Taada v.

Angara
272 SCRA 18

FACTS: Following the devastation of World War II. The International Trade Organization,
together with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were tasked to hasten
worldwide recovery. However, the ITO did not take off and what was left was the 1947 General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Fifty years after, the WTO came into existence on January 1,
1995, upon the conclusion of the Marrakesh Agreement, promising liberalization of trade.

The Philippines joined as a founding member, as articulated by President Fidel Ramos in 2

letters to the Senate, believing that the country will benefit from its system of dispute settlement.

DTI Secretary Navarro who signed the agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco, as representative of
the Republic. It was ratified by FVR. Such ratification included the WTO Agreement and the
annexes of the agreement and other ministerial declarations and decisions.

Petitioners Wigberto Taada and Anna Dominique Coseteng, both Senators, questioned such
act, arguing that the WTO requires the Philippines to place nationals and products of member-
countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products and that the WTO intrudes, limits
and/or impairs the constitutional powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court. They also
assailed the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a
self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

Issues & Held:

1. W/N the Court has jurisdiction over the controversy YES
As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is no other plain, speedy
or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we have no hesitation at all in holding
that this petition should be given due course. However, the SC will not review the
wisdom of the decision or the merits of trade liberalization, but only whether there was
grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the Agreement.

2. W/N the Court violates the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a self-
reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos NO
The provisions on national economy are not self-executory and merely set out general
policy. These provisions should not be read in isolation, but together with Sec. 1 and 13
of Art. XII, wherein the State shall promote industrialization and create competitive
industries while protecting enterprises from unfair competition and trade practices. While
the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino industry, it recognizes the need for
business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity.
The Constitution does not intend to pursue an isolationist policy or mendicancy.

Furthermore, the WTO has built-in advantages and concessions to protect weak and
developing economies, which comprise a majority of its members. The decision to
embark on economic liberalization is a political question

The WTO reliance on trade without discrimination cannot be struck down as

unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all
members. The fundamental law encourages industries that are competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets instead of a sheltered domestic trade environment.
Furthermore, the Constitution favors consumers and general welfare and not industries
or business, which explains its thrust for competition.
3. W/N the WTO Agreement infringes on the powers of Congress NO

The WTO Agreement provides that each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws,
regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations. Petitioners maintain that
this undertaking unduly limits, restricts and impairs Philippine sovereignty, specifically
the legislative power because Congress cannot pass laws favoring Philippine industries.

On the one hand, sovereignty is limited by international law and treaties voluntarily
entered into by the Philippines as a family of nations. States surrender some aspects of
their power in exchange of greater benefits under a treaty. 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. The Philippines follows
the fundamental doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, or that international agreements must
be performed in good faith, as treaties are legally binding obligations.

An example of this is how signing the UN charter limits Philippine sovereignty by

assisting the UN in defraying administrative costs and in its peacekeeping operations. By
signing international agreements, Philippines has effectively agreed to limit the exercise
of its sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power. The underlying
consideration in this partial surrender of sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the
other contracting states in granting the same privileges and immunities.

4. W/N the WTO Agreement infringes on judicial power NO

Petitioners aver that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights (TRIPS) intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedures because it has its own burden of proof
principle. However, this is untenable because under local patent laws, there is a similar
presumption in cases of patent infringement. It states that identity or substantial identity
with the patented design or utility model shall constitute evidence of copying.

By and large, the arguments adduced in connection with our disposition of the third issue
-- derogation of legislative power - will apply to this fourth issue also. Suffice it to say that
the reciprocity clause more than justifies such intrusion, if any actually exists. So too,
since the Philippine is a signatory to most international conventions on patents,
trademarks and copyrights, the adjustment in legislation and rules of procedure will not
be substantial.

5. W/N the Senate concurrence is defective and insufficient because concurrence in

only the WTO agreement rejects the Final Act, which was signed by Sec. Navarro
NO

The final act only winds up the proceedings. It is not the treaty itself. The assailed
Senate Resolution expressed concurrence of what the Final Act summarizes, which is
the WTO Agreement itself. The Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were deemed
adopted without need for ratification. They were approved by the ministers by virtue of
Article XXV: 1 of GATT which provides that representatives of the members can meet to
give effect to those provisions of this Agreement which invoke joint action, and generally
with a view to facilitating the operation and furthering the objectives of this Agreement.