tanada versus angara case digest

7/25/2019 TANADA Versus ANGARA Case Digest

1/15

TANADA versus ANGARA

G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997

To hasten worldwide recovery from the devastation wrought by the Second World War, plans for the

establishment of three multilateral institutions were discussed at Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton

Woods, to wit: !" The World Bank WB" which was to address the rehabilitation and reconstruction

of war#ravaged and later developing countries$ %" the &nternational 'onetary (und &'(" which was

to deal with currency problems$ and )" the &nternational Trade Organi*ation &TO", which was to

foster order and predictability in world trade and to minimi*e unilateral protectionist policies that

invite challenge, even retaliation, from other states+ owever, for a variety of reasons, including its

non#ratification by the -nited States, the &TO, unlike the &'( and WB, never took off and only the

.eneral /greement on Tariffs and Trade ./TT" remained+

/fter half a century and several di**ying rounds of negotiations principally the 0ennedy 1ound, the

Tokyo 1ound and the -ruguay 1ound", on 2anuary !, !334, the World Trade Organi*ation emerged,

with the signing of the 5(inal /ct5 in 'arrakesh, 'orocco and the ratification of the agreement of the

same by its members+1

On /pril !4, !336, 1espondent 1i*alino 7avarro, then Secretary of The Department of Trade and

&ndustry representing the .overnment of the 1epublic of the 8hilippines, signed in 'arrakesh,

'orocco, the (inal /ct 9mbodying the 1esults of the -ruguay 1ound of 'ultilateral 7egotiations+

By signing the (inal /ct,2Secretary 7avarro on behalf of the 1epublic of the 8hilippines, agreed:

a" to submit, as appropriate, the WTO /greement for the consideration of their

respective competent authorities, with a view to seeking approval of the /greement

in accordance with their procedures$ and

b" to adopt the 'inisterial Declarations and Decisions+

On /ugust !%, !336, the members of the 8hilippine Senate received a letter dated /ugust !!, !336

from the 8resident of the 8hilippines, 3stating among others that 5the -ruguay 1ound (inal /ct is

hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section %!, /rticle && of the ;onstitution+5

On /ugust !), !336, the 8hilippine Senate members received another letter from the 8resident of

the 8hilippines4likewise dated /ugust !!, !336, which stated among others that 5the -ruguay 1ound

(inal /ct, the /greement 9stablishing the World Trade Organi*ation, the 'inisterial Declarations and

Decisions, and the -nderstanding on ;ommitments in (inancial Services are hereby submitted to the

Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section %!, /rticle && of the ;onstitution+5

On December 3, !336, the 8resident of the 8hilippines certified the necessity of the immediate

adoption of 8+S+ ! which 51esolved, as it is

hereby resolved, that the Senate concur, as it hereby concurs, in the ratification by the 8resident of

the 8hilippines of the /greement 9stablishing the World Trade Organi*ation+5 On December !?,

!336, the 8resident of the 8hilippines signed 7the &nstrument of 1atification+On the other hand, the


2/15


3/15


4/15

whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

e@cess of Furisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government+

The foregoing te@t emphasi*es the Fudicial departmentGs duty and power to strike down grave abuse

of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government including ;ongress+ &t is an

innovation in our political law+ 1E/s e@plained by former ;hief 2ustice 1oberto ;oncepcion, 175the

Fudiciary is the final arbiter on the Auestion of whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials

has acted without Furisdiction or in e@cess of Furisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of

discretion amounting to e@cess of Furisdiction+ This is not only a Fudicial power but a duty to pass Fudgment

on matters of this nature+5

/s this ;ourt has repeatedly and firmly emphasi*ed in many cases, 18it will not shirk, digress from orabandon its sacred duty and authority to uphold the ;onstitution in matters that involve grave abuse of

discretion brought before it in appropriate cases, committed by any officer, agency, instrumentality or

department of the government+

/s the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as there is no other plain, speedy or adeAuate

remedy in the ordinary course of law, we have no hesitation at all in holding that this petition should

be given due course and the vital Auestions raised therein ruled upon under 1ule ?4 of the 1ules of

;ourt+ &ndeed, certiorari, prohibition andmandamusare appropriate remedies to raise constitutional

issues and to review andor prohibitnullify, when proper, acts of legislative and e@ecutive officials+

