Taada vs AngaraFacts: PH Senate and the President ratified the WTO agreement whereby countries-signatories have increased participation in the world economy through reduction of tariffs on exports, agreements on technical barriers, and dispute settlements that encourage investments in the country and protect the less developed countries as regards trade disputes. The other senators who participated in the deliberations and voting for the ratification filed a petition questioning the constitutionality of the said legislative act They contend that the same is violative of Sec. 19, Article II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Article XII, all of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which provisions provide for a self-reliant and independent national economy controlled by Filipinos, granting preference to qualified Filipinos in conferring rights, privileges, and concessions, and regulating foreign investments in the country. Sol-Gen argues that the Filipino First Policy must be read in harmony with Art. 12 provisions on the promotion of trade policies that serve the general welfare and exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, and on making the economy competitive in the domestic and foreign markets. One of the provisions of the GATT that was emphasized by petitioners as violative of the Filipino First Policy in the Constitution is the par. 4 Art. 3 of the said agreement, The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting partyshall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national originin respect of laws, regulations and requirements. It is also the submission of the petitioners that paragraph 1, Article 34 of the General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedures because it imposes on member-countries to provide for a rule of disputable presumption against defendants who are charged of infringing a patented process when the latter is new and there is a substantial likelihood that the patented process was used to produce the product. Petitioners allege that the Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and its annexes -- but not in the other documents referred to in the Final Act, namely the Ministerial Declaration and Decisions and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services -- is defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of discretion. They contend that the second letter of the President to the Senate which enumerated what constitutes the Final Act should have been the subject of concurrence of the Senate.

Issues:1. Does the petition involve a political question?2. Are the provisions of the WTO Agreement in contravention with the 1987 Constitution?3. Do they impair the exercise of legislative power by Congress?4. Do they unduly impair or interfere with the judicial power of SC?5. Is the concurrence of Senate with the agreement sufficient?Ruling:1. No. It is a justiciable controversy over which the Court has jurisdiction. Judicial power involves the determination of whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the executive or legislative branch of the government. In the case at bar, it is the duty of the Court to determine whether the Congress and the President overstepped their mandate and violated the Constitution by ratifying the WTO agreement.2. No. The Constitution has enough balancing provisions to allow the enate to ratify the WTO agreement.a. Declaration of principles is not self-executing. The Congress shall pass laws to clearly define and effectuate those principles. It is not advisable for the judiciary to exercise its judicial power under Art. XIII, Sec. 1 on the invocation of constitutional statutory policies when petitioners cannot point out a specific and operable legal right that are less general that the constitutional provisions, for if the judiciary does, it may overstep its boundaries by diving into social and economic policy making, and may deprive the executive and legislative departments of their right to promulgate norms and standards to implement the non-self-executing constitutional provisions.b. The Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy.It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine economy. 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 enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In fact, the Constitution encourages policies that make the economy competitive on both domestic and foreign markets. The Constitutional provision on Filipino First policy is applicable only on national patrimony, as stated by the Court in the case of Manila Prince Hotel.c. The basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing countries like the Philippines to share in the growth in international tradecommensurate with the needs of their economic development. The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak and developing economies such as the right to equal voting, to withdraw, a lesser reduction on domestic support for agricultural products as compared to developed countries, and more. Poor countries can protect their common interests more effectively through the WTO than through one-on-one negotiations with developed countries.Within the WTO, developing countries can form powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the Organization.It has 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.3. The WTO Agreement provides that (e)ach Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements. 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.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, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations undertaken. Even the UN Charter and the other treaties that the PH entered into with other countries put limitations on the States sovereignty.4. The said provision does not unduly impair the judiciarys rights. It does not alter our rules on evidence since RA 165 or the Patent Law provides for similar presumption on infringement of patented design or utility model. And in fact, despite the rule on the disputable presumption, the patent owner still has the burden of proof to prove that there is such a product, that the patented process is new or that there is substantial likelihood... Reciprocity clause justifies the intrusion.5. The Final Act is not the treaty itself but rather the summary of the proceedings of a protracted conference that has taken place over the years. DTI Sec. Navarro signed the Final Act that directs him to submit to the respective competent authorities of member-nations the WTO Agreement for consideration, and to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions. The senators are well-aware of what they are ratifying as illustrated by the deliberations that took place in connection with the WTO agreement. The senators made statements that the Constitution requires them to ratify not the Final Act but the WTO Agreement itself because the former just specifies what is being submitted to Senate for ratification.