GR No. 118295 May 2, 1997
FACTS
The Philippines joined World Trade Organization as a
founding member with the goal of improving Philippine access to foreign
markets, especially its major trading partners, through the reduction of
tariffs on its exports. The President also saw in the WTO the opening of new
opportunities for the services sector, the reduction of costs and uncertainty
associated with exporting and the attraction of more investments into the
country. On April 15, 1994, respondent Navarro, then DTI Secretary, signed in Marrakesh,
Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of
Multilateral Negotiations. On December 14, 1994, the Senate concurred in the
ratification of the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing
the WTO which includes various agreements and associated legal instruments. On
December 16, 1994,the President signed the Instrument of Ratification.
ISSUES
1. Whether the WTO Agreement violated the mandated economic
nationalism by the Constitution
2. Whether the provisions of the WTO Agreement restricts and
impairs Philippine sovereignty, specifically the legislative power vested in
the Congress
3. Whether the Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and
its annexes but not in the other documents referred to in the Final Act is
defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of discretion
RULING
1. No. 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. In fact, it allows an
exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign
competition that is unfair. The constitutional policy of a self-reliant and
independent national economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither economic seclusion nor
mendicancy in the international community.
2. No. 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. Unquestionably,
the Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from
the rest of the world. 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 laws. A treaty engagement is not a mere moral
obligation on the parties. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or
restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. The Philippines has effectively agreed
to limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of taxation, eminent domain and
police power. The underlying consideration in this partial sovereignty is the
reciprocal commitment of the other contracting states in granting the same privilege
and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its citizens. The same
reciprocity characterizes the same commitments under WTO-GATT. The point is
that 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 part
of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of cooperation and
amity with all nations.
3. No. The petitioners submit that concurrence in the WTO
Agreement alone is flawed because it is in effect a rejection of the Final Act.
The Court held that a final act is an instrument which records the winding up
of the proceedings of a diplomatic conference and not the treaty itself. On the
other hand, the WTO Agreement itself expresses what multilateral agreements are
deemed included as its integral parts. It should be added that the Senate was
well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the member’s deliberation.
Comments
Post a Comment