting part! imported into the territor! of an!
other contracting part! shall +e accorded treatment no less fa!ora+le than that accorded
to like &roducts of national origin in respect of la*s, regulations and re/uirements
affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use,
the provisions of this paragraph shall not prevent the application of differential internal
transportation charges *hich are based e.clusivel! on the economic operation of the
means of transport and not on the nationalit! of the product.1 6Article ))), :ATT "#C@, as
amended b! the Protocol Modif!ing Part )), and Article GG<) of :ATT, "C 3eptember
"#C?, B= 5MT3 ?=,?C in relation to paragraph "6a7 of the :eneral Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade "##C, <ol. ", 5rugua! Round, +egal )nstruments p. "@@, emphasis supplied7.
6b7 In the area of trade related as&ects of intellectual &ro&erty rights ,TRIP'- for +re!ity.D
*ach Mem+er shall accord to the nationals of other Mem+ers treatment no less
fa!oura+le than that it accords to its o%n nationals *ith regard to the protection of
intellectual propert!. . . 6par. " Article E, Agreement on Trade,Related Aspect of
)ntellectual Propert! rights, <ol. E", 5rugua! Round, +egal )nstruments, p. =$CE=
6emphasis supplied7
6c7 In the area of the /eneral )greement on Trade in 'er!icesD
National Treatment
". )n the sectors inscribed in its schedule, and sub(ect to an! conditions and /ualifications
set out therein, each Member shall accord to services and service suppliers of an! other
Member, in respect of all measures affecting the suppl! of services, treatment no less
fa!oura+le than it accords to its o%n like ser!ices and ser!ice su&&liers.
=. A Member ma! meet the re/uirement of paragraph ) b! according to services and
service suppliers of an! other Member, either formall! suppliers of an! other Member,
either formall! identical treatment or formall! different treatment to that it accords to its
o*n li-e services and service suppliers.
E. 0ormall! identical or formall! different treatment shall be considered to be less
favourable if it modifies the conditions of completion in favour of services or service
suppliers of the Member compared to li-e services or service suppliers of an! other
Member. 6Article G<)), :eneral Agreement on Trade in 3ervices, <ol. =?, 5rugua! Round
+egal )nstruments, p. ==B"F emphasis supplied7.
)t is petitionersH position that the foregoing 1national treatment1 and 1parit! provisions1 of the %T& Agreement 1place nationals
and products of member countries on the same footing as 0ilipinos and local products,1 in contravention of the 10ilipino 0irst1
polic! of the Constitution. The! allegedl! render meaningless the phrase 1effectivel! controlled b! 0ilipinos.1 The
constitutional conflict becomes more manifest *hen vie*ed in the conte.t of the clear dut! imposed on the Philippines as a
%T& member to ensure the conformit! of its la*s, regulations and administrative procedures *ith its obligations as provided
in the anne.ed agreements. 2@ Petitioners further argue that these provisions contravene constitutional limitations on the role
e.ports pla! in national development and negate the preferential treatment accorded to 0ilipino labor, domestic materials and
locall! produced goods.
&n the other hand, respondents through the 3olicitor :eneral counter 6"7 that such Charter provisions are not self,e.ecuting
and merel! set out general policies8 6=7 that these nationalistic portions of the Constitution invo-ed b! petitioners should not
be read in isolation but should be related to other relevant provisions of Art. G)), particularl! 3ecs. " and "E thereof8 6E7 that
read properl!, the cited %T& clauses do not conflict *ith Constitution8 and 6C7 that the %T& Agreement contains sufficient
provisions to protect developing countries li-e the Philippines from the harshness of sudden trade liberali'ation.
%e shall no* discuss and rule on these arguments.
Declaration of Princi&les
Not 'elf0*1ecuting
B! its ver! title, Article )) of the Constitution is a 1declaration of principles and state policies.1 The counterpart of this article in
the "#E$ Constitution 21 is called the 1basic political creed of the nation1 b! 2ean <icente 3inco. 22 These principles in
Article )) are not intended to be self,e.ecuting principles read! for enforcement through the courts. 2= The! are used b! the
(udiciar! as aids or as guides in the e.ercise of its po*er of (udicial revie*, and b! the legislature in its enactment of la*s. As
held in the leading case of 2ilos+ayan- Incor&orated !s. Morato, 2> the principles and state policies enumerated in Article ))
and some sections of Article G)) are not 1self,e.ecuting provisions, the disregard of *hich can give rise to a cause of action in
the courts. The! do not embod! (udiciall! enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation.1
)n the same light, *e held in Basco !s. Pagcor 25 that broad constitutional principles need legislative enactments to
implement the, thusD
&n petitionersH allegation that P.2. "?B# violates 3ections "" 6Personal 2ignit!7 "= 60amil!7 and "E 6Role of
Jouth7 of Article ))8 3ection "E 63ocial ustice7 of Article G))) and 3ection = 6Educational <alues7 of Article
G)< of the "#?@ Constitution, suffice it to state also that these are merel! statements of principles and
policies. As such, the! are basicall! not self,e.ecuting, meaning a la* should be passed b! Congress to
clearl! define and effectuate such principles.
)n general, therefore, the "#E$ provisions *ere not intended to be self,e.ecuting
principles read! for enforcement through the courts. The! *ere rather directives
addressed to the e.ecutive and to the legislature. )f the e.ecutive and the legislature
failed to heed the directives of the article, the available remed! *as not (udicial but
political. The electorate could e.press their displeasure *ith the failure of the e.ecutive
and the legislature through the language of the ballot. 6Bernas, <ol. )), p. =7.
The reasons for den!ing a cause of action to an alleged infringement of board constitutional principles are sourced from
basic considerations of due process and the lac- of (udicial authorit! to *ade 1into the uncharted ocean of social and
economic polic! ma-ing.1 Mr. ustice 0lorentino P. 0eliciano in his concurring opinion in#&osa !s. Factoran- "r., 2? e.plained
these reasons as follo*sD
M! suggestion is simpl! that petitioners must, before the trial court, sho* a more specific legal right 4 a
right cast in language of a significantl! lo*er order of generalit! than Article )) 6"$7 of the Constitution 4
that is or ma! be violated b! the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent b! petitioners
so that the trial court can validl! render (udgment grating all or part of the relief pra!ed for. To m! mind, the
court should be understood as simpl! sa!ing that such a more specific legal right or rights ma! *ell e.ist in
our corpus of la*, considering the general polic! principles found in the Constitution and the e.istence of
the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have given petitioners an effective
opportunit! so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
)t seems to me important that the legal right *hich is an essential component of a cause of action be a
specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or statutor! polic!, for at least t*o 6=7 reasons.
