TANADA v.
ANGARA Facts:
October 26, 2012 § Leave a comment
272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997
Facts :
This is a petition seeking to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) Agreement. Petitioners question the concurrence of herein respondents acting in their
capacities as Senators via signing the said 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.
Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one that limits, restricts and impair
Philippine economic sovereignty and legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the
Constitution was taken for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention.
Issue : Whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Senate in giving its concurrence of the said WTO agreement.
Held:
In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity , with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation,
the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered
automatically part of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda – international agreements must be
performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding
obligation on the parties.
Through WTO the sovereignty of the state cannot in fact and reality be considered as absolute
because it is a regulation of commercial relations among nations. Such as when Philippines joined
the United Nations (UN) it consented to restrict its sovereignty right under the “concept of
sovereignty as autolimitation.” What Senate did was a valid exercise of authority. As to determine
whether such exercise is wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of judicial inquiry and
review. The act of signing the said agreement is not a legislative restriction as WTO allows
withdrawal of membership should this be the political desire of a member. Also, it should not be
viewed as a limitation of economic sovereignty. WTO remains as the only viable structure for
multilateral trading and the veritable forum for the development of international trade law. Its
alternative is isolation, stagnation if not economic self-destruction. Thus, the people be allowed,
through their duly elected officers, make their free choice.
Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
PIMENTEL vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
This is a petition of Senator Aquilino Pimentel and the other parties to ask the Supreme Court to
require the Executive Department to transmit the Rome Statute which established the International
Criminal Court for the Senate’s concurrence in accordance with Sec 21, Art VII of the 1987
Constitution.
It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic law and
international law, is a function of the Senate. Hence, it is the duty of the executive department to
transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with
respect to ratification of treaties. Moreover, petitioners submit that the Philippines has a ministerial
duty to ratify the Rome Statute under treaty law and customary international law. Petitioners invoke
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining the states to refrain from acts which would
defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior to ratification unless
they have made their intention clear not to become parties to the treaty.[5] The Office of the
Solicitor General, commenting for the respondents, questioned the standing of the petitioners to file
the instant suit. It also contended that the petition at bar violates the rule on hierarchy of courts. On
the substantive issue raised by petitioners, respondents argue that the executive department has no
duty to transmit the Rome Statute to the Senate for concurrence.
Issue:
Whether or not the executive department has a ministerial duty to transmit the Rome Statute (or any
treaty) to the Senate for concurrence.
Ruling:
The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that the the President, being the head of state,
is regarded as the sole organ and authority in external relations and is the country’s sole
representative with foreign nations. As the chief architect of foreign policy, the President acts as the
country’s mouthpiece with respect to international affairs. Hence, the President is vested with the
authority to deal with foreign states and governments, extend or withhold recognition, maintain
diplomatic relations, enter into treaties, and otherwise transact the business of foreign relations. In
the realm of treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other states.
Nonetheless, while the President has the sole authority to negotiate and enter into treaties, the
Constitution provides a limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the
members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty entered into by him. Section 21, Article VII of
the 1987 Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.”
Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process in this
wise:
The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification, and exchange
of the instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and publication
under the U.N. Charter, although this step is not essential to the validity of the agreement as
between the parties.
Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task to
his authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with credentials known as full
powers, which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions. It is
standard practice for one of the parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which, together with
the counter-proposals, becomes the basis of the subsequent negotiations. The negotiations may be
brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even “collapse” in case the parties
are unable to come to an agreement on the points under consideration.
If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened for
signature. This step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the
purpose of symbolizing the good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does not indicate the final
consent of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is required. The document is ordinarily
signed in accordance with the alternat, that is, each of the several negotiators is allowed to sign first
on the copy which he will bring home to his own state.
Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the
contracting states to examine the treaty more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be
bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are
made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government other than that which
negotiated them.
The last step in the treaty-making process is the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which
usually also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the
parties. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty, the
instrument is deemed effective upon its signature.
Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty by the Philippine representative with
ratification. It should be underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification are two
separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making process. As earlier discussed, the signature is
primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a symbol of the good faith of
the parties. It is usually performed by the state’s authorized representative in the diplomatic mission.
Ratification, on the other hand, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its representative.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested in the President,
subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate, however, is limited only to giving
or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the
President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or, having secured its consent for its ratification,
refuse to ratify it. Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf
is a serious step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the
President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus. This Court has
no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.
LIM vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Facts:
Beginning January of year 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United States of America
started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine military, in “Balikatan
02-1.” They are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty a
bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and the United States in 1951. Its aim is
to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces through joint training
with its American counterparts; the “Balikatan” is the largest such training exercise directly
supporting the MDT’s objectives. It is this treaty to which the VFA adverts and the obligations
thereunder which it seeks to reaffirm.
On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for
certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.
Issue:
Whether “Balikatan 02-1” activities covered by the Visiting Forces Agreement?
Ruling:
To resolve this, it is necessary to refer to the VFA itself. The VFA permits United States personnel
to engage, on an impermanent basis, in “activities,” the exact meaning of which was left undefined.
The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that United States
personnel must “abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in
particular, from any political activity.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articles 31 and 32 contains provisos governing
interpretations of international agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of interpretation
must involve an examination of the text, which is presumed to verbalize the parties’ intentions. The
Convention likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the meaning of terms, which it
refers to as the context of the treaty, as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside
the aforesaid context.
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word .’activities” arose
from accident. It was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation.
In this manner, visiting US forces may sojourn in Philippine territory for purposes other than
military. As conceived, the joint exercises may include training on new techniques of patrol and
surveillance to protect the nation’s marine resources, sea search-and-rescue operations to assist
vessels in distress, disaster relief operations, civic action projects such as the building of school
houses, medical and humanitarian missions, and the like.
Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical
to assume that .’Balikatan 02-1,” a “mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and training exercise,”
falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or allowable activities in the context of the agreement.
ABAYA vs. EBDANE
Facts:
The Government of Japan and the Government of the Philippines, through their respective
representatives, namely, Mr. Yoshihisa Ara, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of
Japan to the Republic of the Philippines, and then Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo L. Siazon,
have reached an understanding concerning Japanese loans to be extended to the Philippines. These
loans were aimed at promoting our country’s economic stabilization and development efforts.
The assailed resolution recommended the award to private respondent China Road & Bridge
Corporation of the contract for the implementation of civil works for Contract Package No. I (CP I),
which consists of the improvement/rehabilitation of the San Andres (Codon)-Virac-Jct. Bago-Viga
road, with the length of 79.818 kilometers, in the island province of Catanduanes.The DPWH
caused the publication of the “Invitation to Prequalify and to Bid” for the implementation of the CP
I project, in two leading national newspapers, namely, the Manila Times and Manila Standard on
November 22 and 29, and December 5, 2002.
A total of twenty-three (23) foreign and local contractors responded to the invitation by submitting
their accomplished prequalification documents on January 23, 2003. In accordance with the
established prequalification criteria, eight contractors were evaluated or considered eligible to bid as
concurred by the JBIC. Prior to the opening of the respective bid proposals, it was announced that
the Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC) was in the amount of P738,710,563.67.
The bid goes to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation was corrected from the
original P993,183,904.98 (with variance of 34.45% from the ABC) to P952,564,821.71 (with
variance of 28.95% from the ABC) based on their letter clarification dated April 21, 2004.
The petitioners anchor the instant petition on the contention that the award of the contract to private
respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation violates RA 9184, particularly Section 31 thereof
which reads:
SEC. 31. Ceiling for Bid Prices. – The ABC shall be the upper limit or ceiling for the Bid prices.
Bid prices that exceed this ceiling shall be disqualified outright from further participating in the
bidding. There shall be no lower limit to the amount of the award.
