SC: Retail trade liberalization law constitutional

SC: Retail trade liberalization law constitutional
By Nikko DizonPhilippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 07:52:00 09/28/

MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 or Republic Act No. 8762, a decade after it was questioned by lawmakers as supposedly being anti-Filipino.

“(W)hile the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, it also recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair,” it said.

Associate Justice Roberto Abad penned the 11-page decision.

Ten years ago, then Representatives Gerardo Espina, Orlando Fua Jr., Prospero Amatong, Robert Ace Barbers, Raul Gonzales, Prospero Pichay, Franklin Bautista and Juan Miguel Zubiri haled to court Cabinet officials of the Estrada administration during which the law was signed.
The officials were then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora Jr., former Trade Secretary Manuel Roxas II, former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Felipe Medalla, former Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Gov. Rafael Buenaventura, and former Securities and Exchange Commission chair Lilia Bautista.

The petitioners argued that RA 8762 violated provisions in the Constitution which places the national economy under the control of Filipinos to achieve equal distribution of opportunities, promote industrialization and full employment, and protect Filipino enterprise against unfair competition and trade policies.

The passage of RA 8762 effectively repealed RA 1180, which absolutely prohibited foreign nationals from engaging in the retail trade business.

RA 8762 allows foreign investors to engage in retail trade under specific categories, depending on the amount of capital invested.

The high court noted that the petitioners were unable to show that the implementation of the law would prejudice them or inflict damage to them as taxpayers or legislators.

“There is no showing that the law has contravened any constitutional mandate,” it said. It pointed out that the Constitution “does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly.”

“The objective is simply to prohibit foreign powers or interests from maneuvering our economic policies and ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development,” the high court said.

Moreover, the Constitution gives Congress the “discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain areas of investments upon the recommendation of NEDA (National Economic Development Authority) and when the national interest requires,” it said.

http://business.inquirer.net/money/breakingnews/view/20100928-294726/SC-Retail-trade-liberalization-law-constitutional