Tanada vs.

Angara (1997)

Summary Cases:

● Tanada vs. Angara 272 SCRA 18

Subject:

Justiciable Controversy, Special Civil Actions, Constitutional Principles and State Policies, “Filipino First”
Policy, Sovereignty, Doctrine of Incorporation, Treaties, TRIPS Agreement, Separation of Powers,
Ratification by the Senate

Facts:

Secretary Navarro of the Department of Trade and Industry, representing the Philippines, signed the
Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. As a result, the
Philippines agreed to submit the World Trade organization (WTO) Agreement for approval with the
authorities of the country and adoption of the same. The President of the Philippines certified the
necessity of the immediate adoption a resolution for the ratification of the WTO.

On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97, thereby concurring in the
ratification by the President of the WTO Agreement.

Petitioners filed this petition, questioning the constitutionality of the ratification by the Senate. Petitioners
allege that the WTO Agreement contravenes the mandate of the 1987 Constitution, specifically Art, 11
Sec 19, and Art 12, sec 10. They contended that the agreement places nationals and products of
member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products in contravention of the “Filipino
First” Policy.

Held:

Justiciable Controversy

1. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the Constitution,
the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy.

2. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it
becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. The question thus
posed is judicial rather than political.

3. Once a controversy as to the application or interpretation of a constitutional provision is raised before

this Court, it becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to decide.
| Page 1 of 4
Special Civil Actions

4. Certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to
review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of legislative and executive officials

5. In deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition, the Supreme Court only exercises its constitutional
duty “to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction” on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three annexes.

Constitutional Principles and State Policies

6. The principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not
self-executing provisions, the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts.

7. These are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and
by the legislature in its enactment of laws.

“Filipino First” Policy

8. While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on
the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign
competition and trade practices that are unfair—the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist
policy.

9. There is hardly any basis for the statement that under the WTO, local industries and enterprises will all
be wiped out and that Filipinos will be deprived of control of the economy, for, quite to the contrary, the
weaker situations of developing nations like the Philippines have been taken into account.

10. The WTO reliance on “most favored nation,” “national treatment,” and “trade without discrimination”
cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply
to all WTO members. The fundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive in both domestic
and foreign markets,” thereby demonstrating 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.

11. The responses to questions on whether WTO/GATT will favor the general welfare of the public at
large involve “judgment calls” by our policy makers, for which they are answerable to our people during
appropriate electoral exercises—such questions and the answers thereto are not subject to judicial
pronouncements based on grave abuse of discretion.
| Page 2 of 4
Sovereignty

12. While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all—encompassing on the domestic
level, it is subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or
impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.

Doctrine of Incorporation

13. 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.” (Article II, Section 2)

14. 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.

Treaties

15. Pacta sunt servanda is one of the most fundamental rules of international law which provides that
international agreements must be performed in good faith. “A treaty engagement is not a mere moral
obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties x x x. A state which has contracted valid
international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.”

16. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for
greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.

TRIPS Agreement

17. Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) does not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent as
it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in Philippine judicial
system.

18. Since the Philippines is a signatory to most international conventions on patents, trademarks and
copyrights, the adjustment in legislation and rules of procedure will not be substantial.

19. A WTO Member is required to provide a rule of disputable (note the words “in the absence of proof to
the contrary”) presumption that a product shown to be identical to one produced with the use of a
patented process shall be deemed to have been obtained by the (illegal) use of the said patented
| Page 3 of 4
process, (1) where such product obtained by the patented product is new, or (2) where there is
“substantial likelihood” that the identical product was made with the use of the said patented process but
the owner of the patent could not determine the exact process used in obtaining such identical product.

20. The “burden of proof” contemplated by Article 34 should be understood as the duty of the alleged
patent infringer to overthrow such presumption. It refers to the “burden of evidence” (burden of going
forward) placed on the producer of the identical (or fake) product to show that his product was produced
without the use of the patented process.

21. The patent owner still has the “burden of proof” since, regardless of the presumption provided under
paragraph 1 of Article 34, such owner still has to introduce evidence of the existence of the alleged
identical product, the fact that it is “identical” to the genuine one produced by the patented process and
the fact of “newness ” of the genuine product or the fact of “substantial likelihood” that the identical
product was made by the patented process.

Separation of Powers

22. The Supreme Court never forgets that the Senate, whose act is under review, is one of two
sovereign houses of Congress and is thus entitled to great respect in its actions. It is itself a
constitutional body independent and coordinate, and thus its actions are presumed regular and done in
good faith.

23. Unless convincing proof and persuasive arguments are presented to overthrow such presumptions,
the Court will resolve every doubt in its favor.

Ratification by the Senate

24. It is a legitimate exercise of the sovereign duty and power of the Senate that, after deliberation and
voting, it voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a
part of the law of the land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power.

25. What the Senate did was a valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise was wise,
beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the
elected policy makers and the people. As to whether the nation should join the worldwide march toward
trade liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that our people should determine in electing
their policy makers.

| Page 4 of 4