TANADA VS ANGARA
Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.
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
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.
MIJARES vs. HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER
RANADA
Facts:
Invoking the Alien Tort Act, petitioners Mijares,
et al.*, all of whom suffered human rights
violations during the Marcos era, obtained a
Final Judgment in their favor against the Estate
of the late Ferdinand Marcos amounting to
roughly 1.9 Billion U.S. Dollars in
compensatory and exemplary damages for
tortuous violations of international law in the US
District Court of Hawaii. This Final Judgment
was affirmed by the US Court of Appeals.
As a consequence, Petitioners filed a
Complaint with the Regional Trial Court of
Makati for the enforcement of the Final
Judgment, paying Php 410.00 as docket and
filing fees based on Rule 141, Section 7(b)
where the value of the subject matter is
incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Estate
of Marcos however, filed a MTD alleging the
non-payment of the correct filing fees. The
Regional Trial Court of Makati dismissed the
Complaint stating that the subject matter was
capable of pecuniary estimation as it involved a
judgment rendered by a foreign court ordering
the payment of a definite sum of money
allowing for the easy determination of the value
of the foreign judgment. As such, the proper
filing fee was 472 Million Philippine pesos,
which Petitioners had not paid.
Issue:
Whether or not the amount paid by the
Petitioners is the proper filing fee?
Ruling:
Yes, but on a different basis—amount merely
corresponds to the same amount required for
“other actions not involving property”. The
Regional Trial Court of Makati erred in
concluding that the filing fee should be
computed on the basis of the total sum claimed
or the stated value of the property in litigation.
The Petitioner’s Complaint was lodged against
the Estate of Marcos but it is clearly based on
a judgment, the Final Judgment of the US
District Court. However, the Petitioners erred in
stating that the Final Judgment is incapable of
pecuniary estimation because it is so capable.
On this point, Petitioners state that this might
lead to an instance wherein a first level court
(MTC, MeTC, etc.) would have jurisdiction to
enforce a foreign judgment. Under Batasang
Pambansa 129, such courts are not vested with
such jurisdiction. Section 33 of Batasang
Pambansa 129 refers to instances wherein the
cause of action or subject matter pertains to an
assertion of rights over property or a sum of
money. But here, the subject matter is the
foreign judgment itself. Section 16 of Batasang
Pambansa 129 reveals that the complaint for
enforcement of judgment even if capable of
pecuniary estimation would fall under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Thus,
the Complaint to enforce the US District Court
judgment is one capable of pecuniary
estimations but at the same time, it is also an
action based on judgment against an estate,
thus placing it beyond the ambit of Section 7(a)
of Rule 141. What governs the proper
computation of the filing fees over Complaints
for the enforcement of foreign judgments is
Section7(b)(3), involving “other actions not
involving property.”