&ne is that unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in
operational terms, defendants ma! *ell be unable to defend themselves intelligentl! and effectivel!8 in
other *ords, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
The second is a broader,gauge consideration 4 *here a specific violation of la* or applicable regulation is
not alleged or proved, petitioners can be e.pected to fall bac- on the e.panded conception of (udicial
po*er in the second paragraph of 3ection " of Article <))) of the Constitution *hich readsD
3ec. ". . . .
udicial po*er includes the dut! of the courts of (ustice to settle actual controversies
involving rights *hich are legall! demandable and enforceable, and to determine *hether
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or e.cess of
(urisdiction on the part of an! branch or instrumentalit! of the :overnment. 6Emphasis
supplied7
%hen substantive standards as general as 1the right to a balanced and health! ecolog!1 and 1the right to
health1 are combined *ith remedial standards as broad ranging as 1a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lac- or e.cess of (urisdiction,1 the result *ill be, it is respectfull! submitted, to propel courts into the
uncharted ocean of social and economic polic! ma-ing. At least in respect of the vast area of
environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to special technical competence and
e.perience and professional /ualification. %here no specific, operable norms and standards are sho*n to
e.ist, then the polic! ma-ing departments 4 the legislative and e.ecutive departments 4 must be given a
real and effective opportunit! to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and to implement
them before the courts should intervene.
*conomic Nationalism 'hould Be Read %ith
#ther onstitutional Mandates to )ttain
Balanced De!elo&ment of *conomy
&n the other hand, 3ecs. "F and "= of Article G)), apart from merel! la!ing do*n general principles relating to the national
econom! and patrimon!, should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said article, especiall! 3ecs. "
and "E thereof *hich readD
3ec. ". The goals of the national econom! are a more e/uitable distribution of opportunities, income, and
*ealth8 a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced b! the nation for the benefit of
the people8 and an e.panding productivit! as the -e! to raising the /ualit! of life for all especiall! the
underprivileged.
The 3tate shall promote industriali'ation and full emplo!ment based on sound agricultural development
and agrarian reform, through industries that ma-e full and efficient use of human and natural resources,
and *hich are competitive in both domestic and foreign mar-ets. 9o*ever, the 3tate shall protect 0ilipino
enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
)n the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the econom! and all regions of the countr! shall be given
optimum opportunit! to develop. . . .
... ... ...
3ec. "E. The 3tate shall pursue a trade polic! that serves the general *elfare and utili'es all forms and
arrangements of e.change on the basis of e/ualit! and reciprocit!.
As pointed out b! the 3olicitor :eneral, 3ec. " la!s do*n the +asic goals of national economic development, as follo*sD
". A more e/uitable distribution of opportunities, income and *ealth8
=. A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services provided b! the nation for the benefit of the people8 and
E. An e.panding productivit! as the -e! to raising the /ualit! of life for all especiall! the underprivileged.
%ith these goals in conte.t, the Constitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism 6"7 b! e.pressing preference in
favor of /ualified 0ilipinos 1in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national econom! and
patrimon!1 27 and in the use of 10ilipino labor, domestic materials and locall!,produced goods18 6=7 b! mandating the 3tate to
1adopt measures that help ma-e them competitive8 28 and 6E7 b! re/uiring the 3tate to 1develop a self,reliant and
independent national econom! effectivel! controlled b! 0ilipinos.1 29 )n similar language, the Constitution ta-es into account
the realities of the outside *orld as it re/uires the pursuit of 1a trade polic! that serves the general *elfare and utili'es all
forms and arrangements of e.change on the basis of e/ualit! ad reciprocit!18 =@ and spea-s of industries 1*hich are
competitive in both domestic and foreign mar-ets1 as *ell as of the protection of 10ilipino enterprises againstunfair foreign
competition and trade practices.1
)t is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel !s. /o!ernment 'er!ice Insurance 'ystem, et al., =1 this Court held
that 13ec. "F, second par., Art. G)) of the "#?@ Constitution is a mandator!, positive command *hich is complete in itself and
*hich needs no further guidelines or implementing la*s or rule for its enforcement. 0rom its ver! *ords the provision does
not re/uire an! legislation to put it in operation. )t is &er se (udiciall! enforceable.1 9o*ever, as the constitutional provision
itself states, it is enforceable onl! in regard to 1the grants of rights, privileges and concessions covering national econom!
and patrimon!1 and not to ever! aspect of trade and commerce. )t refers to e.ceptions rather than the rule. The issue here is
not *hether this paragraph of 3ec. "F of Art. G)) is self,e.ecuting or not. Rather, the issue is *hether, as a rule, there are
enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allo* the 3enate to ratif! the Philippine concurrence in the %T&
Agreement. And *e hold that there are.
All told, *hile the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of 0ilipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same
time, it recogni'es the need for business e.change *ith the rest of the *orld on the bases of e/ualit! and reciprocit! and
limits protection of 0ilipino enterprises onl! against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. =2 )n other *ords,
the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist polic!. )t did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in
the development of the Philippine econom!. %hile the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entr! of foreign goods,
services and investments into the countr!, it does not prohibit them either. )n fact, it allo*s an e.change on the basis of
e/ualit! and reciprocit!, fro*ning onl! on foreign competition that is unfair.
(T# Recogni3es Need to
Protect (eak *conomies
5pon the other hand, respondents maintain that the %T& itself has some built,in advantages to protect *ea- and developing
economies, *hich comprise the vast ma(orit! of its members. 5nli-e in the 5N *here ma(or states have permanent seats and
veto po*ers in the 3ecurit! Council, in the %T&, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign e/ualit!, *ith each memberHs
vote e/ual in *eight to that of an! other. There is no %T& e/uivalent of the 5N 3ecurit! Council.
