Timothy James Yambot Aartner, or other official thereof responsible for such violation.

Any alien
violating or responsible for the violation of this Act shall, upon completion of
Article XII Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution the service of sentence, be deported without any further proceedings on the
Section 12. The state shall promote the preferential use of Filipino part of the Deportation Board. Any government official or employee who
labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures violates this Act, shall, in addition to the penalty which may be imposed upon
that help make them competitive. him as principal, be temporarily or perpetually disqualified from holding any
public office.
Below are some of the laws enacted in keeping with the mandate of Section
12. Implications:

Commonwealth Act No. 138  Governing procurement contracts of the government

 Contracts are awarded to Filipino citizens
AN ACT TO GIVE NATIVE PRODUCTS AND DOMESTIC ENTITIES THE
PREFERENCE IN THE PURCHASE OF ARTICLES FOR THE Cases:
GOVERNMENT Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
Facts:
Section 1. The Purchase and Equipment Division (now Supply Pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine
Coordination Office) of the Government of the Philippines and other officers Government, the GSIS sold in public auction its stake in Manila Hotel
and employees of the municipal and provincial government and the Corporation (MHC). Only 2 bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince
Government of the Philippines and of chartered cities, boards, commissions, Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the
bureaus, departments, offices, agencies, branches, and bodies of any MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share, and Renong Berhad, a
description, including government-owned companies, authorized to Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same
requisition, purchase, or contract or make disbursements for articles, number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of
materials, and supplies for public use, public biddings, or public works, shall petitioner.
give preference to materials and supplies produced, made, and manufactured
in the Philippines or in the United States, and to domestic entities, subject to Petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court to compel the GSIS to
the conditions herein below specified. allow it to match the bid of Renong Berhad. It invoked the Filipino First
Policy enshrined in Section 10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987
Implications: Constitution, which provides that “in the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall
 Filipino First Policy
give preference to qualified Filipinos.”
 Giving native products and domestic entities preference in
Issues:
government purchases
Whether or not petitioner Manila Prince Hotel, a Filipino
 Heavily favors Filipino businessmen over foreign investors with
corporation should be given preference over Renong Berhad, a foreign
respect to the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel
the national economy and patrimony.
Corporation
 Nationalist industrialization Ruling:
 Economic independence
 Economic nationalism Yes. As the Filipino First Policy is self-executing, the Supreme Court
 Serve the nation’s native majority ruled that with respect to Section 12, it held that where a foreign firm submits
 Restrictions in imports and foreign exchange the highest bid in a public bidding concerning the grant of rights, privileges
 Self-sustenance as a nation and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, thereby
exceeding the bid of the Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have
Republic Act No. 912 to be allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity.

AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE USE, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, OF And if the Filipino matches the bid of the foreign firm, the award
PHILIPPINE MADE MATERIALS OR PRODUCTS IN GOVERNMENT PROJECTS should go to the Filipino. Hence, it furthered that it must give life accordingly
OR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, WHETHER DONE DIRECTLY BY THE to the intentions pursuant to Filipino First Policy of the 1987 Constitution.
GOVERNMENT OR AWARDED THRU CONTRACTS.
Tanada vs Angara
Section. 1. In construction or repair work undertaken by the
Government, whether done directly or thru contract awards, Philippine made Facts: On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented by its
materials and products, whenever available, practicable and usable, and will Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry signed the Final Act
serve the purpose as equally well as foreign made products or materials, shall binding the Philippine Government to submit to its respective competent
be used in said construction or repair work, upon the proper certification of authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek approval
the availability, practicability, usability and durability of said materials or for such. On December 14, 1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the
products by the Director of the Bureau of Public Works and/or his assistants. Philippine Senate to ratify the WTO Agreement.