The petitioners insist that Loan Agreement is neither an international nor an executive agreement
that would bar the application of RA 9184. They point out that to be considered a treaty, an
international or an executive agreement, the parties must be two sovereigns or States whereas in the
case of Loan Agreement No. PH-P204, the parties are the Philippine Government and the JBIC, a
banking agency of Japan, which has a separate juridical personality from the Japanese Government.
The respondents however contend that foreign loan agreements, including Loan Agreement No. PH-
P204, as executive agreements and, as such, should be observed pursuant to the fundamental
principle in international law of pacta sunt servanda. The Constitution, the public respondents
emphasize, recognizes the enforceability of executive agreements in the same way that it recognizes
generally accepted principles of international law as forming part of the law of the land.34 This
recognition allegedly buttresses the binding effect of executive agreements to which the Philippine
Government is a signatory. It is pointed out by the public respondents that executive agreements are
essentially contracts governing the rights and obligations of the parties. A contract, being the law
between the parties, must be faithfully adhered to by them. Guided by the fundamental rule of pacta
sunt servanda, the Philippine Government bound itself to perform in good faith its duties and
obligations under Loan Agreement.
Issue :
Whether or not the the loan agreement violates RA 9184.
Ruling:
The court ruled in favor of the respondents.
Significantly, an exchange of notes is considered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes
binding through executive action without the need of a vote by the Senate or Congress. executive
agreements, They sometimes take the form of exchange of notes and at other times that of more
formal documents denominated “agreements” or “protocols”.
The fundamental principle of international law of pacta sunt servanda, which is, in fact, embodied in
Section 4 of RA 9184 as it provides that “[a]ny treaty or international or executive agreement
affecting the subject matter of this Act to which the Philippine government is a signatory shall be
observed,” the DPWH, as the executing agency of the projects financed by Loan Agreement No.
PH-P204, rightfully awarded the contract for the implementation of civil works for the CP I project
to private respondent China Road & Bridge Corporation.
BAYAN vs. ZAMORA
Facts:
The Philippines and the United States entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty on August 30, 1951, To
further strengthen their defense and security relationship. Under the treaty, the parties agreed to
respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed forces, public vessels, and aircraft.
On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would have extended the presence of US military bases
in the Philippines.
On July 18, 1997 RP and US exchanged notes and discussed, among other things, the possible
elements of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).This resulted to a series of conferences and
negotiations which culminated on January 12 and 13, 1998. Thereafter, President Fidel Ramos
approved the VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United States
Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.
On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E. Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs,
ratified the VFA. On October 6, 1998, the President, acting through respondent Executive Secretary
Ronaldo Zamora, officially transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines,the Instrument of
Ratification, the letter of the President and the VFA, for concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitions for certiorari and prohibition, petitioners – as legislators, non-governmental organizations,
citizens and taxpayers – assail the constitutionality of the VFA and impute to herein respondents
grave abuse of discretion in ratifying the agreement.
Petitioner contends, under they provision cited, the “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities”
may be allowed in the Philippines unless the following conditions are sufficiently met: a) it must be
a treaty,b) it must be duly concurred in by the senate, ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
national referendum held for that purpose if so required by congress, and c) recognized as such by
the other contracting state.
Respondents, on the other hand, argue that Section 21 Article VII is applicable so that, what is
requires for such treaty to be valid and effective is the concurrence in by at least two-thirds of all the
members of the senate.
Issue:
Is the VFA governed by the provisions of Section 21, Art VII or of Section 25, Article XVIII of the
Constitution?
Ruling:

Section 25, Article XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving foreign military bases,
troops or facilities should apply in the instant case.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains two provisions requiring the concurrence of the Senate
on treaties or international agreements. Sec. 21 Art. VII, which respondent invokes, reads: “No
treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of
all the Members of the Senate. Sec. 25 Art. XVIII provides : “After the expiration in 1991 of the
Agreement between the RP and the US concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops or
facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in and when
the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum
held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the Senate by the other contracting state”.

The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with
a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the
Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the
concurrence of the Senate to be valid and effective.

In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military
bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common
ground. The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that
Senate extended its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.