%T& decides b! consensus *henever possible, other*ise, decisions of the Ministerial Conference and the
:eneral Council shall be ta-en b! the ma(orit! of the votes cast, e.cept in cases of interpretation of the
Agreement or *aiver of the obligation of a member *hich *ould re/uire three fourths vote. Amendments
*ould re/uire t*o thirds vote in general. Amendments to M0N provisions and the Amendments provision
*ill re/uire assent of all members. An! member ma! *ithdra* from the Agreement upon the e.piration of
si. months from the date of notice of *ithdra*als. ==
9ence, poor countries can protect their common interests more effectivel! through the %T& than through one,on,one
negotiations *ith developed countries. %ithin the %T&, developing countries can form po*erful blocs to push their economic
agenda more decisivel! than outside the &rgani'ation. This is not merel! a matter of practical alliances but a negotiating
strateg! rooted in la*. Thus, the basic principles underl!ing the %T& Agreement recogni'e the need of developing countries
li-e the Philippines to 1share in the gro*th in international tradecommensurate %ith the needs of their economic
de!elo&ment.1 These basic principles are found in the preamble=> of the %T& Agreement as follo*sD
The Parties to this Agreement,
Recogni'ing that their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted *ith a
vie* to raising standards of living, ensuring full emplo!ment and a large and steadil! gro*ing volume of
real income and effective demand, and e.panding the production of and trade in goods and services, *hile
allo*ing for the optimal use of the *orldHs resources in accordance *ith the ob(ective of sustainable
development, see-ing both to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing
so in a manner consistent %ith their res&ecti!e needs and concerns at different le!els of economic
de!elo&ment-
Recogni'ing further that there is need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and
especiall! the least developed among them, secure a share in the gro%th in international trade
commensurate %ith the needs of their economic de!elo&ment-
Being desirous of contributing to these ob(ectives b! entering into reciprocal and mutuall! advantageous
arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to
the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations,
Resolved, therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable and durable multilateral trading s!stem
encompassing the :eneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the results of past trade liberali'ation efforts,
and all of the results of the 5rugua! Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations,
2etermined to preserve the basic principles and to further the ob(ectives underl!ing this multilateral trading
s!stem, . . . 6emphasis supplied.7
'&ecific (T# Pro!isos
Protect De!elo&ing ountries
3o too, the 3olicitor :eneral points out that pursuant to and consistent *ith the foregoing basic principles, the %T&
Agreement grants developing countries a more lenient treatment, giving their domestic industries some protection from the
rush of foreign competition. Thus, *ith respect to tariffs in general, preferential treatment is given to developing countries in
terms of the amount of tariff reduction and the &eriod %ithin %hich the reduction is to +e s&read out. 3pecificall!, :ATT
re/uires an average tariff reduction rate of 456 for de!elo&ed countries to be effected *ithin a &eriod of si1 ,5. years *hile
developing countries 4 including the Philippines 4 are required to effect an a!erage tariff reduction of only 786 %ithin ten
,9:. years.
)n respect to domestic subsid!, :ATT re/uires de!elo&ed countries to reduce domestic support to agricultural products
b! 7:6 o!er si1 ,5. years, as compared to only 946 for de!elo&ing countries to +e effected %ithin ten ,9:. years.
)n regard to e.port subsid! for agricultural products, :ATT re/uires developed countries to reduce their budgetar! outla!s for
e.port subsid! +y 456 and e.port volumes receiving e.port subsid! b! 796 %ithin a &eriod of si1 ,5. years. 0or developing
countries, ho*ever, the reduction rate is onl! t%o0thirds of that prescribed for developed countries and a longer &eriod of ten
,9:. years *ithin *hich to effect such reduction.
Moreover, :ATT itself has provided built,in protection from unfair foreign competition and trade practices including anti,
dumping measures, countervailing measures and safeguards against import surges. %here local businesses are (eopardi'ed
b! unfair foreign competition, the Philippines can avail of these measures. There is hardl! therefore an! basis for the
statement that under the %T&, local industries and enterprises *ill all be *iped out and that 0ilipinos *ill be deprived of
control of the econom!. Kuite the contrar!, the *ea-er situations of developing nations li-e the Philippines have been ta-en
into account8 thus, there *ould be no basis to sa! that in (oining the %T&, the respondents have gravel! abused their
discretion. True, the! have made a bold decision to steer the ship of state into the !et uncharted sea of economic
liberali'ation. But such decision cannot be set aside on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, simpl! because *e disagree
*ith it or simpl! because *e believe onl! in other economic policies. As earlier stated, the Court in ta-ing (urisdiction of this
case *ill not pass upon the advantages and disadvantages of trade liberali'ation as an economic polic!. )t *ill onl! perform
its constitutional dut! of determining *hether the 3enate committed grave abuse of discretion.
onstitution Does Not
Rule #ut Foreign om&etition
0urthermore, the constitutional polic! of a 1self,reliant and independent national econom!1 =5 does not necessaril! rule out
the entr! of foreign investments, goods and services. )t contemplates neither 1economic seclusion1 nor 1mendicanc! in the
international communit!.1 As e.plained b! Constitutional Commissioner Bernardo <illegas, sponsor of this constitutional
polic!D
*conomic self0reliance is a &rimary o+;ecti!e of a de!elo&ing country that is keenly a%are of
o!erde&endence on e1ternal assistance for e!en its most +asic needs< It does not mean autarky or
economic seclusion8 rather, it means avoiding mendicanc! in the international communit!. )ndependence
refers to the freedom from undue foreign control of the national econom!, especiall! in such strategic
industries as in the development of natural resources and public utilities. =?
The %T& reliance on 1most favored nation,1 1national treatment,1 and 1trade *ithout discrimination1 cannot be struc- do*n
as unconstitutional as in fact the! are rules of e/ualit! and reciprocit! that appl! to all %T& members. Aside from envisioning
a trade polic! based on 1e/ualit! and reciprocit!,1 =7 the fundamental la* encourages industries that are 1competitive in both
domestic and foreign mar-ets,1 thereb! demonstrating a clear polic! against a sheltered domestic trade environment, but one
in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that can compete *ith the best in the foreign mar-ets. )ndeed,
0ilipino managers and 0ilipino enterprises have sho*n capabilit! and tenacit! to compete internationall!. And given a free
trade environment, 0ilipino entrepreneurs and managers in 9ong-ong have demonstrated the 0ilipino capacit! to gro* and to
prosper against the best offered under a polic! of laisse3 faire.
onstitution Fa!ors onsumers-
Not Industries or *nter&rises
The Constitution has not reall! sho*n an! unbalanced bias in favor of an! business or enterprise, nor does it contain an!
specific pronouncement that 0ilipino companies should be pampered *ith a total proscription of foreign competition. &n the
other hand, respondents claim that %T&>:ATT aims to ma-e available to the 0ilipino consumer the best goods and services
obtainable an!*here in the *orld at the most reasonable prices. Conse/uentl!, the /uestion boils do*n to *hether
%T&>:ATT *ill favor the general *elfare of the public at large.
