When used, "Juche years" are often accompanied by the Gregorian equivalent, i.
Simplified, the case presents two issues: Whether or not petitioner lawmakers have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of R.
Whether or not R. The Courts Ruling One. The long settled rule is that he who challenges the validity of a law must have a standing to do so. More particularly, standing refers to his personal and substantial interest in that he has suffered or will suffer direct injury as a result of the passage of that law.
Petitioners mainly argue that R. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments.
The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its Self reliant and independent national economy goals and priorities.
The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.
But, as the Court explained in Taada v. Angara,  the provisions of Article II of the Constitution, the declarations of principles and state policies, are not self-executing. Legislative failure to pursue such policies cannot give rise to a cause of action in the courts.
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. Indeed, the Constitution takes into account the realities of the outside world as it requires the pursuit of a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity; and speaks of industries which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets as well as of the protection of Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
Thus, while 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.
While it does not encourage their unlimited entry into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
More importantly, Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution gives Congress the discretion to reserve to Filipinos certain areas of investments upon the recommendation of the NEDA and when the national interest requires.
Thus, Congress can determine what policy to pass and when to pass it depending on the economic exigencies.
It can enact laws allowing the entry of foreigners into certain industries not reserved by the Constitution to Filipino citizens. In this case, Congress has decided to open certain areas of the retail trade business to foreign investments instead of reserving them exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The NEDA has not opposed such policy. The control and regulation of trade in the interest of the public welfare is of course an exercise of the police power of the State. A persons right to property, whether he is a Filipino citizen or foreign national, cannot be taken from him without due process of law.
In denying the petition assailing the validity of such Act for violation of the foreigners right to substantive due process of law, the Supreme Court held that the law constituted a valid exercise of police power.
That law is not arbitrary. Here, to the extent that R. Filipinos continue to have the right to engage in the kinds of retail business to which the law in question has permitted the entry of foreign investors. Certainly, it is not within the province of the Court to inquire into the wisdom of R. But as the Court has said, there is no showing that the law has contravened any constitutional mandate.
The Court is not convinced that the implementation of R. Petitioners have not mustered any concrete and strong argument to support its thesis. The law itself has provided strict safeguards on foreign participation in that business. Thus First, aliens can only engage in retail trade business subject to the categories above-enumerated; Second, only nationals from, or juridical entities formed or incorporated in countries which allow the entry of Filipino retailers shall be allowed to engage in retail trade business; and Third, qualified foreign retailers shall not be allowed to engage in certain retailing activities outside their accredited stores through the use of mobile or rolling stores or carts, the use of sales representatives, door-to-door selling, restaurants and sari-sari stores and such other similar retailing activities.
In sum, petitioners have not shown how the retail trade liberalization has prejudiced and can prejudice the local small and medium enterprises since its implementation about a decade ago.Section 1. Title.
— this Act shall be known as the "Philippine Carabao Act of ". Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. — The Constitution provides that the State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Section The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. Independent: Nobody tells you a damn thing.
You do it wrong or right, achieve it or vetconnexx.com’s business. Self-reliant: you have the means and resources . great line of building an independent national economy for the first time in history and guiding its implementation wisely, the WPK set up a world-famous pattern of building a socialist economy and a model of self-reliance.
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. Section The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. Amazon recently secured a national contract that opens the way for billions of dollars in local government spending to shift to the company, but there's been virtually no reporting on the deal.