GINER, GABRIELLE O.
ABIS – AMST Ameri 2A
IS 221/MWF/8:40 – 9:40 AM D105
ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ
I – Citation
G.R. No. L-7995
May 31, 1957
II – Facts of the Case
The Government passed R.A. 1180 (Act to Regulate the Retail Business) whose resolution was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Philippines from having domination upon the people's economic life.
The act is a prohibition which is against aliens and any association, corporations, or partnerships of whom are not entirely owned by Filipinos in engaging directly or indirectly in retail trade.
Any foreigners engaged in the retail business on May 15, 1954 are permitted to continue their business, except if their licenses are forfeited in accordance with law, until voluntary retirement or death. However, for juridical persons, it is ten years after the approval of the Act or until their term expires.
United States citizens and juridical entities were exempted from this Act.
Lao H. Ichong, a Chinese businessman, filed an action in behalf of himself and other alien residents, partnerships and corporations, to declare the Act unconstitutional for the following reasons.
The equal protection of the law is denied to these aliens and deprives them of their liberty and property without due process.
the subject of the Act is not expressed in the title
the Act infringes several international and treaty obligations
the provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession
III – The Legal Issue
Is the Republic Act No. 1180 unconstitutional?
Was the law made in the interest of national economic survival and security?
Does the law deny the equal protection of the laws and the due process of law?
Does the law infringe on several international and treaty obligations?
IV – The Holding
No, the RA No. 1180 is not unconstitutional. The mere fact of alienage is the root and cause of the distinction between the alien and the national as a trader.
The law was made for the interest of our state.
The RA does not violate the equal protection clause nor the due process of the law.
No, the law does not infringe on any of the international treaties or otherwise.
V – Legal Rationale
There is no evidence that the law has flouted any constitutional mandate. It pointed out that the Constitution does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly. The purpose of the law is simply to prohibit foreign powers or interests from steering our economic policies and ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of development. The wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to be plainly unmistakable — as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but actually necessary — and that in any case such matter falls within the right of the Legislature Department.
According to the Court, the disputed law was ratified to remedy a real actual threat and danger to the Philippine economy posed by foreign dominance and control of the retail business. The enactment undoubtedly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, wherein the State protects its own interests and insures its security and future.
The law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated, or even the due process of law clause, because the law is forthcoming in process and recognizes the privilege of foreigners already engaged in the trade and reasonably protects their privilege. The provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title, and this suffers from no fraudulence and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected.
Lastly, it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the subject and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement.
Henceforth, the petition was denied, with charges against petitioner, Mr. Lao Ichong.
Reference:
Lawphil.net,.(2015). G.R. No. L-7995. Retrieved 7 July 2015, from http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1957/may1957/gr_l-7995_1957.html
