Case Summary (G.R. No. 118295)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Because the decision date is May 2, 1997, the 1987 Constitution governs. Relevant provisions include:
• Article II, Section 19 (self-reliant economy effectively controlled by Filipinos)
• Article XII, Sections 1, 10, 12, 13 (national economy goals; preference to Filipino enterprises; use of local labor/materials; trade policy equality and reciprocity)
• Article VI, Sections 2, 24, 28 (legislative power and delegation; tariff-fixing authority)
• Article VIII, Section 1 (judicial power to settle constitutional controversies)
• Rule 65, Rules of Court (certiorari for grave abuse of discretion).
Factual Background
After World War II negotiations produced GATT, the Uruguay Round culminated in the Final Act signed April 15, 1994 in Marrakesh. Secretary Navarro signed on behalf of the Philippines, agreeing (a) to submit the WTO Agreement for Senate concurrence and (b) to adopt Ministerial Declarations and Decisions. President Ramos forwarded letters of August 11, 1994 submitting these instruments. The Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 on December 14, 1994, concurring in ratification of the Agreement Establishing the WTO. The President ratified the Agreement on December 16, 1994. Petitioners filed for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus on December 29, 1994.
Issues Framed for Decision
- Justiciability: Does the petition involve a non-reviewable political question?
- Estoppel of petitioner-senators.
- Conflict with economic nationalism provisions (Art II § 19; Art XII §§ 10, 12).
- Impairment of legislative power (Art VI § 2).
- Intrusion on judicial rule-making (Art VIII § 1).
- Validity of concurrence limited to the WTO Agreement (excluding Final Act, Declarations/Decisions, Understanding on Financial Services).
Justiciability and Court’s Jurisdiction
The Court held that challenges to legislative action alleged to violate the Constitution present justiciable controversies. Under Article VIII, Section 1(2), it has the duty to determine grave abuse of discretion by any branch. Rule 65 is appropriate, as no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy exists.
Economic Nationalism vs. WTO Obligations
Petitioners contend WTO’s national‐treatment and most-favored-nation clauses override constitutional mandates to prefer Filipino enterprises, labor and goods. The Court ruled:
• Article II and broad parts of Article XII are non–self-executing declarations of policy, not judicially enforceable causes of action.
• Article XII § 1 and § 13 impose balancing goals—equitable growth, competitiveness, equality and reciprocity in trade—allowing foreign participation under fair terms.
• WTO’s preamble and provisions provide special and differential treatment for developing countries (longer timeframes and smaller tariff reductions), remedial measures (anti-dumping, countervailing duties, safeguards) and dispute settlement advantages.
• The Constitution contemplates neither autarky nor absolute exclusion of foreign trade, but protection from unfair practices and promotion of competitiveness.
Limitations on Sovereignty and Legislative Power
Petitioners argue the WTO requirement to conform domestic laws to annexed agreements unduly restricts Congress’s taxing and legislative authority. The Court observed:
• Sovereignty under the 1987 Constitution incorporates international law (pacta sunt servanda).
• Membership in the UN and other treaties already limits absolute sovereign discretion (e.g., UN budget assessments, privileges and immunities, Chapter VII enforcement).
• Treaties inherently entail partial waiver of sovereignty in exchange for reciprocal benefits. WTO obligations fall within this constitutional scheme of cooperation and amity (Art II § 2).
Judicial Power and TRIPS Burden-of-Proof Provision
Petitioners claimed Article 34 of the TRIPS Agreement intrudes on the Supreme Court’s rule-making by shifting burdens of proof in patent-infringement suits. The Court held:
• Article 34 imposes a disputable presumption consistent with existing Philippine patent law (patent-infringement provisions in RA 165).
• The presumption applies only in circumscribed circumstances (new product or inability to determine process), is rebuttable and respects due process.
• TRIPS allows flexibility
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 118295)
Parties and Posture
- Petitioners: Senators Wigberto E. TaAada and Anna Dominique Coseteng; Representatives Gregorio Andolana and Joker Arroyo; taxpayers Nicanor P. Perlas and Horacio R. Morales; and several non-governmental organizations acting as taxpayers.
- Respondents: Members of the Philippine Senate who concurred in the ratification of the World Trade Organization Agreement; key executive officers including the Secretary of Budget and Management, National Treasurer, and Secretaries of Trade and Industry, Agriculture, Finance, Foreign Affairs, and the Executive Secretary.
- Relief sought: Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to nullify Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and to enjoin its implementation.
Jurisdiction and Justiciability
- The petition was filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, invoking the Court’s duty to correct grave abuse of discretion by any branch of government.
- Petitioners challenged a legislative act (Senate Resolution No. 97) on constitutional grounds, raising a justiciable controversy rather than a political question.
- The Court held that where grave abuse of discretion is alleged, judicial review is both proper and mandatory to uphold constitutional supremacy.
Factual Background
- January 1, 1995: The World Trade Organization (WTO) came into existence, replacing GATT.
- April 15, 1994: Philippine Department of Trade and Industry Secretary Navarro signed the Uruguay Round Final Act in Marrakesh, which included the WTO Agreement and related instruments.
- August 11, 1994: President Ramos informed the Senate by letter that the Uruguay Round Final Act, including the WTO Agreement, Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, was submitted “for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII” of the Constitution.
- December 14, 1994: The Philippine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97, concurring in the ratification of the WTO Agreement (with its Annexes 1, 2, and 3) but not expressly in the Final Act, Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, or the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.
- December 16, 1994: President Ramos signed the Instrument of Ratification, confirming Philippine ratification of the WTO Agreement and its integral Annexes.
Petition in Brief
- Petitioners argued that:
• The WTO’s national-treatment and most-f