%ill adherence to the %T& treat! bring this ideal 6of favoring the general *elfare7 to realit!A
%ill %T&>:ATT succeed in promoting the 0ilipinosH general *elfare because it *ill 4 as promised b! its promoters 4
e.pand the countr!Hs e.ports and generate more emplo!mentA
%ill it bring more prosperit!, emplo!ment, purchasing po*er and /ualit! products at the most reasonable rates to the 0ilipino
publicA
The responses to these /uestions involve 1(udgment calls1 b! our polic! ma-ers, for *hich the! are ans*erable to our people
during appropriate electoral e.ercises. 3uch /uestions and the ans*ers thereto are not sub(ect to (udicial pronouncements
based on grave abuse of discretion.
onstitution Designed to Meet
Future *!ents and ontingencies
No doubt, the %T& Agreement *as not !et in e.istence *hen the Constitution *as drafted and ratified in "#?@. That does not
mean ho*ever that the Charter is necessaril! fla*ed in the sense that its framers might not have anticipated the advent of a
borderless *orld of business. B! the same to-en, the 5nited Nations *as not !et in e.istence *hen the "#E$ Constitution
became effective. 2id that necessaril! mean that the then Constitution might not have contemplated a diminution of the
absoluteness of sovereignt! *hen the Philippines signed the 5N Charter, thereb! effectivel! surrendering part of its control
over its foreign relations to the decisions of various 5N organs li-e the 3ecurit! CouncilA
)t is not difficult to ans*er this /uestion. Constitutions are designed to meet not onl! the vagaries of contemporar! events.
The! should be interpreted to cover even future and un-no*n circumstances. )t is to the credit of its drafters that a
Constitution can *ithstand the assaults of bigots and infidels but at the same time bend *ith the refreshing *inds of change
necessitated b! unfolding events. As one eminent political la* *riter and respected (urist =8 e.plainsD
The Constitution must be /uintessential rather than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and
frame,*or- onl! of the edifice that is !et to rise. )t is but the core of the dream that must ta-e shape, not in
a t*in-ling b! mandate of our delegates, but slo*l! 1in the crucible of 0ilipino minds and hearts,1 *here it
*ill in time develop its sine*s and graduall! gather its strength and finall! achieve its substance. )n fine, the
Constitution cannot, li-e the goddess Athena, rise full,gro*n from the bro* of the Constitutional
Convention, nor can it con(ure b! mere fiat an instant 5topia. It must gro% %ith the society it seeks to re0
structure and march a&ace %ith the &rogress of the race- dra%ing from the !icissitudes of history the
dynamism and !itality that %ill kee& it- far from +ecoming a &etrified rule- a &ulsing- li!ing la% attuned to the
heart+eat of the nation.
Third IssueD The (T# )greement and =egislati!e Po%er
The %T& Agreement provides that 16e7ach Member shall ensure the conformit! of its la*s, regulations and administrative
procedures *ith its obligations as provided in the anne.ed Agreements.1 =9 Petitioners maintain that this underta-ing 1undul!
limits, restricts and impairs Philippine sovereignt!, specificall! the legislative po*er *hich under 3ec. =, Article <) of the "#?@
Philippine Constitution is vested in the Congress of the Philippines. )t is an assault on the sovereign po*ers of the Philippines
because this means that Congress could not pass legislation that *ill be good for our national interest and general *elfare if
such legislation *ill not conform *ith the %T& Agreement, *hich not onl! relates to the trade in goods . . . but also to the flo*
of investments and mone! . . . as *ell as to a *hole sle* of agreements on socio,cultural matters . . . >@
More specificall!, petitioners claim that said %T& proviso derogates from the po*er to ta., *hich is lodged in the
Congress. >1 And *hile the Constitution allo*s Congress to authori'e the President to fi. tariff rates, import and e.port
/uotas, tonnage and *harfage dues, and other duties or imposts, such authorit! is sub(ect to 1specified limits and . . . such
limitations and restrictions1 as Congress ma! provide, >2 as in fact it did under 3ec. CF" of the Tariff and Customs Code.
'o!ereignty =imited +y
International =a% and Treaties
This Court notes and appreciates the ferocit! and passion b! *hich petitioners stressed their arguments on this issue.
9o*ever, *hile sovereignt! has traditionall! been deemed absolute and all,encompassing on the domestic level, it is
ho*ever sub(ect to restrictions and limitations voluntaril! agreed to b! the Philippines, e.pressl! or impliedl!, as a member of
the famil! of nations. 5n/uestionabl!, the Constitution did not envision a hermit,t!pe isolation of the countr! from the rest of
the *orld. )n its 2eclaration of Principles and 3tate Policies, the Constitution 1adopts the generall! accepted principles of
international la* as part of the la* of the land, and adheres to the polic! of peace, e/ualit!, (ustice, freedom, cooperation and
amit!, *ith all nations.1 >= B! the doctrine of incorporation, the countr! is bound b! generall! accepted principles of
international la*, *hich are considered to be automaticall! part of our o*n la*s. >> &ne of the oldest and most fundamental
rules in international la* is &acta sunt ser!anda 4 international agreements must be performed in good faith. 1A treat!
engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legall! binding obligation on the parties . . . A state *hich has
contracted valid international obligations is bound to ma-e in its legislations such modifications as ma! be necessar! to
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations underta-en.1 >5
B! their inherent nature, treaties reall! limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignt!. B! their voluntar! act, nations ma!
surrender some aspects of their state po*er in e.change for greater benefits granted b! or derived from a convention or
pact. After all, states, li-e individuals, live *ith coe/uals, and in pursuit of mutuall! covenanted ob(ectives and benefits, the!
also commonl! agree to limit the e.ercise of their other*ise absolute rights. Thus, treaties have been used to record
agreements bet*een 3tates concerning such *idel! diverse matters as, for e.ample, the lease of naval bases, the sale or
cession of territor!, the termination of *ar, the regulation of conduct of hostilities, the formation of alliances, the regulation of
commercial relations, the settling of claims, the la!ing do*n of rules governing conduct in peace and the establishment of
international organi'ations.>? The sovereignt! of a state therefore cannot in fact and in realit! be considered absolute.
