(1) it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and

property without due process of law ; (2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in
the title thereof; (3) the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the
Philippines; (4) the provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business
thru hereditary succession, and those requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a corporation or entity
to entitle it to engage in the retail business, violate the spirit of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and
Section 8 of Article XIV of the Constitution.

In answer, the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend that: (1) the Act was
passed in the valid exercise of the police power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the
Constitution in the interest of national economic survival; (2) the Act has only one subject embraced
in the title; (3) no treaty or international obligations are infringed; (4) as regards hereditary
succession, only the form is affected but the value of the property is not impaired, and the institution
of inheritance is only of statutory origin.

(1) it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and
property without due process of law ;

(2) The law does not violate

the equal protection clause of
the Constitution because
sufficient
(3) grounds exist for the
distinction between alien
and citizen in the
exercise of the
(4) occupation regulated, or
even the due process of
 law clause, because the
law is
(5) forthcoming in process and
recognizes the privilege of
foreigners already engaged in
the
(6) trade and reasonably
protects their privilege.
(7) The law does not violate
the equal protection clause of
the Constitution because
sufficient
(8) grounds exist for the
distinction between alien
 and citizen in the
exercise of the
(9) occupation regulated, or
even the due process of
law clause, because the
law is
(10) forthcoming in process
and recognizes the privilege
of foreigners already engaged
in the
(11) trade and reasonably
protects their privilege.
(12) The law does not violate
the equal protection clause of
 the Constitution because
sufficient
(13) grounds exist for the
distinction between alien
and citizen in the
exercise of the
(14) occupation regulated,
or even the due process
of law clause, because
the law is
(15) forthcoming in process
and recognizes the privilege
of foreigners already engaged
in the
(16) trade and reasonably
protects their privilege.
(17) The law does not violate
the equal protection clause of
the Constitution because
sufficient
(18) grounds exist for the
distinction between alien
and citizen in the
exercise of the
(19) occupation regulated,
or even the due process
of law clause, because
the law is
 (20) forthcoming in process
and recognizes the privilege
of foreigners already engaged
in the
(21) trade and reasonably
protects their privilege.
the lawdoes 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, nor the due process of law clause, because the law is
prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens
already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their
privilege
(2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof;

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.
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.

No bill which may be enacted in the law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be
expressed in the title of the bill.

What the above provision prohibits is duplicity, that is, if its title completely fails to
appraise the legislators or the public of the nature, scope and consequences of the law or its
operation (I Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Sec. 1707, p. 297.) A cursory consideration of the
title and the provisions of the bill fails to show the presence of duplicity. It is true that the term
"regulate" does not and may not readily and at first glance convey the idea of "nationalization" and
"prohibition", which terms express the two main purposes and objectives of the law. But "regulate" is
a broader term than either prohibition or nationalization. Both of these have always been included
within the term regulation.

The general rule is for the use of general terms in the title of a bill; it has also been said that the title
need not be an index to the entire contents of the law

One purpose of the constitutional directive that the subject of a bill should be embraced in its title is
to apprise the legislators of the purposes, the nature and scope of its provisions, and prevent the
enactment into law of matters which have received the notice, action and study of the legislators or
of the public. In the case at bar it cannot be claimed that the legislators have been appraised of the
nature of the law, especially the nationalization and the prohibition provisions. The legislators took
active interest in the discussion of the law, and a great many of the persons affected by the
prohibitions in the law conducted a campaign against its approval. It cannot be claimed, therefore,
that the reasons for declaring the law invalid ever existed. The objection must therefore, be
overruled.

; (3) the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines

it cannotbe 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.
Another subordinate argument against the validity of the law is the supposed violation thereby of the
Charter of the United Nations and of the Declaration of the Human Rights adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly. We find no merit in the Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal
obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects (Hans Kelsen, The Law of the United
Nations, 1951 ed. pp. 29-32), and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a
mere recommendation or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations (Id. p.
39.) That such is the import of the United Nations Charter aid of the Declaration of Human Rights
can be inferred the fact that members of the United Nations Organizations, such as Norway and
Denmark, prohibit foreigners from engaging in retail trade, and in most nations of the world laws
against foreigners engaged in domestic trade are adopted.

The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and the
Republic of China of April 18, 1947 is also claimed to be violated by
the law in question. All that the treaty guarantees is equality of treatment to
the Chinese nationals "upon the same terms as the nationals of any
other country." But the nationals of China are not discriminating against because nationals
of all other countries, except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the
Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. But even supposing that the law
infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a
subsequent law (U. S. vs. Thompson, 258, Fed. 257, 260), and the same may never curtail or
restrict the scope of the police power of the State

; (4) the provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru
hereditary succession, and those requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a corporation or entity to
entitle it to engage in the retail business, violate the spirit of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and
Section 8 of Article XIV of the Constitution.

d. Provisions of law not unreasonable. —

A cursory study of the provisions of the law immediately reveals how tolerant, how reasonable the
Legislature has been. The law is made prospective and recognizes the right and privilege of those
already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives; and similar
recognition of the right to continue is accorded associations of aliens. The right or privilege is denied
to those only upon conviction of certain offenses. In the deliberations of the Court on this case,
attention was called to the fact that the privilege should not have been denied to children and heirs
of aliens now engaged in the retail trade. Such provision would defeat the law itself, its aims and
purposes

(2) an exception from the above prohibition in favor of aliens actually engaged in said
business on May 15, 1954, who are allowed to continue to engaged therein, unless their
licenses are forfeited in accordance with the law, until their death or voluntary retirement in case of
natural persons, and for ten years after the approval of the Act or until the expiration of term in case
of juridical persons; (3) an exception therefrom in favor of citizens and juridical entities of the United
States; (4) a provision for the forfeiture of licenses (to engage in the retail business) for violation of
the laws on nationalization, control weights and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade,
commerce and industry; (5) a prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens
actually engaged in the retail business of additional stores or
branches of retail business, (6) a provision requiring aliens actually engaged in the retail
business to present for registration with the proper authorities a verified statement concerning their
businesses, giving, among other matters, the nature of the business, their assets and liabilities and
their offices and principal offices of judicial entities; and (7) a provision allowing the heirs of
aliens now engaged in the retail business who die, to continue such business for a period of six
months for purposes of liquidation.