tanada vs angara and abra valley vs aquino

7/27/2019 Tanada vs Angara and Abra Valley vs Aquino

1/4

Tanada vs. Angara

(GATT Case G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997)

Facts:

Rizalino Navarro, the Secretary of Department of Trade and Industry

representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed the Final

Act Embodying the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. By

signing the Final Act he bound the Philippines to submit to its respective

competent authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek

approval.

Subsequently, the Phillipine Senate adopted Resolution No. 97 to ratify the

WTO agreement. This is a petition seeking to nullify the ratification of the World

Trade Organization(WTO) Agreement. The WTO opens access to foreign markets,especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its

exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new

opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with

exporting and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits

as reflected in the agreement and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a free

market espoused by WTO. Tolentino and others question the constitutionality of

the WTO agreement as it derogates from the power to tax, which is lodged in the

Congress and violates Sec 19, Article II, providing for the development of a self

reliant and independent national economy, and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII,

providing for the Filipino first policy.

Issues: Whether or not treaties limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty?

Ruling:

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 exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a

convention or pact.

In the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has effectively agreed to limit the

exercise of its sovereignty powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power.

The underlying consideration in this partial surrender is the reciprocal

commitment of the other contracting states in granting the same privilege and

immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens.


2/4

Certainly, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the

Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines adopts the generally

accepted principles of international law as art of the law of the land and adheres

to the policy of cooperation and amity with all nations.


3/4

Abra Valley College v. Aquino

162 SCRA 106

FACTS: Abra Valley College is an educational corporation and institution of higher

learning duly incorporated with the SEC in 1948. The Municipal and Provincial

treasurers issued a Notice of Seizure upon the petitioner for the college lot and

building for the satisfaction of said taxes thereon. The treasurers served upon the

petitioner a Notice of Sale, the sale being held on the same day to Dr. Paterno

Millare being the highest bidder in the amount of Php 6,000.

The petitioner filed a complaint to annul and declare void the Notice of

Seizure and the Notice of Sale. The trial court ruled for the government,

holding that the second floor of the building is being used by the director for

residential purposes and that the ground floor used and rented by Northern

Marketing Corporation, a commercial establishment, and thus the property is notbeing used exclusively for educational purposes. Instead of perfecting an

appeal, petitioner availed of the petition for review on certiorari with prayer for

preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed

the decision of the CFI Abra (Branch I) subject to the modification that half of the

assessed tax be returned to the petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not Abra Valley College is exempted from tax?

HELD:No. Interpretation of the phrase used exclusively for educational

purposes Sec 22, par 3, Article VI, of the then 1935 Philippine Constitution,

expressly grants exemption from realty taxes for Cemeteries, churches and

parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings, and

improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes.

Exemption in favour of property used exclusively for charitable or educational

purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefor but extends

to facilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the

accomplishment of said purposes (Herrera v. Quezon City Board of Assessment

Appeals). While the Court allows a more liberal and non-restrictive interpretationof the phrase exclusively used for educational purposes, reasonable emphasis

has always been made that exemption extends to facilities which are incidental to

and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes. The use

of the school building or lot for commercial purposes is neither contemplated by

law, nor by jurisprudence. In the case at bar, the lease of the first floor of the


4/4

building to the Northern Marketing Corporation cannot by any stretch of the

imagination be considered incidental to the purpose of education.

tanada vs angara and abra valley vs aquino

Documents