Certain restrictions enter into the pictureD 6"7 limitations imposed b! the ver! nature of membership in the famil! of nations
and 6=7 limitations imposed b! treat! stipulations. As aptl! put b! ohn 0. ;enned!, 1Toda!, no nation can build its destin!
alone. The age of self,sufficient nationalism is over. The age of interdependence is here.1 >7
UN harter and #ther Treaties
=imit 'o!ereignty
Thus, *hen the Philippines (oined the 5nited Nations as one of its $" charter members, it consented to restrict its sovereign
rights under the 1concept of sovereignt! as auto,limitation.1 >77A 5nder Article = of the 5N Charter, 16a7ll members shall give
the 5nited Nations ever! assistance in an! action it ta-es in accordance *ith the present Charter, and shall refrain from
giving assistance to an! state against *hich the 5nited Nations is ta-ing preventive or enforcement action.1 3uch assistance
includes pa!ment of its corresponding share not merel! in administrative e.penses but also in e.penditures for the peace,
-eeping operations of the organi'ation. )n its advisor! opinion of ul! =F, "#B", the )nternational Court of ustice held that
mone! used b! the 5nited Nations Emergenc! 0orce in the Middle East and in the Congo *ere 1e.penses of the 5nited
Nations1 under Article "@, paragraph =, of the 5N Charter. 9ence, all its members must bear their corresponding share in
such e.penses. )n this sense, the Philippine Congress is restricted in its po*er to appropriate. )t is compelled to appropriate
funds *hether it agrees *ith such peace,-eeping e.penses or not. 3o too, under Article "F$ of the said Charter, the 5N and
its representatives en(o! diplomatic privileges and immunities, thereb! limiting again the e.ercise of sovereignt! of members
*ithin their o*n territor!. Another e.ampleD although 1sovereign e/ualit!1 and 1domestic (urisdiction1 of all members are set
forth as underl!ing principles in the 5N Charter, such provisos are ho*ever sub(ect to enforcement measures decided b! the
3ecurit! Council for the maintenance of international peace and securit! under Chapter <)) of the Charter. A final e.ampleD
under Article "FE, 16i7n the event of a conflict bet*een the obligations of the Members of the 5nited Nations under the present
Charter and their obligations under an! other international agreement, their obligation under the present charter shall
prevail,1 thus un/uestionabl! den!ing the Philippines 4 as a member 4 the sovereign po*er to ma-e a choice as to *hich
of conflicting obligations, if an!, to honor.
Apart from the 5N Treat!, the Philippines has entered into man! other international pacts 4 both bilateral and multilateral 4
that involve limitations on Philippine sovereignt!. These are enumerated b! the 3olicitor :eneral in his Compliance dated
&ctober =C, "##B, as follo*sD
6a7 Bilateral convention *ith the 5nited 3tates regarding ta.es on income, *here the Philippines agreed,
among others, to e.empt from ta., income received in the Philippines b!, among others, the 0ederal
Reserve Ban- of the 5nited 3tates, the E.port>)mport Ban- of the 5nited 3tates, the &verseas Private
)nvestment Corporation of the 5nited 3tates. +i-e*ise, in said convention, *ages, salaries and similar
remunerations paid b! the 5nited 3tates to its citi'ens for labor and personal services performed b! them
as emplo!ees or officials of the 5nited 3tates are e.empt from income ta. b! the Philippines.
6b7 Bilateral agreement *ith Belgium, providing, among others, for the avoidance of double ta.ation *ith
respect to ta.es on income.
6c7 Bilateral convention *ith the ;ingdom of 3*eden for the avoidance of double ta.ation.
6d7 Bilateral convention *ith the 0rench Republic for the avoidance of double ta.ation.
6e7 Bilateral air transport agreement *ith ;orea *here the Philippines agreed to e.empt from all customs
duties, inspection fees and other duties or ta.es aircrafts of 3outh ;orea and the regular e/uipment, spare
parts and supplies arriving *ith said aircrafts.
6f7 Bilateral air service agreement *ith apan, *here the Philippines agreed to e.empt from customs duties,
e.cise ta.es, inspection fees and other similar duties, ta.es or charges fuel, lubricating oils, spare parts,
regular e/uipment, stores on board apanese aircrafts *hile on Philippine soil.
6g7 Bilateral air service agreement *ith Belgium *here the Philippines granted Belgian air carriers the same
privileges as those granted to apanese and ;orean air carriers under separate air service agreements.
6h7 Bilateral notes *ith )srael for the abolition of transit and visitor visas *here the Philippines e.empted
)sraeli nationals from the re/uirement of obtaining transit or visitor visas for a so(ourn in the Philippines not
e.ceeding $# da!s.
6i7 Bilateral agreement *ith 0rance e.empting 0rench nationals from the re/uirement of obtaining transit
and visitor visa for a so(ourn not e.ceeding $# da!s.
6(7 Multilateral Convention on 3pecial Missions, *here the Philippines agreed that premises of 3pecial
Missions in the Philippines are inviolable and its agents can not enter said premises *ithout consent of the
9ead of Mission concerned. 3pecial Missions are also e.empted from customs duties, ta.es and related
charges.
6-7 Multilateral convention on the +a* of Treaties. )n this convention, the Philippines agreed to be governed
b! the <ienna Convention on the +a* of Treaties.
6l7 2eclaration of the President of the Philippines accepting compulsor! (urisdiction of the )nternational
Court of ustice. The )nternational Court of ustice has (urisdiction in all legal disputes concerning the
interpretation of a treat!, an! /uestion of international la*, the e.istence of an! fact *hich, if established,
*ould constitute a breach 1of international obligation.1
)n the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has effectivel! agreed to limit the e.ercise of its sovereign po*ers of ta.ation,
eminent domain and police po*er. The underl!ing consideration in this partial surrender of sovereignt! is the reciprocal
commitment of the other contracting states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and
its citi'ens. The same reciprocit! characteri'es the Philippine commitments under %T&,:ATT.
)nternational treaties, *hether relating to nuclear disarmament, human rights, the environment, the la* of
the sea, or trade, constrain domestic political sovereignt! through the assumption of e.ternal obligations.