On this, we have no eAuivocation+

We should stress that, in deciding to take Furisdiction over this petition, this ;ourt will not review

the wisdomof the decision of the 8resident and the Senate in enlisting the country into the WTO, or

pass upon the meritsof trade liberali*ation as a policy espoused by said international body+ 7either

will it rule on theproprietyof the governmentGs economic policy of reducingremoving tariffs, ta@es,

subsidies, Auantitative restrictions, and other importtrade barriers+ 1ather, it will only e@ercise its

constitutional duty 5to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or e@cess of Furisdiction5 on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO /greement

and its three anne@es+

%" The matter of estoppel will not be taken up because this defense is waivable and the

respondents have effectively waived it by not pursuing it in any of their pleadings$ in any event, this

issue, even if ruled in respondentsG favor, will not cause the petitionGs dismissal as there are

petitioners other than the two senators, who are not vulnerable to the defense of estoppel$

This is the lis mota, the main issue, raised by the petition+

8etitioners vigorously argue that the 5letter, spirit and intent5 of the ;onstitution mandating

5economic nationalism5 are violated by the so#called 5parity provisions5 and 5national treatment5

clauses scattered in various parts not only of the WTO /greement and its anne@es but also in the'inisterial Decisions and Declarations and in the -nderstanding on ;ommitments in (inancial

Services+

Specifically, the 5flagship5 constitutional provisions referred to are Sec !3, /rticle &&, and Secs+ ! ;onstitution, suffice it to

state also that these are merely statements of principles and policies+ /s such, they

are basically not self#e@ecuting, meaning a law should be passed by ;ongress to

clearly define and effectuate such principles+

&n general, therefore, the !3)4 provisions were not intended to be

self#e@ecuting principles ready for enforcement through the courts+

They were rather directives addressed to the e@ecutive and to the

legislature+ &f the e@ecutive and the legislature failed to heed the

directives of the article, the available remedy was not Fudicial butpolitical+ The electorate could e@press their displeasure with the

failure of the e@ecutive and the legislature through the language of

the ballot+ Bernas, ol+ &&, p+ %"+

The reasons for denying a cause of action to an alleged infringement of board constitutional

principles are sourced from basic considerations of due process and the lack of Fudicial authority to

wade 5into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy making+5

Economic Nationalism Should #e $ead with

%ther &onstitutional "andates to 'ttain

#alanced De!elopment of Economy

On the other hand, Secs+ !< and !% of /rticle H&&, apart from merely laying down general principles

relating to the national economy and patrimony, should be read and understood in relation to the

other sections in said article, especially Secs+ ! and !) thereof which read:

Sec+ !+ The goals of the national economy are a more eAuitable distribution of

opportunities, income, and wealth$ a sustained increase in the amount of goods and

services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people$ and an e@panding


7/15

productivity as the key to raising the Auality of life for all especially the

underprivileged+

The State shall promote industriali*ation and full employment based on sound

agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and

efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both

domestic and foreign markets+ owever, the State shall protect (ilipino enterprises

against unfair foreign competition and trade practices+

&n the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country

shall be given optimum opportunity to develop+ + + +

@@@ @@@ @@@

Sec+ !)+ The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and

utili*es all forms and arrangements of e@change on the basis of eAuality and

reciprocity+

/s pointed out by the Solicitor .eneral, Sec+ ! lays down the basic goals of national economic

development, as follows:

!+ / more eAuitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth$

%+ / sustained increase in the amount of goods and services provided by the nation for the benefit of

the people$ and

)+ /n e@panding productivity as the key to raising the Auality of life for all especially the

underprivileged+

With these goals in conte@t, the ;onstitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism !" by

e@pressing preference in favor of Aualified (ilipinos 5in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions

covering the national economy and patrimony5 27and in the use of 5(ilipino labor, domestic materials

and locally#produced goods5$ %" by mandating the State to 5adopt measures that help make them

competitive$ 28and )" by reAuiring the State to 5develop a self#reliant and independent national economy

effectively controlled by (ilipinos+5 29&n similar language, the ;onstitution takes into account the realities

of the outside world as it reAuires the pursuit of 5a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utili*es

all forms and arrangements of e@change on the basis of eAuality ad reciprocity5$ 3>and speaks of

industries 5which are competitive in both domestic andforeign markets5 as well as of the protection of

