Scribd
Upload
78 views2 pages

Espina v. Zamora, JR

This case concerns the constitutionality of RA 8762, which liberalized foreign participation in the retail trade business in the Philippines. The petitioners, who were members of Congress, argued that RA 8762 violated the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the law as they did not demonstrate that they were personally harmed by its implementation. 2) RA 8762 is constitutional and does not violate the Philippine Constitution. While the Constitution aims to develop a self-reliant economy, it does not require a policy of absolute Filipino monopoly. The law properly balanced protecting local businesses with allowing foreign investment. Congress acted within its discretion in opening

Uploaded by

Macky Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views2 pages

Espina v. Zamora, JR

This case concerns the constitutionality of RA 8762, which liberalized foreign participation in the retail trade business in the Philippines. The petitioners, who were members of Congress, argued that RA 8762 violated the Philippine Constitution. However, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the law as they did not demonstrate that they were personally harmed by its implementation. 2) RA 8762 is constitutional and does not violate the Philippine Constitution. While the Constitution aims to develop a self-reliant economy, it does not require a policy of absolute Filipino monopoly. The law properly balanced protecting local businesses with allowing foreign investment. Congress acted within its discretion in opening

Uploaded by

Macky Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Espina v.

Zamora, Jr

G.R. No. 143855

September 21, 2010

ABAD, J.

Topic: Guide of the Judiciary

FACTS:

 On March 7, 2000 Pres Estrada signed into law RA 8762, “Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000”
which expressly repealed R.A. 1180. RA 1180 absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from
engaging in the retail trade business while RA 8762 now allows them to do so in 4 categories:

1. Category A Less than US$2,500,000.00

2. Category B US$2,500,000.00 up but less than US$7,500,000.00

3. Category C US$7,500,000.00 or more.

4. Category D US$250,000.00 per store of foreign enterprises

 RA 8762 also allows natural-born Filipino citizens, who had lost their citizenship and now reside
in the PH, to engage in the retail trade business with the same rights as Filipino citizens.

 On October 11, 2000 Congress reps Gunigundo I, Defensor, Espina, Lim, Fua, Jr., Amatong,
Apostol, Barbers, Garcia, Jr., Gonzales, Jacob, Lozada, Jr., Montemayor, Palma-Gil, Pichay, Zubiri
and Bautista, filed the petition, assailing the constitutionality of RA 8762 stating that:

 Respondents Exec Sec Zamora, Jr., Sec Roxas, Sec Medalla, BSP Gov. Buenaventura, and SEC
Chair Bautista countered that there is:

 The Constitution mandates the regulation not the prohibition of foreign investments.

 The Constitution does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws allowing the entry of foreigners
into certain industries not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino citizens.

ISSUES:

1. WON petitioner lawmakers have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of R.A. 8762

2. WON RA 8762 is unconstitutional.

Ruling:

1. No. There is no clear showing that the implementation of the RA 8762 prejudices petitioners or inflicts
damages on them. Still, this case is deemed a matter of transcendental importance, overarching
significance to society, and/or paramount public interest.

2. NO. The Court is not convinced that its (RA 8762) implementation would lead to alien control of retail
trade business. The law itself has provided strict safeguards on foreign participation in that business.
a. Petitioners mainly argue that RA 8762 violates mandate of the 1987 Constitution for the State to
develop a self-reliant and independent national economy. However, provisions of Article II of the 1987
Constitution, the declarations of principles and state policies, are not self-executing. Legislative failure to
pursue such policies cannot give rise to a cause of action in the courts.

i. Article XII of the 1987 Constitution lays down the ideals of economic nationalism: b. While Sec 19,
Article II of Constitution requires development of a self-reliant and independent national economy, it
does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of economic environment. The key is to strike a balance
between protecting local businesses and allowing entry of foreign investments and services.

Sec 10, Article XII of Constitution gives Congress discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain areas of
investments upon the recommendation of the NEDA and when the national interest requires. In this
case, Congress has decided to open certain areas of the retail trade business to foreign investments
instead of reserving them exclusively to Filipino citizens with no opposition from NEDA.

You might also like