But unless anarch! in international relations is preferred as an alternative, in most cases *e accept that the
benefits of the reciprocal obligations involved out*eigh the costs associated *ith an! loss of political
sovereignt!. 6T7rade treaties that structure relations b! reference to durable, *ell,defined substantive norms
and ob(ective dispute resolution procedures reduce the ris-s of larger countries e.ploiting ra* economic
po*er to bull! smaller countries, b! sub(ecting po*er relations to some form of legal ordering. )n addition,
smaller countries t!picall! stand to gain disproportionatel! from trade liberali'ation. This is due to the
simple fact that liberali'ation *ill provide access to a larger set of potential ne* trading relationship than in
case of the larger countr! gaining enhanced success to the smaller countr!Hs mar-et. >8
The point is that, as sho*n b! the foregoing treaties, a portion of sovereignt! ma! be *aived *ithout violating the
Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines 1adopts the generall! accepted principles of international la* as part
of the la* of the land and adheres to the polic! of . . . cooperation and amit! *ith all nations.1
Fourth IssueD The (T# )greement and "udicial Po%er
Petitioners aver that paragraph ", Article EC of the :eneral Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade,
Related Aspects of )ntellectual Propert! Rights 6TR)P37 >9 intrudes on the po*er of the 3upreme Court to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedures. 5@
To understand the scope and meaning of Article EC, TR)P3, 51 it *ill be fruitful to restate its full te.t as follo*sD
Article EC
Process PatentsD Burden of Proof
". 0or the purposes of civil proceedings in respect of the infringement of the rights of the o*ner referred to
in paragraph " 6b7 of Article =?, if the sub(ect matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, the
(udicial authorities shall have the authorit! to order the defendant to prove that the process to obtain an
identical product is different from the patented process. Therefore, Members shall provide, in at least one of
the follo*ing circumstances, that an! identical product *hen produced *ithout the consent of the patent
o*ner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrar!, be deemed to have been obtained b! the patented
processD
6a7 if the product obtained b! the patented process is ne*8
6b7 if there is a substantial li-elihood that the identical product *as made b! the process
and the o*ner of the patent has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the
process actuall! used.
=. An! Member shall be free to provide that the burden of proof indicated in paragraph " shall be on the
alleged infringer onl! if the condition referred to in subparagraph 6a7 is fulfilled or onl! if the condition
referred to in subparagraph 6b7 is fulfilled.
E. )n the adduction of proof to the contrar!, the legitimate interests of defendants in protecting their
manufacturing and business secrets shall be ta-en into account.
0rom the above, a %T& Member is re/uired to provide a rule of disputable 6not the *ords 1in the absence of proof to the
contrar!17 presumption that a product sho*n to be identical to one produced *ith the use of a patented process shall be
deemed to have been obtained b! the 6illegal7 use of the said patented process, 6"7 *here such product obtained b! the
patented product is ne*, or 6=7 *here there is 1substantial li-elihood1 that the identical product *as made *ith the use of the
said patented process but the o*ner of the patent could not determine the e.act process used in obtaining such identical
product. 9ence, the 1burden of proof1 contemplated b! Article EC should actuall! be understood as the dut! of the alleged
patent infringer to overthro* such presumption. 3uch burden, properl! understood, actuall! refers to the 1burden of evidence1
6burden of going for*ard7 placed on the producer of the identical 6or fa-e7 product to sho* that his product *as produced
*ithout the use of the patented process.
The foregoing not*ithstanding, the patent o*ner still has the 1burden of proof1 since, regardless of the presumption provided
under paragraph " of Article EC, such o*ner still has to introduce evidence of the e.istence of the alleged identical product,
the fact that it is 1identical1 to the genuine one produced b! the patented process and the fact of 1ne*ness1 of the genuine
product or the fact of 1substantial li-elihood1 that the identical product *as made b! the patented process.
The foregoing should reall! present no problem in changing the rules of evidence as the present la* on the sub(ect, Republic
Act No. "B$, as amended, other*ise -no*n as the Patent +a*, provides a similar presumption in cases of infringement of
patented design or utilit! model, thusD
3ec. BF. Infringement. 4 )nfringement of a design patent or of a patent for utilit! model shall consist in
unauthori'ed cop!ing of the patented design or utilit! model for the purpose of trade or industr! in the
article or product and in the ma-ing, using or selling of the article or product cop!ing the patented design or
utilit! model. Identity or su+stantial identity %ith the &atented design or utility model shall constitute
e!idence of co&ying. 6emphasis supplied7
Moreover, it should be noted that the re/uirement of Article EC to provide a disputable presumption applies onl! if 6"7 the
product obtained b! the patented process in NE% or 6=7 there is a substantial li-elihood that the identical product *as made
b! the process and the process o*ner has not been able through reasonable effort to determine the process used. %here
either of these t*o provisos does not obtain, members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the
provisions of TR)P3 *ithin their o*n internal s!stems and processes.
B! and large, the arguments adduced in connection *ith our disposition of the third issue 4 derogation of legislative po*er
4 *ill appl! to this fourth issue also. 3uffice it to sa! that the reciprocit! clause more than (ustifies such intrusion, if an!
actuall! e.ists. Besides, Article EC does not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent as it is *ith due process and the
concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our (udicial s!stem.
3o too, since the Philippine is a signator! to most international conventions on patents, trademar-s and cop!rights, the
ad(ustment in legislation and rules of procedure *ill not be substantial. 52
Fifth IssueD oncurrence #nly in the (T# )greement and
Not in #ther Documents ontained in the Final )ct
Petitioners allege that the 3enate concurrence in the %T& Agreement and its anne.es 4 but not in the other documents
referred to in the 0inal Act, namel! the Ministerial 2eclaration and 2ecisions and the 5nderstanding on Commitments in
0inancial 3ervices 4 is defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of discretion. The! submit that such
concurrence in the %T& Agreement alone is fla*ed because it is in effect a re(ection of the 0inal Act, *hich in turn *as the
document signed b! 3ecretar! Navarro, in representation of the Republic upon authorit! of the President. The! contend that
the second letter of the President to the 3enate 5= *hich enumerated *hat constitutes the 0inal Act should have been the
sub(ect of concurrence of the 3enate.
