TANADA VS ANGARA- (DOMINGO A.

MAÑOZO)
G.R. No. 11829 May 2, 1997

JURISPRUDENCE: 1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.
Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,
goods and services.
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.

FACTS: This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers,
taxpayers, and various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement.
Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy
and against to the “Filipino First” policy.
Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since
the said Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant
that Congress could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general
welfare if such legislation would not conform to the WTO Agreement.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.
2. Whether the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
and the Agreements and Associated Legal.
3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the
exercise of legislative power by Congress.
4. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power
by this Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
5. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of the
Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’ implied
rejection of the treaty embodied in the Final Act.
HELD:

1. The judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a branch of
government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction
or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of
this nature."
2. Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and
investments into the country. It did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy and shut
out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine
economy.
3. As shown by the foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a portion of sovereignty may
be waived without violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines
“adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.”
4. The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable
burden, consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute
settlement inherent in our judicial system.
5. The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final
Act required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO
Agreement. Moreover, the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown
by the members’ deliberation

HELD: the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.