5(ilipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices+5

&t is true that in the recent case of "anila Prince (otel !s+ )o!ernment Ser!ice Insurance System, et

al+, 31this ;ourt held that 5Sec+ ! ;onstitution is a mandatory, positivecommand which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rule

for its enforcement+ (rom its very words the provision does not reAuire any legislation to put it in

operation+ &t isper seFudicially enforceable+5 owever, as the constitutional provision itself states, it is

enforceable only in regard to 5the grants of rights, privileges and concessions covering national economy

and patrimony5 and not to every aspect of trade and commerce+ &t refers to e@ceptions rather than the

rule+ The issue here is not whether this paragraph of Sec+ !< of /rt+ H&& is self#e@ecuting or not+ 1ather,

the issue is whether, as a rule, there are enough balancing provisions in the ;onstitution to allow the

Senate to ratify the 8hilippine concurrence in the WTO /greement+ /nd we hold that there are+


8/15

/ll told, while the ;onstitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of (ilipino goods, services, labor and

enterprises, at the same time, it recogni*es the need for business e@change with the rest of the

world on the bases of eAuality and reciprocity and limits protection of (ilipino enterprises only

against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair+ 32&n other words, the ;onstitution didnot intend to pursue an isolationist policy+ &t did not shut out foreign investments, goods and services in

the development of the 8hilippine economy+ While the ;onstitution does not encourage the unlimited

entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either+ &n fact, itallows an e@change on the basis of eAuality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that

isunfair+

*T% $ecogni+es Need to

Protect *ea, Economies

-pon the other hand, respondents maintain that the WTO itself has some built#in advantages to

protect weak and developing economies, which comprise the vast maFority of its members+ -nlike in

the -7 where maFor states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security ;ouncil, in the

WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign eAuality, with each memberGs vote eAual in

weight to that of any other+ There is no WTO eAuivalent of the -7 Security ;ouncil+

ence, 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

Organi*ation+ This is not merely a matter of practical alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in

law+ Thus, the basic principles underlying the WTO /greement recogni*e the need of developing

countries like the 8hilippines to 5share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the

needs of their economic de!elopment+5 These basic principles are found in the preamble 34of the

WTO /greement +

Specific *T% Pro!isos Protect De!eloping &ountries

So too, the Solicitor .eneral points out that pursuant to and consistent with the foregoing basic

principles, the WTO /greement grants developing countries a more lenient treatment, giving their

domestic industries some protection from the rush of foreign competition+ Thus, with respect to tariffs

in general, preferential treatment is given to developing countries in terms of the amount of tariff

reductionand theperiod within which the reduction is to be spread out+ Specifically, ./TT reAuires

an average tariff reduction rate of ./ for de!eloped countriesto be effected within aperiod of six

0.1 yearswhile developing countries K including the 8hilippines K are re2uired to effect an a!erage

tariff reduction of only 34/ within ten 0561 years+

&n respect to domesticsubsidy, ./TT reAuires de!eloped countriesto reduce domestic support to

agricultural products by 36/ o!er six 0.1 years, as compared to only 5/ for de!eloping countries to

be effected within ten 0561 years+

&n regard to e@port subsidy for agricultural products, ./TT reAuires developed countries to reduce

their budgetary outlays for e@port subsidyby ./and e@port volumes receiving e@port subsidy

by 35/ within a period of six 0.1 years+ (or developing countries, however, the reduction rate is

only two-thirdsof that prescribed for developed countries and a longerperiod of ten 0561 yearswithin

which to effect such reduction+


9/15

'oreover, ./TT itself has provided built#in protection from unfair foreign competition and trade

practices including anti#dumping measures, countervailing measures and safeguards against import

surges+ Where local businesses are Feopardi*ed by unfair foreign competition, the 8hilippines can

avail of these measures+ There is hardly therefore any basis for the statement that under the WTO,

local industries and enterprises will all be wiped out and that (ilipinos will be deprived of control of

the economy+ Juite the contrary, the weaker situations of developing nations like the 8hilippines

have been taken into account$ thus, there would be no basis to say that in Foining the WTO, therespondents have gravely abused their discretion+ True, they have made a bold decision to steer the

ship of state into the yet uncharted sea of economic liberali*ation+ But such decision cannot be set

aside on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, simply because we disagree with it or simply

because we believe only in other economic policies+ /s earlier stated, the ;ourt in taking Furisdiction

of this case will not pass upon the advantages and disadvantages of trade liberali*ation as an

economic policy+ &t will only perform its constitutional duty of determining whether the Senate

committed grave abuse of discretion+

&onstitution Does Not $ule %ut 7oreign &ompetition

(urthermore, the constitutional policy of a 5self#reliant and independent national economy5 35does notnecessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and services+ &t contemplates neither

