Professional Documents
Culture Documents
13 Tanada vs. Angara
13 Tanada vs. Angara
*
G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997.
______________
* EN BANC.
19
20
21
22
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
24
25
26
27
28
PANGANIBAN, J.:
______________
“1947 The birth of GATT. On 30 October 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) was signed by 23 nations at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
The Agreement contained tariff concessions agreed to in the first multilateral
trade negotiations and a set of rules designed to prevent these concessions from
being frustrated by restrictive trade measures.
The 23 founding contracting parties were members of the Preparatory
Committee established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in
1946 to draft the charter of the International Trade Organization (ITO). The ITO
was envis-
30
_______________
aged as the final leg of a triad of post-War economic agencies (the other two were
the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction—
later the World Bank).
In parallel with this task, the Committee members decided to negotiate tariff
conces sions among themselves. From April to October 1947, the participants
completed some 123 negotiations and established 20 schedules containing the
tariff reductions and bindings which became an integral part of GATT. These
schedules resulting from the first Round covered some 45,000 tariff concessions
and about $10 billion in trade.
GATT was conceived as an interim measure that put into effect the commercial-
policy provisions of the ITO. In November, delegations from 56 countries met in
Havana, Cuba, to consider the ITO draft as a whole. After long and difficult
negotiations, s ome 53 countries signed the Final Act authenticating the text of the
Havana Charter in March 1948. There was no commitment, however, from
governments to ratification and, in the end, the ITO was stillborn, leaving GATT
as the only international instrument governing the conduct of world trade.
1948 Entry into force. On 1 January 1948, GATT entered into force. The 23
founding mem bers were: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon,
Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Syria, South
Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. The firs t Session of the
Contracting Parties was held from February to March in Havana, Cuba. The
secretariat of the Interim Commiss ion for the ITO, which served as the ad hoc
secretariat of GATT, moved from Lake Placid, New York, to Geneva. The
Contracting Parties held their second session in Geneva from August to
September.
1949 Second Round at Annecy. During the second Round of trade negotiations,
held from April to August at Annecy, France, the contracting parties exchanged
some 5,000 tariff concess ions. At their third Session, they also dealt with the
access ion of ten more countries.
31
_______________
1950 Third Round at Torquay. From September 1950 to April 1951, the
contracting parties exchanged some 8,700 tariff concessions in the English town,
yielding tariff reduction of about 25 per cent in relation to the 1948 level. Four
more countries acceded to GATT. During the fifth Session of the Contracting
Parties, the United States indicated that the ITO Charter would not be re-
submitted to the US Congress; this, in effect, meant that ITO would not come into
operation.
1956 Fourth Round at Geneva. The fourth Round was completed in May and
produced some $2.5 billion worth of tariff reductions . At the beginning of the year,
the GATT commercial policy course for officials of developing countries was
inaugurated.
1958 The Haberler Report. GATT published Trends in International Trade in
October. Known as the “Haberler Report” in honour of Professor Gottfried
Haberler, the chairman of the panel of eminent economists, it provided initial
guidelines for the work of GATT. The Contracting Parties at their 13th Session,
attended by Ministers, subsequently established three committees in GATT:
Committee I to convene a further tariff negotiating conference; Committee II to
review the agricultural policies of member governments; and Committee III to
tackle the problems facing developing countries in their trade. The establishment
of the European Economic Community during the previous year also demanded
large-scale tariff negotiations under Article XXIV:6 of the General Agreement.
1960 The Dillon Round. The fifth Round opened in September and was divided
into two phases: the first was concerned with negotiations with EEC member s
tates for the creation of a single schedule of concessions for the Community based
on its Common External Tariff; and the second was a further general round of
tariff negotiations. Named in honour of US UnderSecretary of State Douglas
Dillon who proposed the negotiations, the Round was concluded in July 1962 and
resulted in about 4,400 tariff concessions covering $4.9 billion of trade.
