DANIELA PALEC

G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

LAO H. ICHONG,

vs.

JAIME HERNANDEZ, .

-Constitutional Law – Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise

of Police Power

-Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of
business opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business. For some time
he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a “monopoly” in the local market in Pasay.

-Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization
Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business.

- Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened
several treaties concluded by the RP which, according to him, violates the equal protection
clause (pacta sund servanda). He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business
here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal
opportunity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted

principles?

HELD:

Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, there is
no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal
protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely
requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as
to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not
infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it
applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a
distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.

For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with
a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police
power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium
of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the
Pasay city market.

PRC
vs.
De Guzman,
G. R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004
Constitutional Law: Police Power

Facts:

-The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro
Manila. They passed the Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the
Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then released
their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure examination.

-The Board observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from Fatima
College in the two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-
Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne), were unusually and exceptionally high.

-Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another
eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twenty-one scored 99% in OB-Gyne. The Board also
observed that many of those who passed from Fatima got marks of 95% or better in both
subjects, and no one got a mark lower than 90%. A comparison of the performances of the
candidates from other schools was made. The Board observed that strangely, the unusually
high ratings were true only for Fatima College examinees. It was a record-breaking
phenomenon in the history of the Physician Licensure Examination.

-For its part, the NBI found that “the questionable passing rate of Fatima examinees in the
[1993] Physician Examination leads to the conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early
access to the test questions.”

-The Board issued Resolution No. 26, dated July 21, 1993, charging respondents with
"immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud, and deceit" in connection with the Bio-Chem and Ob-
Gyne examinations.

-It recommended that the test results of the Fatima examinees be nullified.

- Trial court’s judgment is rendered ordering the respondents to allow the petitioners and
intervenors to take the physician’s oath and to register them as physicians without prejudice to
any administrative disciplinary action which may be taken against any of the petitioners for such
causes and in the manner provided by law and consistent with the requirements of the
Constitution as any other professionals.

Issue:

WON the act pursuant to R.A. 2382 (prescribes that a person who aspires to practice
medicine in the Philippines, must have “satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board
Examination) known as The Medical Act of 1959 a valid exercise of police power.
Held:

Yes. It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a
profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and
academic requirements. But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their
exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard
health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Thus,
persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical
knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their
chosen careers. This regulation takes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to
protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance
among those who would practice medicine.

*satisfactorily- defined as “sufficient to meet a condition or obligation” or “capable of dispelling

doubt or ignorance”

It must be stressed, nevertheless, that the power to regulate the exercise of a profession or
pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State or its agents in an arbitrary, despotic,
or oppressive manner. A political body that regulates the exercise of a particular privilege has
the authority to both forbid and grant such privilege in accordance with certain conditions. Such
conditions may not, however, require giving up ones constitutional rights as a condition to
acquiring the license.

Principles:
The function of mandamus is not to establish a right but to enforce one that has been
established by law.
If no legal right has been violated, there can be no application of a legal remedy, and the
writ of mandamus is a legal remedy for a legal right.
There must be a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the thing demanded.It is long
established rule that a license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the
government.