Scribd
Upload
19 views

Tanada Vs Angara

The case involved a petition by lawmakers and NGOs to nullify the Philippines' ratification of the World Trade Organization agreement. The petitioners argued that the WTO agreement would be detrimental to the national economy and contradicted the "Filipino First" policy. They also claimed it conflicted with the Philippine constitution by limiting Congress' ability to pass legislation in the national interest. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while the constitution supports Filipino goods and services, it also recognizes the need for international trade and does not intend an isolationist policy. It allows foreign investment and trade on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

Uploaded by

Syed Almendras II
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views

Tanada Vs Angara

The case involved a petition by lawmakers and NGOs to nullify the Philippines' ratification of the World Trade Organization agreement. The petitioners argued that the WTO agreement would be detrimental to the national economy and contradicted the "Filipino First" policy. They also claimed it conflicted with the Philippine constitution by limiting Congress' ability to pass legislation in the national interest. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while the constitution supports Filipino goods and services, it also recognizes the need for international trade and does not intend an isolationist policy. It allows foreign investment and trade on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

Uploaded by

Syed Almendras II
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

tanada vs.

angara 272 scra 18 ( 1997)


Facts:
This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers, taxpayers, and
various NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Agreement.

Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and
against to the “Filipino First” policy. 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.

Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since the
said Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant that
Congress could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general welfare
if such legislation would not conform to the WTO Agreement.

Issue:
Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and
the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and
three (3) of that agreement’ cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the letter,
spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution.

Ruling:
While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, 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 other words, 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. While the Constitution does not
encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it
does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.

You might also like