32
_______________
33
_______________
________________
35
The Facts
_______________
2 The Final Act was signed by repres entatives of 125 entities, namely
Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentine Republic, Australia,
Republic of Austria, State of Bahrain, People’s Republic of Bangladesh,
Barbados, The Kingdom of Belgium, Belize, Republic of
36
_______________
37
3
3
the Philippines, stating among others that “the Uruguay
Round Final Act is hereby submitted to the Senate for its
________________
11 August 1994
The Honorable Members
Senate
Through Senate President Edgardo Angara
Manila
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have the honor to forward herewith an authenticated copy of the
Uruguay Round Final Act signed by Department of Trade and
Industry Secretary Rizalino S. Navarro for the Philippines on 15 April
1994 in Marrakesh, Morocco.
The Uruguay Round Final Act aims to liberalize and expand world
trade and strengthen the interrelationship between trade and
economic policies affecting growth and development.
The Final Act will improve Philippine access to foreign markets,
especially its major trading partners through the reduction of tariffs
on its exports particularly agricultural and industrial products. These
concessions may be availed of by the Philippines, only if it is a
member of the World Trade Organization. By GATT estimates, the
Philippines can acquire additional export revenues from $2.2 to $2.7
Billion annually under Uruguay Round. This will be on top of the
normal increase in exports that the Philippines may experience.
The Final Act will also open up new opportunities for the services
sector in such areas as the movement of personnel, (e.g., professional
services and construction services), cross-border supply (e.g.,
computer-related services), consumption abroad (e.g., tourism,
convention services, etc.) and commercial presence.
The clarified and improved rules and disciplines on anti-dumping
and countervailing measures will also benefit Philippine exporters by
reducing the costs and uncertainty associated with exporting while at
the same time providing a means for domestic industries to safeguard
themselves against unfair imports.
Likewise, the provision of adequate protection for intellectual
property rights is expected to attract more inves tments into the
country and to make it less vulnerable to unilateral actions by its
trading partners (e.g., Sec. 301 of the United States’ Omnibus Trade
Law).
38
_______________
11 August 1994
The Honorable Members
Senate
Through Senate President Edgardo Angara
Manila
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have the honor to forward herewith an authenticated copy of the
Uruguay Round Final Act signed by Department of Trade and
Industry Secretary Rizalino S. Navarro for the Philippines on 13 April
1994 in Marrakech (sic), Morocco.
Members of the trade negotiations committee, which included the
Philippines, agreed that the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization, the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the
Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services embody the
results of their negotiations and form an integral part of the Uruguay
Round Final Act.
By signing the Uruguay Round Final Act, the Philippines, through
Secretary Navarro, agreed:
39
VOL. 272, MAY 2, 1997 39
Tañada vs. Angara
______________
The Final Act will improve Philippine access to foreign markets, especially
its major trading 0partners through the reduction of tariffs on its exports
particularly agricultural and industrial products. These concessions may
be availed of by the Philippines, only if it is a member of the World Trade
Organization. By GATT estimates, the Philippines can acquire additional
export revenues from $2.2. to $2.7 Billion annually under Uruguay Round.
This will be on top of the normal increase in the exports that the
Philippines may experience.
The Final Act will also open up new opportunities for the services
sector in such areas as the movement of personnel, (e.g., professional
services and construction services), cross-border supply (e.g., computer-
related services), consumption abroad (e.g., tourism, convention services,
etc.) and commercial presence.
The clarified and improved rules and disciplines on anti-dumping and
countervailing measures will also benefit Philippine exporters by reducing
the costs and uncertainty associated with exporting while at the same
time providing a means for domestic industries to safeguard themselves
against unfair imports.
Likewise, the provision of adequate protection for intellectual property
rights is expected to attract more inves tments into the country and to
make it less vulnerable to unilateral actions by its trading partners (e.g.,
Sec. 301 of the United States Omnibus Trade Law).
In view of the foregoing, 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, as embodied in the Uruguay Round Final Act and forming an
integral part thereof are hereby submitted to the Senate for its
concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of the Constitution.
