Tanada vs. Angara (GATT Case G.R. No.

118295, May 2, 1997) Facts: Rizalino Navarro, the Secretary of Department of Trade and Industry representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed the Final Act Embodying the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. By signing the Final Act he bound the Philippines to submit to its respective competent authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek approval. Subsequently, the Phillipine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 to ratify the WTO agreement. This is a petition seeking to nullify the ratification of the World Trade Organization(WTO) Agreement. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a free market espoused by WTO. Tolentino and others question the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it derogates from the power to tax, which is lodged in the Congress and violates Sec 19, Article II, providing for the development of a self reliant and independent national economy, and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII, providing for the Filipino first policy. Issues: Whether or not treaties limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty? Ruling: By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. 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. In the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its sovereignty powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power. The underlying consideration in this partial surrender is the reciprocal commitment of the other contracting states in granting the same privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens.

Certainly, 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 art of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.

Abra Valley College v. Aquino 162 SCRA 106 FACTS: Abra Valley College is an educational corporation and institution of higher learning duly incorporated with the SEC in 1948. The Municipal and Provincial treasurers issued a Notice of Seizure upon the petitioner for the college lot and building for the satisfaction of said taxes thereon. The treasurers served upon the petitioner a Notice of Sale, the sale being held on the same day to Dr. Paterno Millare being the highest bidder in the amount of Php 6,000. The petitioner filed a complaint to annul and declare void the Notice of Seizure and the Notice of Sale. The trial court ruled for the government, holding that the second floor of the building is being used by the director for residential purposes and that the ground floor used and rented by Northern Marketing Corporation, a commercial establishment, and thus the property is not being used exclusively for educational purposes. Instead of perfecting an appeal, petitioner availed of the petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CFI Abra (Branch I) subject to the modification that half of the assessed tax be returned to the petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not Abra Valley College is exempted from tax? HELD:No. Interpretation of the phrase used exclusively for educational purposes Sec 22, par 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine Constitution, expressly grants exemption from realty taxes for Cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes. Exemption in favour of property used exclusively for charitable or educational purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefor but extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purposes (Herrera v. Quezon City Board of Assessment Appeals). While the Court allows a more liberal and non-restrictive interpretation of the phrase exclusively used for educational purposes, reasonable emphasis has always been made that exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes. The use of the school building or lot for commercial purposes is neither contemplated by law, nor by jurisprudence. In the case at bar, the lease of the first floor of the

building to the Northern Marketing Corporation cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered incidental to the purpose of education.