1A final act, sometimes called &rotocol de cloture, is an instrument *hich records the *inding up of the proceedings of a
diplomatic conference and usuall! includes a reproduction of the te.ts of treaties, conventions, recommendations and other
acts agreed upon and signed b! the plenipotentiaries attending the conference.1 5> )t is not the treat! itself. )t is rather a
summar! of the proceedings of a protracted conference *hich ma! have ta-en place over several !ears. The te.t of the
10inal Act Embod!ing the Results of the 5rugua! Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations1 is contained in (ust one
page 55 in <ol. ) of the EB,volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. B! signing said 0inal Act, 3ecretar!
Navarro as representative of the Republic of the Philippines undertoo-D
6a7 to submit, as appropriate, the %T& Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent
authorities *ith a vie* to see-ing approval of the Agreement in accordance *ith their procedures8 and
6b7 to adopt the Ministerial 2eclarations and 2ecisions.
The assailed 3enate Resolution No. #@ e.pressed concurrence in e.actl! *hat the 0inal Act re/uired from its signatories,
namel!, concurrence of the 3enate in the %T& Agreement.
The Ministerial 2eclarations and 2ecisions *ere deemed adopted *ithout need for ratification. The! *ere approved b! the
ministers b! virtue of Article GG<D " of :ATT *hich provides that representatives of the members can meet 1to give effect to
those provisions of this Agreement *hich invo-e (oint action, and generall! *ith a vie* to facilitating the operation and
furthering the ob(ectives of this Agreement.1 5?
The 5nderstanding on Commitments in 0inancial 3ervices also approved in Marra-esh does not appl! to the Philippines. )t
applies onl! to those =@ Members *hich 1have indicated in their respective schedules of commitments on standstill,
elimination of monopol!, e.pansion of operation of e.isting financial service suppliers, temporar! entr! of personnel, free
transfer and processing of information, and national treatment *ith respect to access to pa!ment, clearing s!stems and
refinancing available in the normal course of business.1 57
&n the other hand, the %T& Agreement itself e.presses *hat multilateral agreements are deemed included as its integral
parts, 58 as follo*sD
Article ))
'co&e of the (T#
". The %T& shall provide the common institutional frame,*or- for the conduct of trade relations among its
Members in matters to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Anne.es to this
Agreement.
=. The Agreements and associated legal instruments included in Anne.es ", =, and E, 6hereinafter referred
to as 1Multilateral Agreements17 are integral parts of this Agreement, binding on all Members.
E. The Agreements and associated legal instruments included in Anne. C 6hereinafter referred to as
1Plurilateral Trade Agreements17 are also part of this Agreement for those Members that have accepted
them, and are binding on those Members. The Plurilateral Trade Agreements do not create either obligation
or rights for Members that have not accepted them.
C. The :eneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade "##C as specified in anne. "A 6hereinafter referred to as
1:ATT "##C17 is legall! distinct from the :eneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, dated EF &ctober "#C@,
anne.ed to the 0inal Act adopted at the conclusion of the 3econd 3ession of the Preparator! Committee of
the 5nited Nations Conference on Trade and Emplo!ment, as subse/uentl! rectified, amended or modified
6hereinafter referred to as 1:ATT "#C@17.
)t should be added that the 3enate *as *ell,a*are of *hat it *as concurring in as sho*n b! the membersH deliberation on
August =$, "##C. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated August "", "##C, 59 the senators
of the Republic minutel! dissected *hat the 3enate *as concurring in, as follo*sD ?@
T9E C9A)RMAND Jes. No*, the /uestion of the validit! of the submission came up in the first da! hearing
of this Committee !esterda!. %as the observation made b! 3enator TaIada that *hat *as submitted to the
3enate *as not the agreement on establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ation b! the final act of the 5rugua!
Round *hich is not the same as the agreement establishing the %orld Trade &rgani'ationA And on that
basis, 3enator Tolentino raised a point of order *hich, ho*ever, he agreed to *ithdra* upon understanding
that his suggestion for an alternative solution at that time *as acceptable. That suggestion *as to treat the
proceedings of the Committee as being in the nature of briefings for 3enators until the /uestion of the
submission could be clarified.
And so, 3ecretar! Romulo, in effect, is the President submitting a ne* . . . is he ma-ing a ne* submission
*hich improves on the clarit! of the first submissionA
MR. R&M5+&D Mr. Chairman, to ma-e sure that it is clear cut and there should be no misunderstanding, it
*as his intention to clarif! all matters b! giving this letter.
T9E C9A)RMAND Than- !ou.
Can this Committee hear from 3enator TaIada and later on 3enator Tolentino since the! *ere the ones
that raised this /uestion !esterda!A
3enator TaIada, please.
'*N. T)>)D)D Thank you- Mr. hairman.
Based on %hat 'ecretary Romulo has read- it %ould no% clearly a&&ear that %hat is +eing su+mitted to the
'enate for ratification is not the Final )ct of the Uruguay Round- +ut rather the )greement on the (orld
Trade #rgani3ation as %ell as the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions- and the Understanding and
ommitments in Financial 'er!ices.
I am no% satisfied %ith the %ording of the ne% su+mission of President Ramos.
3EN. TALA2A. . . . of President Ramos, Mr. Chairman.
T9E C9A)RMAN. Than- !ou, 3enator TaIada. Can *e hear from 3enator TolentinoA And after him 3enator
Neptali :on'ales and 3enator +ina.
'*N. T#=*NTIN#- Mr. hairman- I ha!e not seen the ne% su+mission actually transmitted to us +ut I sa%
the draft of his earlier- and I think it no% com&lies %ith the &ro!isions of the onstitution- and %ith the Final
)ct itself . The onstitution does not require us to ratify the Final )ct< It requires us to ratify the )greement
%hich is no% +eing su+mitted< The Final )ct itself s&ecifies %hat is going to +e su+mitted to %ith the
go!ernments of the &artici&ants.
In &aragra&h 7 of the Final )ct- %e read and I quoteD
By signing the &resent Final )ct- the re&resentati!es agreeD ,a. to su+mit as a&&ro&riate the (T#
)greement for the consideration of the res&ecti!e com&etent authorities %ith a !ie% to seeking a&&ro!al of
the )greement in accordance %ith their &rocedures.
In other %ords- it is not the Final )ct that %as agreed to +e su+mitted to the go!ernments for ratification or
acce&tance as %hate!er their constitutional &rocedures may &ro!ide +ut it is the (orld Trade #rgani3ation
)greement. )nd if that is the one that is +eing su+mitted no%- I think it satisfies +oth the onstitution and
the Final )ct itself .
