G.R. No. 184635 - Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment Through Alternative Legal Services, Inc. vs. Senate of the Philippines

In 2006, the Philippines and Japan signed the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA), the first bilateral free trade agreement by the Philippines in over 50 years.
The initiative started with a proposal by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in January 2002 and discussions with ASEAN countries.
A working group from both countries was formed in October 2002 to study the feasibility and content of the agreement.
Presidential Executive Order No. 213 (2003) created the Philippine Coordinating Committee to study and draft the JPEPA framework.
Formal negotiations began in February 2004, and the agreement was signed on September 9, 2006, by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Prime Minister Koizumi.

President Macapagal-Arroyo transmitted the JPEPA to the Senate for concurrence in November 2006.
Initial Senate deliberations were postponed in early 2007 due to adjournment of Congress.
Subsequent public hearings and exchanges of notes between Philippine and Japanese officials took place in 2007 and 2008.
The Senate concurred with the JPEPA ratification on October 28, 2008, with 16 senators in favor and 4 opposed.

Petitioners: Various nongovernmental organizations, taxpayers, labor groups, environmental advocates, party-list representatives, automotive industry workers, and legislators challenged the JPEPA's constitutionality.
Respondents: The Philippine Senate, various senators who voted in favor of JPEPA, and key executive officials including the Secretary of Trade and Industry, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Finance, and the Bureau of Customs Commissioner.

The President's ratification and Senate's concurrence violated the Constitution, including the following:

Violations of the Constitution's delegation of legislative power on tariff fixing (Article VI, Section 28(2)).
Violations of protections on health and ecology (Article II, Sections 15 and 16) by permitting hazardous waste imports.
Incomplete and inaccurate schedule of constitutional exceptions, allowing improper foreign equity in land, fisheries, and other sectors.
Violations of restrictions in public utilities, professions, media ownership, and other reserved sectors.
The JPEPA constraints Congress’s lawmaking powers on future inconsistent measures.
Violation of Executive Order No. 156 on importation of used four-wheeled vehicles.
Insufficient government public consultations.

The petitions lack justiciable controversy and legal standing.
The President's tariff-fixing powers were properly delegated by law via the Tariff and Customs Code (Sections 401 and 402).
The JPEPA's list of exceptions and reservations fully respects constitutional limitations and statutory requirements.
Public utilities are covered by trade in services where no liberalization commitments were made violating the Constitution.
The Romulo-Koumura and Romulo-Aso Exchange of Notes clarified constitutional compliance and environmental protections.
The JPEPA complies with environmental laws, including the Basel Convention, prohibiting export of toxic wastes to the Philippines.
Executive Order No. 156 is not violated, as JPEPA only provides a forum for discussions on used vehicle importation.
Government conducted proper consultations complying with constitutional standards.

Justiciability and exercise of judicial review power.
Compliance of petitions with legal requisites for judicial review including legal standing.
Alleged grave abuse of discretion by the Senate.
Constitutionality of the President’s tariff-fixing under delegated legislative power.
Adequacy of constitutional and statutory exceptions and reservations in JPEPA.
Compliance with constitutional provisions on sovereignty over land, natural resources, public utilities, professions, media, and more.
Alleged violation of state environmental policies and right to health.
Validity of Romulo-Koumura Exchange of Notes.
Alleged enabling of used vehicle importation violating Executive Order No. 156.
Sufficiency of public consultations.

Does JPEPA violate constitutional exclusions, exemptions or reservations related to:

Does JPEPA violate laws regulating professions, security agencies, retail, cockpits, radio, labor recruitment, construction contracts, public utilities, insurance, financing, gambling?
Does JPEPA violate the constitutional policy on trade equality and reciprocity?
Are the Romulo-Koumura Exchange of Notes binding and legally significant?
Does the JPEPA permit importation of used vehicles in violation of Executive Order No. 156?
Were public consultations constitutionally sufficient?