A draft of a proposed Resolution giving its concurrence to the aforesaid
Agreement is enclosed.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FIDEL V. RAMOS
40
_______________
December 9, 1994
HON. EDGARDO J. ANGARA
Senate President
Senate, Manila
Dear Senate President Angara:
Pursuant to the provis ions of Sec. 26(2), Article VI of the
Constitution, I hereby certify to the necessity of the immediate
adoption of P.S. 1083, entitled:
41
“ANNEX 1
ANNEX 2
ANNEX 3
On December
7
16, 1994, the President of the Philippines
signed the Instrument of Ratification, declaring:
_______________
42
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tañada vs. Angara
______________
43
VOL. 272, MAY 2, 1997 43
Tañada vs. Angara
8
dated May 13, 1996, the Solicitor General describes these
two latter documents as follows:
______________
44
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tañada vs. Angara
The Issues
_______________
10 Memorandum for Respondents, p. 13; rollo, p. 268.
46
______________
11 Cf. Kilosbayan, Incorporated vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, July 17,
1995 for a discussion on locus standi. See also the Concurring Opinion of
Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza in Tatad vs. Garcia, Jr., 243 SCRA 473,
April 6, 1995, as well as Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia, Jr.,
239 SCRA 386, 414, December 23, 1994.
47
_______________
12 Aquino, Jr. vs. Ponce Enrile, 59 SCRA 183, 196, September 17, 1974,
cited in Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792, 795, September 26, 1991.
48
________________
13 Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales, 219 SCRA 326, 337, March 1, 1993.
14 See Tanada and Macapagal vs. Cuenco, et al., 103 Phil. 1051 for a
discussion on the scope of “political question.”
15 Section 1, Article VIII, (par. 2).
16 In a privilege speech on May 17, 1993, entitled “Supreme Court—
Potential Tyrant?” Senator Arturo Tolentino concedes that this new
provision gives the Supreme Court a duty “to intrude into the jurisdiction
of the Congress or the President.”
17 I Record of the Constitutional Commission 436.
18 Cf. Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496, December 21, 1989.
49
This is the lis mota, the main issue, raised by the petition.
Petitioners vigorously 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
various parts not only of the WTO Agreement and its
annexes but also in the Ministerial Decisions and
Declarations and in the Understanding on Commitments in
Financial Services.
Specifically, the “flagship” constitutional provisions
referred to are Sec. 19, Article II, and Secs. 10 and 12,
Article XII, of the Constitution, which are worded as
follows:
50
“Article II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
AND STATE POLICI ES
Article XII
xx xx xx xx
Sec. 10. x x x. The 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.
xx xx xx xx
Sec. 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino
labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt
measures that help make them competitive.”
“Article 2
National Treatment and Quantitative Restrictions.
_______________
51
“ANNEX
Illustrative List
52
The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the
territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no
less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in
respect of laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal
sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use. The
provisions of this paragraph shall not prevent the application of
differential internal transportation charges which are based exclusively
on the economic operation of the means of transport and not on the
nationality of the product.” (Article III , GATT 1947, as amended by the
Protocol Modifying Part II, and Article XXVI of GATT, 14 September
1948, 62 UMTS 82-84 in relation to paragraph 1(a) of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Vol. 1, Uruguay Round, Legal
Instruments, p. 177, emphasis supplied).
Each Mem ber shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment
no less favourable than what it accords to its own nationals with regard
to the protection of intellectual property . . . (par. 1, Article 3, Agreement
on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 31,
Uruguay Round, Legal Instruments, p. 25432, emphasis supplied).
National Treatment
53
_______________
20 Par. 4, Article XVI, WTO Agreement, Uruguay Round of Multilateral
Trade Negotiations, Vol. 1, p. 146.
54
_______________
‘In general, therefore, the 1935 provisions were not intended to be self-
executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They were
rather directives addressed to the executive and to the legislature. If the
executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the article,
the available rem edy was not judicial but political. The electorate could
express their displeasure with the failure of the executive and the
legislature through the language of the ballot. (Bernas, Vol. II, p. 2).’ ”
_______________
56
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tañada vs. Angara
‘Section 1. x x x
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of juris diction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.’ (Emphases
supplied)
_______________
27 Sec. 10, Article XI I.
58
_______________
59
60
_______________
61
63
37
reciprocity,” the fundamental law encourages industries
that are “competitive in both domestic and foreign
markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a
sheltered domestic trade environment, but one in favor of
the gradual development of robust industries that can
compete with the best in the foreign markets. Indeed,
Filipino managers and Filipino enterprises have shown
capability and tenacity to compete internationally. And
given a free trade environment, Filipino entrepreneurs and
managers in Hongkong have demonstrated the Filipino
capacity to grow and to prosper against the best offered
under a policy of laissez faire.
