Case Digest (G.R. No. 118295)
Facts:
Wigberto E. Tanada et al. v. Edgardo Angara et al., G.R. No. 118295, May 02, 1997, the Supreme Court First Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners were a mix of public officials (senators Wigberto E. Tanada and Anna Dominique Coseteng; representatives Gregorio Andolana and Joker Arroyo), private taxpayers (Nicanor P. Perlas, Horacio R. Morales), and several non‑governmental organizations acting in representation of taxpayers; respondents included members of the Philippine Senate who concurred in the President’s ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), and senior executive officials (e.g., Secretary of Trade and Industry Rizalino Navarro, Secretary of Finance Roberto de Ocampo) sued in their official capacities.On April 15, 1994, Secretary Rizalino Navarro signed in Marrakesh the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round; by that instrument the Philippine representative agreed, inter alia, to submit the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the WTO Agreement) for approval by appropriate domestic authorities and to adopt certain Ministerial Declarations and Decisions. President Fidel V. Ramos transmitted the Final Act to the Senate (letters dated August 11, 1994) and later certified the necessity of immediate adoption (Dec. 9, 1994). On December 14, 1994 the Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 concurring in the President’s ratification of the WTO Agreement; the President signed the Instrument of Ratification on December 16, 1994.
Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition on December 29, 1994 seeking certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to nullify the Senate’s concurrence and to enjoin implementation of the WTO Agreement, arguing that (a) WTO “national treatment” and parity clauses conflict with constitutional economic‑nationalist provisions (Art. II, Sec. 19; Art. XII, Secs. 10 and 12), (b) the WTO unduly impairs congressional legislative power and the Court’s judicial power, and (c) the Senate’s concurrence was defective because it did not expressly concur in the Final Act, the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. There were no prior lower‑court proceedings; the petition was brought directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 65.
The Court gave the petition due course (Dec. 12, 1995). The Solicitor General answered and filed memoranda; the Court solicited a historical/technical paper from Ambassador Lilia R. Bautista (the “Bautista Paper”) summarizing the Uruguay Round and WTO. During oral argument (Aug. 27, 1996) the Court directed production of Senate committee reports, Senate transcripts, and WTO materials; parties filed supplemental compliances thereafter. The peti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the petition present a political question or otherwise fall outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction?
- Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement and its annexes contravene Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution?
- Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement and its annexes unduly limit, restrict, or impair the exercise of legislative power by Congress?
- Do the WTO provisions unduly impair or interfere with the exercise of judicial power by the Supreme Court (particularly in promulgating rules on evidence)?
- Was the Senate’s concurrence in the WTO Agreement valid and sufficient despite not expressly concurring in the Final Act, the Ministerial Declarations and...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)