Scribd
Upload
3K views1 page

Espina V Zamora (GR No 143855) Digest

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 (R.A. 8762) which allowed foreign nationals and naturalized Filipinos who lost citizenship to enter the retail trade business. While the petitioners, a group of congressmen, lacked legal standing, the Court relaxed the rule of locus standi due to the issue's public importance. The Court ultimately ruled R.A. 8762 constitutional, finding that its provisions did not violate the Philippine Constitution and that the national economic council NEDA did not oppose the law.

Uploaded by

Jose Ramon Ampil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
3K views1 page

Espina V Zamora (GR No 143855) Digest

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 (R.A. 8762) which allowed foreign nationals and naturalized Filipinos who lost citizenship to enter the retail trade business. While the petitioners, a group of congressmen, lacked legal standing, the Court relaxed the rule of locus standi due to the issue's public importance. The Court ultimately ruled R.A. 8762 constitutional, finding that its provisions did not violate the Philippine Constitution and that the national economic council NEDA did not oppose the law.

Uploaded by

Jose Ramon Ampil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 1

ESPINA v.

ZAMORA
G.R. No. 143855
September 21, 2010

FACTS:
1. On March 7, 2000, Pres. Joseph Estrada signed R.A. 8762, or the Retail Trade
Liberalization Act of 2000
2. R.A. 8762 allowed foreign nationals, as well as natural-born Filipinos who lost their
citizenship, to enter the retail trade business
3. On October 11, 2000, the petitioners, a group of congressmen including Rep. Gerardo
Espina, filed a petition assailing R.A. 8762’s constitutionality

ISSUES:
1. Whether petitioners have legal standing to challenge R.A. 8762's constitutionality.
2. Whether R.A. 9762 is unconstitutional.

HELD:
1. YES.
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.
Petitioners contend that the Retail Trade Liberalization Act violates Arts. II and XII of
the 1987 Constitution. However:
a. In Tanada v. Angara, the Court held that the provisions of Art. II are not self-
executing.
b. The 1987 Constitution actually aims to prohibit foreign powers to control the
economy and frowns upon unfair foreign competition.
c. In accordance with Sec. 10, Art. XII of the Constitution, NEDA has not opposed
Congress’s decision to selectively re-open the retail trade business to foreign
investments.

You might also like