5economic seclusion5 nor 5mendicancy in the international community+5 /s e@plained by ;onstitutional

;ommissioner Bernardo illegas, sponsor of this constitutional policy:

Economic self-reliance is a primary ob8ecti!e of a de!eloping country that is ,eenly

aware of o!erdependence on external assistance for e!en its most basic needs9 It

does not mean autar,y or economic seclusion$ rather, it means avoiding mendicancy

in the international community+ &ndependence refers to the freedom from undue

foreign control of the national economy, especially in such strategic industries as in

the development of natural resources and public utilities+ 3E

The WTO reliance on 5most favored nation,5 5national treatment,5 and 5trade without discrimination5cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are rules of eAuality and reciprocity that

apply to all WTO members+ /side from envisioning a trade policy based on 5eAuality and

reciprocity,5 37the fundamental law encourages industries that are 5competitive in both domestic andforeign markets,5 thereby demonstrating 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+ &ndeed, (ilipino managers and (ilipino enterprises have shown capability and tenacity to

compete internationally+ /nd given a free trade environment, (ilipino entrepreneurs and managers in

ongkong have demonstrated the (ilipino capacity to grow and to prosper against the best offered under

a policy of laisse+ faire+

&onstitution 7a!ors &onsumers Not Industries or Enterprises

The ;onstitution has not really shown any unbalanced bias in favor of any business or enterprise,

nor does it contain any specific pronouncement that (ilipino companies should be pampered with a

total proscription of foreign competition+ On the other hand, respondents claim that WTO./TT aims

to make available to the (ilipino consumer the best goods and services obtainable anywhere in the

world at the most reasonable prices+ ;onseAuently, the Auestion boils down to whether WTO./TT

will favor the general welfare of the public at large+

&onstitution Designed to "eet 7uture E!ents and &ontingencies


10/15

7o doubt, the WTO /greement was not yet in e@istence when the ;onstitution was drafted and

ratified in !3=>+ That does not mean however that the ;harter is necessarily flawed in the sense that

its framers might not have anticipated the advent of a borderless world of business+ By the same

token, the -nited 7ations was not yet in e@istence when the !3)4 ;onstitution became effective+ Did

that necessarily mean that the then ;onstitution might not have contemplated a diminution of the

absoluteness of sovereignty when the 8hilippines signed the -7 ;harter, thereby effectively

surrendering part of its control over its foreign relations to the decisions of various -7 organs like theSecurity ;ouncilL

&t is not difficult to answer this Auestion+ ;onstitutions are designed to meet not only the vagaries of

contemporary events+ They should be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances+

&t is to the credit of its drafters that a ;onstitution can withstand the assaults of bigots and infidels but

at the same time bend with the refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events+

The WTO /greement provides that 5e"ach 'ember shall ensure the conformity of its laws,

regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the anne@ed

/greements+5 398etitioners maintain that this undertaking 5unduly limits, restricts and impairs 8hilippine

sovereignty, specifically the legislative power which under Sec+ %, /rticle & of the !3=> 8hilippine;onstitution is vested in the ;ongress of the 8hilippines+ &t is an assault on the sovereign powers of the

8hilippines because this means that ;ongress could not pass legislation that will be good for our national

interest and general welfare if such legislation will not conform with the WTO /greement, which not only

relates to the trade in goods + + + but also to the flow of investments and money + + + as well as to a whole

slew of agreements on socio#cultural matters + + + 4>

'ore specifically, petitioners claim that said WTO proviso derogates from the power to ta@, which is

lodged in the ;ongress+ 41/nd while the ;onstitution allows ;ongress to authori*e the 8resident to fi@tariff rates, import and e@port Auotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts, such

authority is subFect to 5specified limits and + + + such limitations and restrictions5 as ;ongress may

provide, 42as in fact it did under Sec+ 6

So!ereignty :imited by

International :aw and Treaties

This ;ourt notes and appreciates the ferocity and passion by which petitioners stressed their

arguments on this issue+ owever, while sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all#

encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subFect to restrictions and limitations voluntarily

agreed to by the 8hilippines, e@pressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations+

