Case Digest: Tanada v. Angara, GR. No. 118295, May 2, 1997
Petitioners, led by Senator Wigberto E. Tañada, challenged the Philippine Senate’s concurrence with the President’s ratification of the WTO Agreement.
They argued the WTO’s provisions (e.g., "national treatment" and "parity") violate the Constitution’s mandates to develop an "independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos" (Sec. 19, Art. II) and prioritize Filipinos in economic privileges (Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII).
Whether WTO provisions violate Sections 19, Article II and Sections 10 & 12, Article XII of the Constitution. NO
The Senate’s concurrence with the WTO Agreement is constitutional.
Article II is a "Declaration of Principles and State Policies" and is not intended to be self‑executing. These provisions serve as guidelines for judicial review and legislation, not as judicially enforceable rights. The absence of implementing legislation does not give rise to a judicial cause of action.
The Court emphasized that pursuing broad constitutional policies through courts intrudes “into the uncharted ocean of social and economic policy‑making,” implicating due process and separation of powers concerns.