Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    CASE DIGEST-Espina v. Zamora G.R. No. 143855

    Uploaded by

    Alcy Lorraine Hicban
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional for various reasons including that it allowed foreign control of retail trade and would crush local retailers. The court ruled the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the law and that the law was constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CASE DIGEST-Espina v. Zamora G.R. No. 143855

    Uploaded by

    Alcy Lorraine Hicban
    40 views2 pages
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional for various reasons including that it allowed foreign control of retail trade and would crush local retailers. The court ruled the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the law and that the law was constitutional.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional for various reasons including that it allowed foreign control of retail trade and would crush local retailers. The court ruled the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the law and that the law was constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views2 pages

    CASE DIGEST-Espina v. Zamora G.R. No. 143855

    Uploaded by

    Alcy Lorraine Hicban
    The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional for various reasons including that it allowed foreign control of retail trade and would crush local retailers. The court ruled the petitioners did not have legal standing to challenge the law and that the law was constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RETLAW

    Espina v. Zamora G.R. No. 143855

    FACTS:
    On March 7, 2000 President Joseph E. Estrada signed into law Republic Act (R.A.) 8762, also known as
    the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000. It expressly repealed R.A. 1180, which absolutely prohibited
    foreign nationals from engaging in the retail trade business. R.A. 8762 now allows them to do so under
    four categories.

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

    On October 11, 2000 petitioners all members of the House of Representatives, filed the present petition,
    assailing the constitutionality of R.A. 8762 on the following grounds:

    First, the law runs afoul of Sections 9, 19, and 20 of Article II of the Constitution
    Second, the implementation of R.A. 8762 would lead to alien control of the retail trade
    Third, foreign retailers like Walmart and K-Mart would crush Filipino retailers and sari-sari store vendors
    Fourth, the World Bank-International Monetary Fund had improperly imposed the passage of R.A. 8762
    on
    the government as a condition for the release of certain loans
    Fifth, there is a clear and present danger that the law would promote monopolies or combinations in
    restraint
    of trade.

    Respondents Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, Jr., Trade and Industry Secretary Mar Roxas,
    National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Felipe Medalla, Bangko Sentral ng
    Pilipinas Gov. Rafael Buenaventura, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Lilia
    Bautista countered that:
    Petitioners have no legal standing to file the petition, the petition does not involve any justiciable
    controversy, petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality of R.A. 8762, and
    the Constitution mandates the regulation but not the prohibition of foreign investments.

    ISSUE:
    [1] Whether or not petitioner lawmakers have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of
    R.A.8762

    [2] Whether or not R.A. 8762 is unconstitutional

    RULING:
    1. NO. There is no evidence that R.A.9762 prejudices the petitioners, either as taxpayers or as
    legislators. Despite this, the rule on locus standi can be relaxed because the issue is of
    transcendental importance, being of paramount public interest
    2. NO.
    a.) Provisions of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the declarations of principles and state
    policies, are not self-executing. It does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the
    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.
    b.) 1987 Constitution does not rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods, and services.
    While
    it does not encourage their 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 foreign
    competition that is unfair.
    c.) Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, The NEDA has not opposed such policy.
    This gives Congress the discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain areas of investments upon
    the recommendation of the NEDA and when the national interest requires.

    In sum, petitioners have not shown how the retail trade liberalization has prejudiced and can prejudice the
    local small and medium enterprises since its implementation about a decade ago.

    WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit. No costs

    You might also like