Gonzales vs Hechanova

G.R. No. L-21897 October 22 1963 [Executive Agreements]

FACTS:
Exec. Secretary Hechanova authorised the importation of foreign rice to be purchased from
private sources. Gonzales filed a petition opposing the said implementation because RA No.
3542 which allegedly repeals or amends RA No. 2207, prohibits the importation of rice and corn
"by the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency."
Respondents alleged that the importation permitted in RA 2207 is to be authorized by the
President of the Philippines, and by or on behalf of the Government of the Philippines. They add
that after enjoining the Rice and Corn administration and any other government agency from
importing rice and corn, S. 10 of RA 3542 indicates that only private parties may import rice
under its provisions. They contended that the government has already constitute valid executive
agreements with Vietnam and Burma, that in case of conflict between RA 2207 and 3542, the
latter should prevail and the conflict be resolved under the American jurisprudence.

ISSUE:
W/N the executive agreements may be validated in our courts.

RULING:
No. The Court is not satisfied that the status of said tracts as alleged executive agreements has
been sufficiently established. Even assuming that said contracts may properly considered as
executive agreements, the same are unlawful, as well as null and void, from a constitutional
viewpoint, said agreements being inconsistent with the provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207
and 3452. Although the President may, under the American constitutional system enter into
executive agreements without previous legislative authority, he may not, by executive
agreement, enter into a transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto.

Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by
Congress. He may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter, except
in the exercise of his veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired
the status of law, by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for
the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.

TANADA VS ANGARA

G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997

Wigberto E. Tanada et al, in representation of various taxpayers and as non-governmental

organizations, petitioners,
vs.

EDGARDO ANGARA, et al, respondents.

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.

Issues:

Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.

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.
Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise of
legislative power by Congress.
Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by this
Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of the
Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’ implied rejection of the
treaty embodied in the Final Act.

Discussions:

1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and
services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international
community.” The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak and developing
economies, which comprise the vast majority of its members. Unlike in the UN where major
states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security Council, in the WTO, decisions
are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with each member’s vote equal in weight to that of
any other. Hence, 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. Which is not merely a matter of practical alliances but a
negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus, the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement
recognize the need of developing countries like the Philippines to “share in the growth in
international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development.”
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 fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the
General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedures. With regard to Infringement of
a design patent, WTO members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of
implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own internal systems and processes.
The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial 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 Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity with
all nations. The Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its
consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the land” is a legitimate
exercise of its sovereign duty and power.

Rulings:

In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the
right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. As explained by former Chief
Justice Roberto Concepcion, “the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not a
branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this
nature.”
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.
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. After all, states, like individuals, live
with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also
commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown by the
foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, 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.”
The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable burden,
consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in
our judicial system.
The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act
required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement.
Moreover, the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the members’
deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated August 11,
1994, the senators of the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was concurring in.