Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Section 9 of Article 2 of the Philippine Constitution

Espina vs. Zamora


The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutionality of RA 8762 (Retail Trade
Liberalization Act of 2000), which expressly repealed the law prohibiting foreign
nationals from engaging in retail trade (RA 1180). RA 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.
In a unanimous 11-page decision penned by Justice Roberto A. Abad, the Court En
Banc dismissed for lack of merit the petition filed a decade ago assailing RA 8762. It
found no showing that the law has contravened any constitutional mandate and
that it would eventually lead to alien control of the retail trade business.
The Court noted that while the Constitution mandates a bias in favor Filipino
goods, services, labor, and local enterprises, it also recognizes the need for
business exchange with the rest of the world on the basis of equality and reciprocity
and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and
trade practices that are unfair. The Court also pointed out that Congress has the
discretion under Article XIII, sec. 10 of the Constitution to reserve to Filipinos certain
areas of investment upon recommendation of the National Economic Development
Authority (NEDA) and when the national interest requires; and that in this case
Congress has decided, without opposition from NEDA, to open certain areas of the
retail trade business to foreign investments.

The Court also found that RA 8762 has provided for strict safeguards on foreign
participation in retail trade.

Section 5 of Article 2 of the Philippine Constitution


Lim v Executive Secretary, GR No. 151445, April 11, 2002
Facts: This case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition as well as a petitionin-intervention, praying that respondents be restrained from proceeding with the socalled "Balikatan 02-1" and that after due notice and hearing, that judgment be
rendered issuing a permanent writ of injunction and/or prohibition against the
deployment of U.S. troops in Basilan and Mindanao for being illegal and in violation
of the Constitution.

Beginning January of this year 2002, personnel from the armed forces of the United
States of America started arriving in Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the

Philippine military, in "Balikatan 02-1." These so-called "Balikatan" exercises are the
largest combined training operations involving Filipino and American troops. In
theory, they are a simulation of joint military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual
Defense Treaty, a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the Philippines and
the United States in 1951.
The entry of American troops into Philippine soil is proximately rooted in the
international anti-terrorism campaign declared by President George W. Bush in
reaction to the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001.
On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this
petition for certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the joint
exercise. They were joined subsequently by SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG
MANGGAGAWA, both party-Iist organizations, who filed a petition-in-intervention on
February 11, 2002.
Held: The Court held that no doubt that the US forces are prohibited / from engaging
in an offensive war on Philippine territory. Yet a nagging question remains: are
American troops actively engaged in combat alongside Filipino soldiers under the
guise of an alleged training and assistance exercise? The Court cannot take judicial
notice of the events transpiring down south, as reported from the saturation
coverage of the media. As a rule, it does not take cognizance of newspaper or
electronic reports per se, not because of any issue as to their truth, accuracy, or
impartiality, but for the simple reason that facts must be established in accordance
with the rules of evidence. It cannot accept, in the absence of concrete proof,
petitioners' allegation that the Arroyo government is engaged in "doublespeak" in
trying to pass off as a mere training exercise an offensive effort by foreign troops on
native soil. The petitions invite the Court to speculate on what is really happening in
Mindanao. Wherefore, the petition and the petition-in-intervention were dismissed