G.R. No.

118295 May 2, 1997

WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA and ANNA DOMINIQUE COSETENG, as members of the Philippine

Senate and as taxpayers; GREGORIO ANDOLANA and JOKER ARROYO as members of the
House of Representatives and as taxpayers; NICANOR P. PERLAS and HORACIO R.
MORALES, both as taxpayers; CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, NATIONAL ECONOMIC
PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION, CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES,
LIKAS-KAYANG KAUNLARAN FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION
MOVEMENT, DEMOKRATIKONG KILUSAN NG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, INC., and
PHILIPPINE PEASANT INSTITUTE, in representation of various taxpayers and as non-
governmental organizations, petitioners,
vs.
EDGARDO ANGARA, ALBERTO ROMULO, LETICIA RAMOS-SHAHANI, HEHERSON
ALVAREZ, AGAPITO AQUINO, RODOLFO BIAZON, NEPTALI GONZALES, ERNESTO
HERRERA, JOSE LINA, GLORIA. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ORLANDO MERCADO, BLAS
OPLE, JOHN OSMEÑA, SANTANINA RASUL, RAMON REVILLA, RAUL ROCO, FRANCISCO
TATAD and FREDDIE WEBB, in their respective capacities as members of the Philippine
Senate who concurred in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization; SALVADOR ENRIQUEZ, in his capacity as
Secretary of Budget and Management; CARIDAD VALDEHUESA, in her capacity as National
Treasurer; RIZALINO NAVARRO, in his capacity as Secretary of Trade and Industry;
ROBERTO SEBASTIAN, in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; ROBERTO DE OCAMPO,
in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; ROBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Secretary of
Foreign Affairs; and TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary,
respondents.

FACTS:

The Philippines became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a

global body that revolutionized international economic relations among states. This
involved the promotion and protection of national economies through measures like
tariffs, export subsidies, import quotas, and other economic controls. On April 15, 1994,
Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, represented
the Philippines in signing the Final Act in Marrakesh, Morocco, which encapsulated the
results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations.

On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97, which
affirmed its concurrence with the ratification of the Agreement establishing the World
Trade Organization. Two days later, on December 16, 1994, the President of the
Philippines ratified the instrument. After thorough consideration of the arguments
presented by both parties, the Court decided on December 12, 1995, to proceed with
the petition. The parties subsequently submitted their respective memoranda. In the
course of the oral argument, the Court directed the petitioners to submit the Senate
Committee Report and the transcript of proceedings/hearings in the Senate. The
Solicitor General, acting as counsel for the respondents, was also instructed to provide
a list of Philippine treaties signed prior to joining the WTO that affected Philippine
sovereignty, as well as copies of the multi-volume WTO Agreement and other
documents mentioned in the Final Act.

ISSUE:
Whether or not does the petition present a justifiable controversy?
Otherwise stated, does the petition involve a political question over which this court has
no jurisdiction?

Do the provisions of theWTO agreement and its three annexes contravene Sec.19,
Article II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Article XII, of the Philippine Constitution?

Do the provisions of said agreement and its Annexes limit, restrict, or impair the
exercise of legislative power by congress? Do said provisions unduly impair or interfere
with the exercise of Judicial power by this court in promulgating rules on evidence?

Was the concurrence of the senate in the WTO agreement and its Annexes sufficient
and/or valid, considering that it did not include the final act, ministerial declarations and
decisions, and the understanding on commitments in financial services?

HELD:

The Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters raised in the petition is

grounded in the 1987 Constitution. It is important to emphasize that the Court's decision
to take jurisdiction does not entail a review of the wisdom behind the decision of the
President and the Senate to join the WTO, or an assessment of the merits of trade
liberalization as a policy endorsed by said international body. The Court will also refrain
from passing judgment on the appropriateness of the government's economic policy
pertaining to the reduction or removal of tariffs, taxes, subsidies, quantitative
restrictions, and other import or trade barriers. Furthermore, the Court will not determine
whether there was 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.

The petitioners argue that certain provisions of the WTO Agreement, specifically
those related to "national treatment" and "parity," run counter to the "Filipino First" policy
enshrined in the Constitution. They contend that these provisions diminish the
significance of the phrase "effectively controlled by Filipinos" and contravene
constitutional limitations on the role exports play in national development. Additionally,
they assert that these provisions nullify the preferential treatment afforded to Filipino
labor, domestic materials, and locally produced goods.

In entering into these treaties, the Philippines has effectively consented to curtail
the exercise of its sovereign powers in areas such as taxation, eminent domain, and
police power. This partial relinquishment of sovereignty is contingent upon the
reciprocal commitment of the contracting states to extend similar privileges and
immunities to the Philippines, its officials, and its citizens.

It should be noted that the requirement of Article 34 to establish a disputable

presumption applies only if (1) the product obtained through the patented process is
new or (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product was produced using
the process, and the owner of the process has been unable, through reasonable efforts,
to ascertain the process employed. If either of these two conditions is not met, members
are free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of TRIPS
within their own internal systems and processes.

The issue of the validity of the submission was raised during the first-day hearing
of this Committee.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.