Practice question
The Philippines validly joins a multilateral trade agreement under which all members accept reciprocal limits on tariffs. A challenger identifies no conflict with a specific constitutional prohibition but argues that any limitation on future Philippine action necessarily destroys sovereignty. The challenger asks the Court to invalidate the agreement on that ground alone. Applying Tañada v. Angara, which conclusion is best?
- The agreement is invalid because sovereignty excludes every international obligation.
- The agreement transfers all Philippine sovereignty to the other members.
- The agreement is necessarily valid even if it violates an express constitutional prohibition.
- The agreement is valid only if the Philippines assumes no enforceable obligation.
- The argument fails because a State may voluntarily accept reciprocal treaty limits without thereby ceasing to be sovereign.
Legal references
- Tañada v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997, main decision, Sovereignty Limited by International Law and Treaties: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/may1997/gr_118295_1997.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.