Slide #1

Tañada v. Angara
G.R. No. 118295 | May 2, 1997

Facts:

This case questions the constitutionality of the Philippines being part of the World Trade Organization,
particularly when President Fidel Ramos signed the Instrument of Ratification and the Senate concurring in the
said treaty.

Following World War 2, global financial leaders held a conference in Bretton Woods to discuss global economy.
This led to the establishment of three great institutions: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(World Bank), International Monetary Fund and International Trade Organization.

However, the ITO failed to materialize. Instead, there was the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs. It was
on the Uruguay Round of the GATT that the WTO was then established.

The WTO is an institution regulating trade among nations, including the reduction of tariff and barriers.

Slide #2
Petitioners filed a case assailing the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution:
 Article II Section 19 “The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.”
 Article XII Section 12 “The State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos and to promote the
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods.”
 Article XII Section 19 “The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so
requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.”

Slide #3
It is petitioners’ position that the “national treatment” and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement “place
nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products,” in
contravention of the “Filipino First” policy of the Constitution. They allegedly render meaningless the phrase
“effectively controlled by Filipinos.”

Slide #4
Issue: Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement contravene Section 19, Article II and Section 12 & 19, Artilce XII
of the 1987 Constitution?

Slide #5
Ruling:
Secs. 12 and 19 of Article XII should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said article,
especially Sec. 1 and 13:
 Section 1. The goals of the national economy are:
o A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
o A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
o An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life, especially the
underprivileged.
o Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms
and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

Slide #6

The provisions of Sec. 10 and 12, Article XII of the Constitution, general principles relating to the national
economy and patrimony, is enforceable only in regard to “the grants or rights, privileges and concessions
covering national economy and patrimony” and not to every aspect of trade and commerce.

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.
Slide#1
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators v. PCA
G.R. No. 110526 | February 10, 1998

Facts:

PCA was created by PD 232 as independent public corporation to promote the rapid integrated
development and growth of the coconut and other palm oil industry in all its aspects and to ensure that coconut
farmers become direct participants in, and beneficiaries of, such development and growth through a regulatory
scheme set up by law. PCA is also in charge of the issuing of licenses to would-be coconut plant operators.

On 24 March 1993, however, PCA issued Board Resolution No. 018-93 which no longer require those wishing to
engage in coconut processing to apply for licenses as a condition for engaging in such business. The purpose of
which is to promote free enterprise unhampered by protective regulations and unnecessary bureaucratic red
tapes. But this caused cut-throat competition among operators specifically in congested areas, underselling,
smuggling, and the decline of coconut-based commodities.

The APCD then filed a petition for mandamus to compel PCA to revoke BR No. 018-93.

Slide#2
Issue: Whether or not PCA ran in conflict against the very nature of its creation.

Slide#3
Ruling:

Yes. Our Constitution, beginning with the 1935 document, have repudiated laissez-faire as an
economic principle. Although the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless
reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. As such,
free enterprise does not call for the removal of “protective regulations” for the benefit of the general public. This is
so because under Art 12, Sec 6 and 9, it is very clear that the government reserves the power to intervene
whenever necessary to promote the general welfare and when the public interest so require.

o Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and all economic agents shall contribute to the
common good. Individuals and private groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar
collective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish, and operate economic enterprises,
subject to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the common good
so demands.
o Section 9. The Congress may establish an independent economic and planning agency headed by the
President, which shall, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies, various private sectors,
and local government units, recommend to Congress, and implement continuing integrated and
coordinated programs and policies for national development.
Slide#1
Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Duque
G.R. No. 173034 | October 9, 2007

Facts:

On October 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino by virtue of
the legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedom Constitution. The Milk Code states that the law
seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a
code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981.

From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported,
promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for
breastmilk substitutes. the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of
said instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child
mortality, and ensure that all segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the advantages
of breastfeeding.

The DOH issued RIRR which was to take effect on July 7, 2006. a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, seeking to nullify Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of The “Milk Code,” assailing that
the RIRR was going beyond the provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of
said law.breastfeeding. On May 15, 2006, the DOH issued herein assailed RIRR which was to take effect on July
7, 2006.

Slide #2
Issue: Whether or not respondent officers of the DOH acted in violation of the provisions of the Constitution in
promulgating the RIRR.

Slide #3
Ruling:
The Court held that the framers of the constitution were well aware that trade must be subjected to some form of
regulation for the public good. Despite the fact that, “our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a
policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the
general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of ‘protective regulations’. It must be clearly explained
and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of
trade.

In this case, petitioner failed to show that the proscription of milk manufacturers’ participation in any policymaking
body (Section 4(i)), classes and seminars for women and children (Section 22); the giving of assistance, support
and logistics or training (Section 32); and the giving of donations (Section 52) would unreasonably hamper the
trade of breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner has not established that the proscribed activities are indispensable to
the trade of breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the aforementioned provisions of the
RIRR are unreasonable and oppressive for being in restraint of trade.

In fine, the Court held that except Sections 4(f), 11 and 46, the rest of the provisions of the RIRR are in
consonance with the objective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code, constituting reasonable regulation of an
industry which affects public health and welfare and, as such, the rest of the RIRR do not constitute illegal
restraint of trade nor are they violative of the due process clause of the Constitution.