-nAuestionably, the ;onstitution did not envision a hermit#type isolation of the country from the rest

of the world+ &n its Declaration of 8rinciples and State 8olicies, the ;onstitution 5adopts the generally

accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of

peace, eAuality, Fustice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations+5 43By the doctrine of

incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which areconsidered to be automatically part of our own laws+ 44One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in

international law ispacta sunt ser!anda K international agreements must be performed in good faith+ 5/

treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the

parties + + + / state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislations

such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken+5 45

By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty+ By their

voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in e@change for greater


11/15

benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact+The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in

fact and in reality be considered absolute+ ;ertain restrictions enter into the picture: !" limitations

imposed by the very nature of membership in the family of nations and %" limitations imposed by treaty

stipulations+

;N &harter and %ther Treaties

:imit So!ereignty

Thus, when the 8hilippines Foined the -nited 7ations as one of its 4! charter members, it consented

to restrict its sovereign rights under the 5concept of sovereignty as auto#limitation+547CA-nder /rticle %of the -7 ;harter, 5a"ll members shall give the -nited 7ations every assistance in any action it takes in

accordance with the present ;harter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which

the -nited 7ations is taking preventive or enforcement action+5 Such assistance includes payment of its

corresponding share not merely in administrative e@penses but also in e@penditures for the peace#

keeping operations of the organi*ation+ &n its advisory opinion of 2uly %


12/15

/rticle )6

Process Patents: #urden of Proof

!+ (or the purposes of civil proceedings in respect of the infringement of the rights of

the owner referred to in paragraph ! b" of /rticle %=, if the subFect matter of a patent

is a process for obtaining a product, the Fudicial authorities shall have the authority to

order the defendant to prove that the process to obtain an identical product is

different from the patented process+ Therefore, 'embers shall provide, in at least

one of the following circumstances, that any identical product when produced without

the consent of the patent owner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be

deemed to have been obtained by the patented process:

a" if the product obtained by the patented process is new$

b" if there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product was

made by the process and the owner of the patent has been unable

through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used+

%+ /ny 'ember shall be free to provide that the burden of proof indicated in

paragraph ! shall be on the alleged infringer only if the condition referred to in

subparagraph a" is fulfilled or only if the condition referred to in subparagraph b" is

fulfilled+

)+ &n the adduction of proof to the contrary, the legitimate interests of defendants in

protecting their manufacturing and business secrets shall be taken into account+

(rom the above, a WTO 'ember is reAuired to provide a rule of disputable not the words 5in the

absence of proof to the contrary5" presumption that a product shown to be identical to one produced

with the use of a patented process shall be deemed to have been obtained by the illegal" use of thesaid patented process, !" where such product obtained by the patented product is new, or %" where

there is 5substantial likelihood5 that the identical product was made with the use of the said patented

process but the owner of the patent could not determine the e@act process used in obtaining such

identical product+ ence, the 5burden of proof5 contemplated by /rticle )6 should actually be

understood as the duty of the alleged patent infringer to overthrow such presumption+ Such burden,

properly understood, actually refers to the 5burden of evidence5 burden of going forward" placed on

the producer of the identical or fake" product to show that his product was produced without the use

of the patented process+

The foregoing notwithstanding, the patent owner still has the 5burden of proof5 since, regardless of

the presumption provided under paragraph ! of /rticle )6, such owner still has to introduce evidence

of the e@istence of the alleged identical product, the fact that it is 5identical5 to the genuine one

produced by the patented process and the fact of 5newness5 of the genuine product or the fact of

5substantial likelihood5 that the identical product was made by the patented process+

The foregoing should really present no problem in changing the rules of evidence as the present law

on the subFect, 1epublic /ct 7o+ !?4, as amended, otherwise known as the 8atent aw, provides a

similar presumption in cases of infringement of patented design or utility model, thus:


13/15

Sec+ ?


