Tañada v.

Angara
G.R. No. 118295 2 May 1997 Ponente: Moran, C. J.:
Doctrines/Nature or Keywords: Doctrine of Incorporation; Adoption of International Law
Petitioner: Respondents:
Wigberto E. Tanada and Anna Dominique Coseteng, as Edgardo Angara, Alberto Romulo, Leticia Ramos-
members of the Philippine Senate and as Taxpayers; Shahani, Heherson Alvarez, Agapito Aquino, Rodolfo
Gregorio Andolana and Joker Arroyo as members of the Biazon, Neptali Gonzales, Ernesto Herrera, Jose Lina,
House Of Representatives and as Taxpayers; Nicanor P. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Orlando Mercado, Blas Ople,
Perlas and Horacio R. Morales, both as taxpayers: Civil John Osmena, Santanina Rasul, Ramon Revilla, Raul
Liberties Union, National Economic Protectionism Roco, Francisco Tatad And Freddie Webb, in their
Association, Center For Alternative Development respective capacities as members of the Philippine
Initiatives, Likas-Kayang Kaunlaran Foundation, Inc., Senate Who Concurred In The Ratification By The
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, President Of The Philippines Of The Agreement
Demokratikong Kilusan Ng Magbubukid Ng Pilipinas, Establishing The World Trade Organization; Salvador
Inc., And Philippine Peasant Institute, in representation of Enriquez, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget And
various taxpayers and as Non-Governmental Management; Caridad Valdehuesa, in her capacity as
Organizations 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
Recit-ready Summary:
Petitioners seek to nullify the Philippines’ ratification of the World Trade Organization Agreement. This is for its
violation of constitutional provisions providing for the development of a self-reliant and independent national
economy and the “Filipino first” policy as it requires the placement of nationals and products of member countries on
the same footing as Filipinos and local products. They also claim that the agreement infringes the constitutional
powers of the Congress and the Supreme Court. They further claimed that the WTO would limit, restrict and impair
Philippine economic sovereignty. The Supreme Court held that the WTO is constitutional. It was not absolute but only
regulates some commercial restrictions and that the WTO was the only viable structure for multilateral treaty. By their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of state power in exchange for greater benefits granted or derived
from convention or pact. While sovereignty has traditionally been seen absolute, it is subject to restrictions and
limitations voluntarily agreed upon so it is not isolated from the rest of the world.

Facts of the case:

1. DTI Secretary Rizalino Navarro representing the Government of the Philippines, signed in Marrakesh,
Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations.
2. On August 12, 1994, the members of the Senate received a letter 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.
3. On December 9, 1994, the President of the Philippines certified the necessity of the immediate adoption of
the resolution entitled Concurring in the Ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization.
4. On December 14, 1994, the Senate adopted the resolution which resolved, that the Senate concur, in the
ratification by the President of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
5. On December 16, 1994, the President of the Philippines signed the Instrument of Ratification.
6. On December 29, 1994, the present petition was filed. After careful deliberation, 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".
 7. The petitioners summarized seven issues in their memorandum while the Solicitor General only argued for
four of the issues and dismissed the other three. The issues that were ruled upon by the court on this case
were finalized to be the following:
- Does the petition present a justiciable controversy? Otherwise stated, does the petition involve a political
question over which this court has no jurisdiction?
- Do the provisions of the WTO 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?

Issue: Ruling:
 WON Philippines’ ratification of the WTO Agreement is NO
unconstitutional

Rationale:
- 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. 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.
- 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.
- While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it
is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or
impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.
- 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. One of the oldest and most
fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda - international agreements must be
performed in good faith. 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.

Disposition:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.