64
______________
38 Justice Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1995 Ed., p. 13, quoting his
own article entitled, “A Quintessential Constitution” earlier published in the San
Beda Law Journal, April 1972; Italics supplied.
65
_______________
66
Sovereignty Limited by
International Law and Treaties
This Court notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion
by which petitioners stressed their arguments on this
issue. However, 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.
Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a
hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the
world. 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, 43justice, freedom,
cooperation and am ity, w ith all nations.” By the doctrine
of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted
principles of international law, which44
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. “A treaty engagement is not a mere moral
obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the
parties x x x. A state which has contracted valid
international obligations is bound to make in its
legislations such modifications as may be necessary 45
to
ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken.”
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. After all, states, like individuals, live w
ith coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted
objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit
the exercise of their other-
______________
43 Sec. 2, Article II, Cons titution.
44 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1995 Ed., p. 55.
45 Salonga and Yap, op cit., 305.
67
______________
68
69
70
_______________
71
“Article 34
Process Patents: Burden of Proof
_______________
72
73
________________
74
______________
“(a) to subm it, 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
(b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.”
75
_______________
pants”) with a view to its entry into force by 1 January 1995, or as early
as possible thereafter. Not later than late 1994, Ministers will meet, in
accordance with the final paragraph of the Punta del Este Ministerial
Declarations, to decide on the international implementation of the results,
including the timing of their entry into force.
4. The representatives agree that the WTO Agreem ent shall be open
for acceptance as a whole, by signature or otherwise, by all
participants pursuant to Article XIV thereof. The acceptance and
entry into force of a Plurilateral Trade Agreement included in
Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement shall be governed by the
provisions of that Plurilateral Trade Agreement.
5. Before accepting the WTO Agreement, participants which are not
contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
must first have concluded negotiations for their acces sion to the
General Agreement and become contracting parties thereto. For
participants which are not contracting parties to the General
Agreement as of the date of the Final Act, the Schedules are not
definitive and shall be subsequently completed for the purpose of
their accession to the General Agreement and acceptance of the
WTO Agreement.
6. This Final Act and the texts annexed hereto shall be deposited
with the Director-General to the CONTRACTING PARTIES to the
General Agreem ent on Tariffs and Trade who shall promptly
furnish to each participant a certified copy thereof. DONE at
Marrakesh this fifteenth day of April one thousand nine hundred
and ninety-four, in a single copy, in the English, French and
Spanish languages, each text being authentic.”
76
“Article II
_______________
77
_______________
78
Can this Comm ittee hear from Senator Tañada and later
on Senator Tolentino since they were the ones that
raised this question yesterday?
Senator Tañada, please.
SEN. TAÑADA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Based on what Secretary Romulo has read, it would now
clearly appear that what is being submitted to the Senate
for ratification is not the Final Act of the Uruguay
Round, but rather the Agreement on the World Trade
Organization as well as the Ministerial Declarations and
Decisions, and the Understanding and Comm itm ents in
Financial Services.
I am now satisfied with the wording of the new submission
of President Ramos.
SEN. TAÑADA. . . . of President Ramos, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tañada. Can we
hear from Senator Tolentino? And after him Senator
Neptali Gonzales and Senator Lina.
SEN. TOLENTI NO. 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 paragraph 2 of the Final Act, we read and I quote:
‘By signing the present Final Act, the representatives agree: (a) to
submit as appropriate the WTO Agreement for the consideration of
the respective competent authorities with a view to seeking
approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures.’
79
Epilogue
In praying for the nullification of the Philippine ratification
of the WTO Agreement, petitioners are invoking this
Court’s constitutionally imposed duty “to determine
whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” on the part of
the Senate in giving its concurrence therein via Senate
Resolution No. 97. Procedurally, a writ of certiorari
grounded on grave abuse of discretion may be issued by the
Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court when it is amply
shown that petitioners have no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious
and whimsical61exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack
of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It
must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the
62
duty enjoined or to act at all
in contemplation of law. Failure on the part of the
petitioner to show grave
_______________