Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Summary: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Philippines acceding to the World
Trade Organization for being violative of provisions which are supposed to give preference
to Filipino workers and economy and on the ground that it infringes legislative and judicial
power. The WTO, through it provisions on “most favored nation” and national treatment,
require that nationals and other member countries are placed in the same footing in terms
of products and services. However, the Court brushed off these contentions and ruled that
the WTO is constitutional. Sections 10 and 12 of Article XII (National Economy and
Patrimony) should be read in relation to Sections 1 and 13 (promoting the general welfare).
Also, Section 10 is self-executing only to “rights, privileges, and concessions covering
national economy and patrimony” but not every aspect of trade and commerce. There are
balancing provisions in the Constitution allowing the Senate to ratify the WTO agreement.
Also, the Constitution doesn’t rule out foreign competition. States waive certain amount of
sovereignty when entering into treaties.
Historical Background:
This case questions the constitutionality of the Philippines being part of the World
Trade Organization, particularly when President Fidel Ramos signed the Instrument
of Ratification and the Senate concurring in the said treaty.
Following World War 2, global financial leaders held a conference in Bretton Woods
to discuss global economy. This led to the establishment of three great institutions:
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), International
Monetary Fund and International Trade Organization.
However, the ITO failed to materialize. Instead, there was the General Agreement on
Trades and Tariffs, a collection of treaties on access to economies of treaty
adherents with no institutionalized body administering agreements or dependable
system of dispute settlement. It was on the Uruguay Round of the GATT that the
WTO was then established.
After decades of negotiations, principally the Kennedy Round, we came up with
WTO, the administering body. The WTO is an institution regulating trade among
nations, including the reduction of tariff and barriers.
PH joined WTO as founding member, with goal of improving PH access to tariffs on
its exports – agri and indus. Also for opportunities of services sector x x x reduction
of costs and uncertainty in exporting x x x and attraction of investments into country.
PH will also benefit thru independent WTO settlement bodies called (Dispute
settlement panels; (2) appellate tribunal.
Petitioners filed a case assailing the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of
the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
effectively controlled by Filipinos, to give preference to qualified Filipinos and to
promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally
produced goods.”
It is petitioners’ position that the “national treatment” and “parity provisions” of the
WTO Agreement “place nationals and products of member countries on the same
footing as Filipinos and local products,” in contravention of the “Filipino First” policy
of the Constitution. They allegedly render meaningless the phrase “effectively
controlled by Filipinos.”
Petition in brief:
1. WTO requires the Philippines to place nationals and products of member-countries
on the same footing as Filipinos and local products
2. WTO intrudes, limits and/or impairs the constitutional powers of both Congress and
the Supreme Court
3. Violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos x x x (to) give
preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino
labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods.
4. Petition for Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
a. Nullify concurrence of PH Senate (Resolution No. 97, Dec 14, 1994) in
ratification by Pres Ramos of the Agreement Establishing WTO
b. Prohibition of implementation and enforcement thru release and utilization
of public funds, assignment of officials and employees, and use of gov
properties and resources by respondent-heads of various executive offices
concerned.
Facts:
On April 15, 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then Secretary of the Department of Trade
and Industry (Secretary Navarro, for brevity), representing the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act, for brevity).
By signing the Final Act, Secretary Navarro on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines,
agreed:
(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of their respective
competent authorities, with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance
with their procedures; and
On August 12, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received a letter dated August
11, 1994 from the President of the Philippines, stating among others that the Uruguay
Round Final Act is hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section
21, Article VII of the Constitution.
On August 13, 1994, the members of the Philippine Senate received another letter from the
President of the Philippines likewise dated August 11, 1994, which stated among others that
the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, the
Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial
Services are hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21,
Article VII of the Constitution.
On December 9, 1994, the President of the Philippines certified the necessity of the
immediate adoption of P.S. 1083, a resolution entitled Concurring in the Ratification of the
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 which Resolved, as
it is hereby resolved, that the Senate concur, as it hereby concurs, in the ratification by the
President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
The text of the WTO Agreement is written on pages 137 et seq. of Volume I of the 36-
volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations and includes various agreements
and associated legal instruments (identified in the said Agreement as Annexes 1, 2 and 3
thereto and collectively referred to as Multilateral Trade Agreements, for brevity) as
follows:
ANNEX 1
Agreement on Agriculture
Phytosanitary Measures
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General on Tariffs and Trade 1994
Agreement on Safeguards
ANNEX 2
ANNEX 3
On December 16, 1994, the President of the Philippines signed the Instrument of
Ratification, declaring:
To emphasize, the WTO Agreement ratified by the President of the Philippines is composed
of the Agreement Proper and the associated legal instruments included in Annexes one (1),
two (2) and three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts thereof.
On the other hand, the Final Act signed by Secretary Navarro embodies not only the WTO
Agreement (and its integral annexes aforementioned) but also (1) the Ministerial
Declarations and Decisions and (2) the Understanding on Commitments in Financial
Services. In his Memorandum dated May 13, 1996, the Solicitor General describes these two
latter documents as follows:
The Ministerial Decisions and Declarations are twenty-five declarations and decisions on a
wide range of matters, such as measures in favor of least developed countries, notification
procedures, relationship of WTO with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and
agreements on technical barriers to trade and on dispute settlement.
