Candolita, Therese Anne S.

1- Wigmore
Espina vs. Zamora
631 SCRA 17, GR No. 1438, Se!tem"er #1, #$1$
FACTS
%n &ar'h 7, #$$$, (resident )ose!h *strada signed into la+ R.A. 876#, or the Retail
Trade ,i"erali-ation A't o. #$$$, e/!ressl0 re!ealing R.A. 118$ +hi'h a"sol1tel0
!rohi"ited .oreign nationals .rom engaging in the retail "1siness in the (hili!!ines.
*s!ina, together +ith the other mem"ers o. the 2o1se o. Re!resentati3es, .iled a
!etition assailing the 'onstit1tionalit0 o. R.A. 876#, sa0ing that the la+ 'ontradi'ts
Se'tions 4, 14, and #$ o. Arti'le 55 o. the Constit1tion +hi'h en6oins the State to !la'e
the national e'onom0 1nder the 'ontrol o. 7ili!inos to a'hie3e e81al distri"1tion o.
o!!ort1nities and to !rote't 7ili!ino enter!rise against 1n.air 'om!etition and trade
!oli'ies.
The res!ondents 'ontended that Se'tions 4, 14, and #$ o. Arti'le 55 o. the Constit1tion
are not sel.-e/e'1ting !ro3isions that are 61di'iall0 demanda"le. The0 said that the
Constit1tion mandates the reg1lation "1t not the !rohi"ition o. .oreign in3estments.
Res!ondents also 'ontended that !etitioners ha3e no legal standing to .ile the !etition.
The0 'annot in3o9e the .a't that the0 are ta/!a0ers sin'e R.A. 876# does not in3ol3e
the dis"1rsement o. !1"li' .1nds.
ISSUE
1. W%N R.A. 876# :Retail Trade ,i"erali-ation A't o. #$$$; is 1n'onstit1tional< and
#. W%N !etitioner la+ma9ers ha3e the legal standing to 'hallenge the
'onstit1tionalit0 o. R.A. 876#
HELD
1. The S1!reme Co1rt held that the !ro3isions o. Arti'le 55 o. the 1487 Constit1tion are
not sel.-e/e'1ting. ,egislati3e .ail1re to !1rs1e s1'h !oli'ies 'annot gi3e rise to a 'a1se
o. a'tion in the 'o1rts. 5n other +ords, altho1gh Arti'le 55 re81ires the de3elo!ment o. a
sel.-reliant and inde!endent national e'onom0 e..e'ti3el0 'ontrolled "0 7ili!ino
entre!rene1rs, it does not im!ose a !oli'0 o. 7ili!ino mono!ol0 o. the e'onomi'
en3ironment. The o"6e'ti3e is sim!l0 to !rohi"it .oreign !o+ers or interests .rom
mane13ering o1r e'onomi' !oli'ies and ens1re that 7ili!inos are gi3en !re.eren'e in all
areas o. de3elo!ment.
Th1s, +hile the Constit1tion mandates a "ias in .a3or o. 7ili!ino goods, ser3i'es, la"or
and enter!rises, it also re'ogni-es the need .or "1siness e/'hange +ith the rest o. the
+orld on the "ases o. e81alit0 and re'i!ro'it0 and limits !rote'tion o. 7ili!ino enter!rises
Candolita, Therese Anne S.
1- Wigmore
onl0 against .oreign 'om!etition and trade !ra'ti'es that are 1n.air. 5n s1m, !etitioners
ha3e not sho+n ho+ the retail trade li"erali-ation has !re61di'ed and 'an !re61di'e the
lo'al small and medi1m enter!rises sin'e its im!lementation a"o1t a de'ade ago.
#. The long settled r1le is that he +ho 'hallenges the 3alidit0 o. a la+ m1st ha3e lo'1s
standi or a legal standing to do so. &ore !arti'1larl0, he m1st sho+ that he has "een or
is a"o1t to "e denied some right or !ri3ilege to +hi'h he is la+.1ll0 entitled or that he is
a"o1t to "e s1"6e'ted to some "1rdens or !enalties "0 reason o. the la+ he 'om!lains
o..
2ere, there is no 'lear !remise sho+ing that the im!lementation o. the Retail Trade
,i"erali-ation A't !re61di'es !etitioners or in.li'ts damages on them, either as
ta/!a0ers or as legislators.
The S1!reme Co1rt dismissed the !etition .or la'9 o. merit.