14/15

The assailed Senate 1esolution 7o+ 3> e@pressed concurrence in e@actly what the (inal /ct

reAuired from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO /greement+

The 'inisterial Declarations and Decisions were deemed adopted without need for ratification+ They

were approved by the ministers by virtue of /rticle HH: ! of ./TT which provides that

representatives of the members can meet 5to give effect to those provisions of this /greement which

invoke Foint action, and generally with a view to facilitating the operation and furthering the obFectives

of this /greement+5 5E

The -nderstanding on ;ommitments in (inancial Services also approved in 'arrakesh does not

apply to the 8hilippines+ &t applies only to those %> 'embers which 5have indicated in their

respective schedules of commitments on standstill, elimination of monopoly, e@pansion of operation

of e@isting financial service suppliers, temporary entry of personnel, free transfer and processing of

information, and national treatment with respect to access to payment, clearing systems and

refinancing available in the normal course of business+557

On the other hand, the WTO /greement itself e@presses what multilateral agreements are deemed

included as its integral parts+

&n praying for the nullification of the 8hilippine ratification of the WTO /greement, petitioners are

invoking this ;ourtGs constitutionally imposed duty 5to determine whether or not there has been

grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e@cess of Furisdiction5 on the part of the Senate in

giving its concurrence therein via Senate 1esolution 7o+ 3>+ 8rocedurally, a writ

of certiorari grounded on grave abuse of discretion may be issued by the ;ourt under 1ule ?4 of the

1ules of ;ourt when it is amply shown that petitioners have no other plain, speedy and adeAuate

remedy in the ordinary course of law+

By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical e@ercise of Fudgment as is

eAuivalent to lack of Furisdiction+ E1'ere abuse of discretion is not enough+ &t must be gra!eabuse of

discretion as when the power is e@ercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion orpersonal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to

a virtual refusal to perform the duty enFoined or to act at all in contemplation of law+ E2(ailure on the part

of the petitioner to show grave abuse of discretion will result in the dismissal of the petition+ E3

&n rendering this Decision, this ;ourt never forgets that the Senate, whose act is under review, is one

of two sovereign houses of ;ongress and is thus entitled to great respect in its actions+ &t is itself a

constitutional body independent and coordinate, and thus its actions are presumed regular and done

in good faith+ -nless convincing proof and persuasive arguments are presented to overthrow such

presumptions, this ;ourt will resolve every doubt in its favor+ -sing the foregoing well#accepted

definition of grave abuse of discretion and the presumption of regularity in the SenateGs processes,

this ;ourt cannot find any cogent reason to impute grave abuse of discretion to the SenateGs

e@ercise of its power of concurrence in the WTO /greement granted it by Sec+ %! of /rticle && of the;onstitution+ E4

&t is true, as alleged by petitioners, that broad constitutional principles reAuire the State to develop an

independent national economy effectively controlled by (ilipinos$ and to protect andor prefer (ilipino

labor, products, domestic materials and locally produced goods+ But it is eAually true that such

principles K while serving as Fudicial and legislative guides K are not in themselves sources of

causes of action+ 'oreover, there are other eAually fundamental constitutional principles relied upon


15/15

by the Senate which mandate the pursuit of a 5trade policy that serves the general welfare and

utili*es all forms and arrangements of e@change on the basis of eAuality and reciprocity5 and the

promotion of industries 5which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets,5 thereby

Fustifying its acceptance of said treaty+ So too, the alleged impairment of sovereignty in the e@ercise

of legislative and Fudicial powers is balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of

international law as part of the law of the land and the adherence of the ;onstitution to the policy of

cooperation and amity with all nations+

That the Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the

WTO /greement thereby making it 5a part of the law of the land5 is a legitimate e@ercise of its

sovereign duty and power+ We find no 5patent and gross5 arbitrariness or despotism 5by reason of

passion or personal hostility5 in such e@ercise+ &t is not impossible to surmise that this ;ourt, or at

least some of its members, may even agree with petitioners that it is more advantageous to the

national interest to strike down Senate 1esolution 7o+ 3>+ But that is not a legal reasonto attribute

grave abuse of discretion to the Senate and to nullify its decision+ To do so would constitute grave

abuse in the e@ercise of our own Fudicial power and duty+ &neludably, what the Senate did was a valid

e@ercise of its authority+ /s to whether such e@ercise was wise, beneficial or viable is outside the

realm of Fudicial inAuiry and review+ That is a matter between the elected policy makers and the

people+

W919(O19, the petition is D&S'&SS9D for lack of merit+

SO O1D919D+

tanada versus angara case digest

Documents