Than- !ou, Mr. Chairman.
T9E C9A)RMAN. Than- !ou, 3enator Tolentino, Ma! ) call on 3enator :on'ales.
'*N. /#N?)=*'. Mr. hairman- my !ie%s on this matter are already a matter of record. )nd they had
+een adequately reflected in the ;ournal of yesterday@s session and I don@t see any need for re&eating the
same.
No%- I %ould consider the ne% su+mission as an act e1 a+udante cautela.
T9E C9A)RMAN. Than- !ou, 3enator :on'ales. 3enator +ina, do !ou *ant to ma-e an! comment on thisA
'*N. =IN). Mr. President- I agree %ith the o+ser!ation ;ust made +y 'enator /on3ales out of the
a+undance of question. Then the ne% su+mission is- I +elie!e- stating the o+!ious and therefore I ha!e no
further comment to make.
*&ilogue
)n pra!ing for the nullification of the Philippine ratification of the %T& Agreement, petitioners are invo-ing this CourtHs
constitutionall! imposed dut! 1to determine *hether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac- or
e.cess of (urisdiction1 on the part of the 3enate in giving its concurrence therein via 3enate Resolution No. #@. Procedurall!,
a *rit of certiorari grounded on grave abuse of discretion ma! be issued b! the Court under Rule B$ of the Rules of Court
*hen it is ampl! sho*n that petitioners have no other plain, speed! and ade/uate remed! in the ordinar! course of la*.
B! grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and *himsical e.ercise of (udgment as is e/uivalent to lac- of
(urisdiction. ?1 Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. )t must be gra!e abuse of discretion as *hen the po*er is e.ercised
in an arbitrar! or despotic manner b! reason of passion or personal hostilit!, and must be so patent and so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive dut! or to a virtual refusal to perform the dut! en(oined or to act at all in contemplation of
la*. ?2 0ailure on the part of the petitioner to sho* grave abuse of discretion *ill result in the dismissal of the petition. ?=
)n rendering this 2ecision, this Court never forgets that the 3enate, *hose act is under revie*, is one of t*o sovereign
houses of Congress and is thus entitled to great respect in its actions. )t is itself a constitutional bod! independent and
coordinate, and thus its actions are presumed regular and done in good faith. 5nless convincing proof and persuasive
arguments are presented to overthro* such presumptions, this Court *ill resolve ever! doubt in its favor. 5sing the foregoing
*ell,accepted definition of grave abuse of discretion and the presumption of regularit! in the 3enateHs processes, this Court
cannot find an! cogent reason to impute grave abuse of discretion to the 3enateHs e.ercise of its po*er of concurrence in the
%T& Agreement granted it b! 3ec. =" of Article <)) of the Constitution. ?>
)t is true, as alleged b! petitioners, that broad constitutional principles re/uire the 3tate to develop an independent national
econom! effectivel! controlled b! 0ilipinos8 and to protect and>or prefer 0ilipino labor, products, domestic materials and
locall! produced goods. But it is e/uall! true that such principles 4 *hile serving as (udicial and legislative guides 4 are not
in themselves sources of causes of action. Moreover, there are other e/uall! fundamental constitutional principles relied
upon b! the 3enate *hich mandate the pursuit of a 1trade polic! that serves the general *elfare and utili'es all forms and
arrangements of e.change on the basis of e/ualit! and reciprocit!1 and the promotion of industries 1*hich are competitive in
both domestic and foreign mar-ets,1 thereb! (ustif!ing its acceptance of said treat!. 3o too, the alleged impairment of
sovereignt! in the e.ercise of legislative and (udicial po*ers is balanced b! the adoption of the generall! accepted principles
of international la* as part of the la* of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the polic! of cooperation and amit!
*ith all nations.
That the 3enate, after deliberation and voting, voluntaril! and over*helmingl! gave its consent to the %T& Agreement
thereb! ma-ing it 1a part of the la* of the land1 is a legitimate e.ercise of its sovereign dut! and po*er. %e find no 1patent
and gross1 arbitrariness or despotism 1b! reason of passion or personal hostilit!1 in such e.ercise. )t is not impossible to
surmise that this Court, or at least some of its members, ma! even agree *ith petitioners that it is more advantageous to the
national interest to stri-e do*n 3enate Resolution No. #@. But that is not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion
to the 3enate and to nullif! its decision. To do so *ould constitute grave abuse in the e.ercise of our o*n (udicial po*er and
dut!. )neludabl!, *hat the 3enate did *as a valid e.ercise of its authorit!. As to *hether such e.ercise *as *ise, beneficial or
viable is outside the realm of (udicial in/uir! and revie*. That is a matter bet*een the elected polic! ma-ers and the people.
As to *hether the nation should (oin the *orld*ide march to*ard trade liberali'ation and economic globali'ation is a matter
that our people should determine in electing their polic! ma-ers. After all, the %T& Agreement allo*s *ithdra*al of
membership, should this be the political desire of a member.
The eminent futurist ohn Naisbitt, author of the best seller Megatrends, predicts an Asian Renaissance ?5 *here 1the East
*ill become the dominant region of the *orld economicall!, politicall! and culturall! in the ne.t centur!.1 9e refers to the 1free
mar-et1 espoused b! %T& as the 1catal!st1 in this coming Asian ascendanc!. There are at present about E" countries
including China, Russia and 3audi Arabia negotiating for membership in the %T&. Not*ithstanding ob(ections against
possible limitations on national sovereignt!, the %T& remains as the onl! viable structure for multilateral trading and the
veritable forum for the development of international trade la*. The alternative to %T& is isolation, stagnation, if not economic
self,destruction. 2ul! enriched *ith original membership, -eenl! a*are of the advantages and disadvantages of globali'ation
*ith its on,line e.perience, and endo*ed *ith a vision of the future, the Philippines no* straddles the crossroads of an
international strateg! for economic prosperit! and stabilit! in the ne* millennium. +et the people, through their dul!
authori'ed elected officers, ma-e their free choice.
%9ERE0&RE, the petition is 2)3M)33E2 for lac- of merit.
3& &R2ERE2.
Nar!asa- <"<- Regalado- Da!ide- "r<- Romero- Bellosillo- Melo- Puno- 2a&unan- Mendo3a- Francisco- Hermosisima- "r< and
Torres- "r<- ""<- concur<
Padilla and Aitug- ""<- concur in the result<
6oo'no'#!