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services dwell on, among other things,
standstill or limitations and qualifications of commitments to existing non-conforming
measures, market access, national treatment, and definitions of non-resident supplier of
financial services, commercial presence and new financial service.
On December 29, 1994, the present petition was filed. After careful deliberation on
respondents comment and petitioners reply thereto, the Court resolved on December 12,
1995, to give due course to the petition, and the parties thereafter filed their respective
memoranda. The Court also requested the Honorable Lilia R. Bautista, the Philippine
Ambassador to the United Nations stationed in Geneva, Switzerland, to submit a paper,
hereafter referred to as Bautista Paper, for brevity, (1) providing a historical background of
and (2) summarizing the said agreements.
During the Oral Argument held on August 27, 1996, the Court directed:
(a) the petitioners to submit the (1) Senate Committee Report on the matter in controversy
and (2) the transcript of proceedings/hearings in the Senate; and
(b) the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, to file (1) a list of Philippine treaties
signed prior to the Philippine adherence to the WTO Agreement, which derogate from
Philippine sovereignty and (2) copies of the multi-volume WTO Agreement and other
documents mentioned in the Final Act, as soon as possible.
After receipt of the foregoing documents, the Court said it would consider the case
submitted for resolution. In a Compliance dated September 16, 1996, the Solicitor General
submitted a printed copy of the 36-volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade
Negotiations, and in another Compliance dated October 24, 1996, he listed the various
bilateral or multilateral treaties or international instruments involving derogation of
Philippine sovereignty. Petitioners, on the other hand, submitted their Compliance dated
January 28, 1997, on January 30, 1997.
Issue 2: Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement contravene Section 19, Article II and
Section 10 & 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution?
No.
Petitioners argue that the “letter, spirit and intent” of the Constitution mandating
“economic nationalism” are violated by the so-called “parity provisions” and
“national treatment” clauses scattered in parts of WTO Agreement
o This is in view of the most-favored nation clause (MFN) of the TRIMS (trade-
related investment measures), TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of intellectual
property rights), Trade in Services, and par. 4 of Article III of GATT 1994.
o “shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like
products of national origin”
o The Const provisions referred to are:
Sec. 19, Art II: The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent
national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Sec. 10, Art XII: Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the
formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned
by Filipinos. || In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give
preference to qualified Filipinos.
Sec. 12, Art XII: The State shall promote the preferential use of
Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and
adopt measures that help make them competitive.”
Art 2.
ANNEX
GATT 1994:
National Treatment
xxxxx
Sec. 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general
welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the
basis of equality and reciprocity.
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, Sec. 1 lays down the basic
goals of national economic development, as follows:
Issue 4: Do said provisions unduly impair the exercise of judicial power by this court in
promulgating rules on evidence? NO.
Petitioners: Art 34 Par 1 of General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) intrudes SC power to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practices, procedures.
Issue 5: Were the concurrence of the senate in the WTO agreement and its annexes
sufficient and/or valid, since it did not include the Fina Act, Ministerial Declarations and
Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services?
Petitioners: Senate concurrence in WTO (not other documents in Final Act – the
Ministerial Declaration and Decisions and the Understanding on Commitments in
Financial Services) is defective and insufficient, and abuse of discretion.
o It rejects the Final Act that is signed by Sec Navarro.
o The 2nd letter of the Pres to Senate explaining the Final Act should have been
the subject of the Senate concurrence.
Final Act: Protocol de clture - They should be interpreted to cover even future and
unknown circumstances. It is to the credit of its drafters that a Constitution can
withstand the assaults of bigots and infidels but at the same time bend with the
refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events.
o By signing Final Act, Sec. Navarro undertook:
(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the
consideration of their respective competent authorities with a view
to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their
procedures
(b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions
o Assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 is concurrence in the Final Act
o Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were deemed adopted without need
of ratification, by virtue of Art XXV of GATT
o Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services also approved in
Marrakesh does not apply to the Philippines. It applies only to those 27
Members which have indicated in their respective schedules of commitments
on standstill, elimination of monopoly, expansion of operation of existing
financial service suppliers, temporary entry of personnel, free transfer and
processing of information, and national treatment with respect to access to
payment, clearing systems and refinancing available in the normal course of
business.
Senate was well aware of what it was concurring as shown in members deliberation
in Aug. 25, 1994. After reading Pres.’ letter dated Aug. 11, 1994, senators of Republic
dissected the concurred subject.
SEN TOLENTINO, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the new submission
actually transmitted to us but I saw the draft of his earlier, and I think
it now complies with the provisions of the Constitution, and with the
Final Act itself. The Constitution does not require us to ratify the Final
Act. It requires us to ratify the Agreement which is now being
submitted. The Final Act itself specifies what is going to be submitted
to with the governments of the participants.
In other words, it is not the Final Act that was agreed to be submitted
to the governments for ratification or acceptance as whatever their
constitutional procedures may provide but it is the World Trade
Organization Agreement. And if that is the one that is being submitted
now, I think it satisfies both the Constitution and the Final Act itself.