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.