Implications: The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major
trading partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly
 Prescribes the use of Philippine-made materials and products agricultural and industrial products. Thus, provides new opportunities for the
 Patronize proudly Philippine made products (Tangkilikin ang service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting and more
Sariling Atin) 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 entrepreneurs, it does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the
by WTO. economic environment. The objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or
interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure that Filipinos
are given preference in all areas of development.
Petitioners on the other hand viewed the WTO agreement as one
that limits, restricts and impair Philippine economic sovereignty and Indeed, the 1987 Constitution takes into account the realities of the
legislative power. That the Filipino First policy of the Constitution was taken outside world as it requires the pursuit of a trade policy that serves the general
for granted as it gives foreign trading intervention. welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of
equality and reciprocity; and speaks of industries which are competitive in
both domestic and foreign markets as well as of the protection of Filipino
This is a petition assailing the constitutionality of the WTO enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. Thus,
agreement as it violates Sec 19, Article II, providing for the development of a while the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services,
self reliant and independent national economy, and Sections 10 and 12, labor and enterprises, it also recognizes the need for business exchange with
Article XII, providing for the “Filipino first” policy. the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits
protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade
Issue: Whether or not the Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is practices that are unfair.
unconstitutional In other words, the 1987 Constitution does not rule out the entry
of foreign investments, goods, and services. While it does not encourage their
Ruling: unlimited entry 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
No.The Supreme Court ruled the Resolution No. 97 is not foreign competition that is unfair. The key, as in all economies in the world, is
unconstitutional. While the constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino to strike a balance between protecting local businesses and allowing the entry
goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the of foreign investments and services.
need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality 2. Is the rule on Filipino preference over foreign investors absolute?
and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino interests only against foreign
competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Answer: Yes. In the case of Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS, the Supreme Court
Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationalist policy. ruled therein that by virtue of the doctrine of constitutional supremacy
wherein Filipino First Policy is mandated, a qualified Filipino is preferred over
Furthermore, the constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and a qualified foreigner in the granting of economic rights, privileges and
independent national economy” does not necessarily rule out the entry of concessions covering national economy and patrimony.
foreign investments, goods and services.
3. Is Section 12 self-executing?
It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in
the international community.” The Senate, after deliberation and voting, gave Answer: No. Hence, if the provision needs a supplementary or enabling
its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the legislation, it is merely a declaration of policy and principle which is not self-
land”. The Supreme Court gave due respect to an equal department in executing. On the other hand, a constitutional provision is self-executing if it
government. It presumes its actions as regular and done in good faith unless fixes the nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed
there is convincing proof and persuasive agreements to the contrary. such that they can be determined by an examination and construction of its
terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the
As a result, the ratification of the WTO Agreement limits or restricts legislature for action. If the provision needs a supplementary or enabling
the absoluteness of sovereignty. A treaty engagement is not a mere obligation legislation, it is merely a declaration of policy and principle which is not self-
but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. A state which has executing.
contracted valid international obligations is bound to make its legislations
such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the Natural Resources and Environmental Law
obligations undertaken. Article XII Section 13
Veloso, Jocelyn M.
Questions: 1987 Philippine Constitution
Article XII Section 13
1. Under Section 12, are foreign investments completely prohibited in the The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and
country? utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity.
Answer: No. Hence, in the case of Tanada vs Angara, the Supreme
court ruled that while the constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino Purpose
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 The State shall pursue a trade policy
and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino interests only against foreign
- “shall” connotes mandatory duty by the State
competition and trade practices that are unfair. - “pursue”, in the context of this provision, refers to an act of
engaging in an activity or advocacy
Also, in the case of Representatives Gerardo et.,al. vs Hon. Ronaldo - “trade policy” refers to a set of rules and regulations that involve
Zamora et.,al., the Supreme Court further stated that while Section 19, Article international trade
II of the 1987 Constitution requires the development of a self-reliant and o Tariffs: a tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipino imports or exports
 o Trade Agreements: an international agreement on
conditions of trade in goods and services
