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2000), which expressly repealed the law prohibiting foreign nationals from engaging in retail trade (RA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 petition-in-intervention,
praying that respondents be restrained from proceeding with the so-called "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