TANADA V ANGARA

272 SCRA 18

Facts:

On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented by its Secretary of

the Department of Trade and Industry signed the Final Act binding the
Philippine Government to submit to its respective competent authorities the
WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek approval for such. On
December 14, 1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate
to ratify the WTO Agreement.

This is a petition assailing the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it

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.

Issue:

Whether or not the Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is

unconstitutional.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Resolution No. 97 is not

unconstitutional.
While the constitution 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 interests only against foreign competition
and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution did not
intend to pursue an isolationist policy. Furthermore, the constitutional policy
of a “self-reliant and independent national economy” does not necessarily
rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It
contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the
international community.”

The Senate, after deliberation and voting, gave its consent to the WTO
Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the land”. The Supreme
Court gave due respect to an equal department in government. It presumes
its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there is convincing proof
and persuasive agreements to the contrary. As a result, the ratification of
the WTO Agreement limits or restricts the absoluteness of sovereignty. A
treaty engagement is not a mere obligation but creates a legally
binding obligation on the parties. A state which has contracted valid
international obligations is bound to make its legislations such
modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the
obligations undertaken.