The provision mandates the State to engage in the implementation of rules
and regulations concerning the Philippines’ trade flow with other states.
Subject
…trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and
arrangements of exchange
- “serves the general welfare” is indicative of service to the general
public whether on the subject of health, safety, morality, good
customs, and public policy – an illustration of the existence of the
General Welfare Clause in our Constitution
- “utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange” means to
promote the adoption of as many methods of economic
negotiations and agreements as possible (Bernas, 2009)
The concept of trade policy in this provision is one that exhausts all existing
and prevailing methods of improving the economic trade of the Philippines for
the benefit of the Filipino public.
Standard
…on the basis of equality and reciprocity.
- “equality” may be construed as an equality of opportunity among a
class of persons as characterized by the Equal Protection Clause
which requires that classification must (Tiu v CA):
o rest on substantial distinctions
o be germane to the purpose of the law
o not be limited to existing conditions only
o apply equally to all members of the same class (Tiu v CA)
- “reciprocity” may be construed as mutual benefit, as may be
inferred from its various definitions (Merriam Webster):
o mutual dependence, action, or influence
o a mutual exchange of privileges
o a recognition by one of two countries or institutions of
the validity of licenses or privileges granted by the other
The standard of trade agreement that is required by this provision are equality
of opportunity and mutual benefit between the Philippines and the other
states.
Application: Japanese-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement
What is the JPEPA?
Billed as a “new age” free trade agreement, the Japan-Philippines Economic
Partnership Agreement or JPEPA is the Philippines’ most comprehensive
bilateral agreement to date since 1954. It was signed in Helsinki, Finland on
September 9, 2006 by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and
former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. It came into force in
2008 upon the ratification by the Senate.
The JPEPA is the first free trade agreement of the Philippines and the fourth
of Japan. Among its objectives is “to liberalize and facilitate trade in goods and
services between Japan and the Philippines”. The JPEPA aims to facilitate and
promote the free trans-border flow of goods, persons, services and capital
between the Philippines and Japan, and strengthen the existing economic
relations between the two countries (Philippine Exporters Confederation,
2007).
What are the issues surrounding JPEPA that are pertinent to Natural Resources
and Environmental Law?
The non-disclosure of the documents pending the ratification of the JPEPA
undermines the public’s right to participate in all levels of social, political, and
economic decision-making.
 The issue was resolved in Akbayan v. Aquino (G.R. No. 170516) in
which the Court held that the case is moot and academic.
 The Supreme Court said that the case is not entirely moot:
“President Arroyo’s endorsement of the JPEPA to the Senate for
concurrence is part of the legal procedures which must be met prior
to the agreements entry into force. The text of the JPEPA having
then been made accessible to the public, the petition has become
moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the
full text thereof. The petition is not entirely moot, however,
because petitioners seek to obtain, not merely the text of the
JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of
the negotiations. A discussion of the substantive issues, insofar as
they impinge on petitioners demand for access to the Philippine
and Japanese offers, is thus in order.”
 It was also held in the same case that diplomatic negotiations must
be recognized as privileged because public exposure of such might
discourage foreign investors to be frank with their views during the
negotiations. As emphasized by the Supreme Court, disclosing
these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not
only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future
negotiations.
How true is the impression that we are opening the country as dumping
The impression is not true. The Philippines and Japan are both signatories to
the Basel Convention on the Trans-boundary Movement of Hazardous
Wastes. In the Philippines, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources under Republic Act 6969 or Toxic Substances and Hazardous and
Nuclear Wastes Control Act regulates hazardous wastes. Such import controls
and regulations on trade in hazardous wastes make tariffs redundant. Under
such a condition, tariffs may be reduced without expanding market access or
increasing imports because the more binding protection measures are import
controls. Further, the tariff lines on wastes and scraps have been in the tariff
and customs codes from the start. These were created mainly for customs
classification.
To dispel any doubt on Japan’s commitment not to violate any environmental
policies in the country, Japan and the Philippines have exchanged letters
clarifying the understanding of the Parties that toxic wastes will not be
exported in accordance with the Basel Convention and the domestic laws of
the Philippines and Japan.
Q&A
1. What are the constitutional clauses referred to in Article XII
Section 13?
a. General Welfare Clause
b. Equal Protection Clause
2. The DTI did not disclose the draft text of Trade Agreement X to
the public. Since Article XII Section 13 calls for a “trade policy that
serves the general welfare”, an activist group contends that initial
versions of the agreement must be made accessible to the public
since it is of public interest. Is the group’s contention correct?
No, the group’s contention is not correct because diplomatic
negotiations are recognized as privileged. The Supreme Court held
in Akbayan v Aquino that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine
offers in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippine
representatives from frankly expressing their views during
negotiations. However, recognizing a type of information as
privileged does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all
instances. As soon as determined by the State that the negotiation
is of public interest, information will be made accessible to the
public.