Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No.
L-7995, 31 May 1957 and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the
Topic: Constitutionality of RA 1180
Recitation Version
Petitioner and those adversely affected by RA 1180, brought this
action to question the constitutionality of the said Act and to
enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting
under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing
its provisions.
They contend that it denies the alien residents equal protection
and deprives them of due process. Furthermore, the subject of
the Act is not expressed, it violates international and treaty
obligations, and violates the spirit of Sections 1 and 5,
Article XIII (13) and Section 8 of Article XIV (14) of the
Constitution.
The Court ruled that RA 1180 is constitutional because it was
enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national
economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail
business. This means its enactment clearly falls within the scope of
the police power of the State.
The law did not violate the equal protection clause 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; that the
wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives
appear to us to be plainly evident — as a matter of fact it seems
not only appropriate but actually necessary — and that in any case
such matter falls within the prerogative of the Legislature, with
whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the
Government may not interfere; that the provisions of the law
are clearly embraced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity
population affected; and that 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.
*Check “Why?”
Facts:
1. Petitioner and other alien residents, corporations, and
partnerships were adversely affected by the provisions of the
Republic Act. No. 1180, brought this action to question the
constitutionality of the said Act and to enjoin the
Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting under
him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing
its provisions.
2. The Petitioner contended that:
a. (1) it denies to alien residents the equal protection
of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property
without due process of law ;
b. (2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or
comprehended in the title thereof;
c. (3) the Act violates international and treaty
obligations of the Republic of the Philippines;
d. (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.
3. the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila
contend that:
a. (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;
b. (2) the Act has only one subject embraced in the
title;
c. (3) no treaty or international obligations are
infringed;
d. (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.
Issue: Whether RA 1180 is constitutional
Ruling: Yes
Rationale:
It is a valid exercise of Police Power
- We cannot foresee people’s needs in this progressive world,
so we cannot delimit beforehand scope of police power,
especially it is the power through which the State seeks to
attain or achieve public interest or welfare. That is why the
Constitution do not define the scope or extent of the police
power of the State; what they do is to set forth the limitations
thereof. The most important of these are the due process
clause and the equal protection clause.
- The disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual
threat and danger to national economy posed by alien
dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens
and country from such dominance and control; that the
enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police
power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its
own personality and insures its security and future
It does not violate the equal protection clause
- The equal protection clause does not demand absolute
equality among residents; it merely requires equality among
equals. If distinction and classification has been made, there
must be a reasonable basis for said distinction.
- In this case, there is a substantial distinction between the
alien and the national.
o The alien resident owes allegiance to the country of
his birth or his adopted country; his stay here is for
personal convenience; he is attracted by the lure of
gain and profit.
o They never really make a genuine contribution to
national income and wealth. He undoubtedly
contributes to general distribution, but the gains and
profits he makes are not invested in industries that
would help the country's economy and increase
national wealth.
o The practices resorted to by aliens in the control of
distribution, their secret manipulations of stocks of
commodities and prices, their utter disregard of the
welfare of their customers and of the ultimate
happiness of the people of the nation of which they
are mere guests, which practices, manipulations and
disregard do not attend the exercise of the trade by
the nationals classification adopted in the retail trade
measure.
There is due process
- For due process, the law must be grounded on public interest
and welfare and necessary, and a reasonable relation must
exist between purposes and means.
o In this case, The law in question is deemed absolutely
necessary to bring about the desired legislative
 objective, i.e., to free national economy from alien prohibition or nationalization. Both of these have always been
control and dominance. included within the term regulation.
o The test of the validity of a law attacked as a violation -
of due process, is not its reasonableness, but its
unreasonableness, and we find the provisions are not Others:
unreasonable.
§ It is not necessarily unreasonable because it
affects private rights and privileges and can - There is NO violation of international treaties and obligations
carry out its purpose into effect. - The exercise of legislative discretion is not subject to judicial
§ Furthermore, the law is made prospective review.
and recognizes the right and privilege of o It is well settled that the Court will not inquire into
those already engaged in the occupation to the motives of the Legislature, nor pass upon
continue therein during the rest of their lives; general matters of legislative judgment.
and similar recognition of the right to - Alien’s traits - The alien retailer must have started plying his
continue is accorded associations of aliens trade in this country in the bigger centers of population (Time
there was when he was unknown in provincial towns and
There is no defect in law villages). Slowly but gradually he invaded towns and villages;
now he predominates in the cities and big centers of
- They claim that the title is misleading or deceptive, as it population. It is an undeniable fact that in many communities
conceals the real purpose of the bill, which is to nationalize the alien has replaced the native retailer
the retail business and prohibit aliens from engaging therein.
The constitutional provision which is claimed to be violated in
Section 21 (1) of Article VI, which reads:
o "No bill which may be enacted into 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 apprise the legislators or the public of
the nature, scope and consequences of the law or its
operation
- 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
Espina v. Zamora, G.R. No. 143855, 21 September 2010.
Topic: Constitutionality of RA 8762
Recitation Version
Petitioners, all members of the HR, filed a petition, assailing the
constitutionality of R.A. 8762. They assailed that RA 8762 runs
contrary of the Constitution (Article 2 – 9,19,&20; Article 12 –
10,12,&13) and the implementation would lead to alien control,
crush Filipino retailers, destroy self-employment, and bring about
more unemployment. Respondents countered that the sections
under Article 2 are not self-executing and the Constitution
mandates the regulation but not the prohibition of foreign
investments.
The Court ruled that RA 8762 is constitutional because Article 2 of
the Constitution is not self-executing. The 1987 Constitution
does not also rule out the entry of aliens. While it does not
encourage their unlimited entry into the country, it does
not prohibit them either. The Constitution only mandates
preference of Filipinos, but it does not impose a policy of
Filipino monopoly and limits protection of Filipino
enterprises only against foreign competition and trade
practices that are unfair .
The Congress, through the Constitution, can reserve to
Filipinos certain areas of investments upon the
recommendation of the NEDA and when the national interest
requires. So,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.
Lastly, there are safeguards in the law and it cannot be said that
the law amounts to a denial of the Filipinos' right to
property and to due process of law since they 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.
Facts:
1. On March 7, 2000 President Joseph E. Estrada passed
Republic Act (R.A.) 8762 or the Retail Trade Liberalization Act
of 2000. R.A. 8762 now allows foreign nationals to enagage
in the retail trade business under four categories.
2. Petitioners, all members of the HR, filed the present petition,
assailing the constitutionality of R.A. 8762 on the following
grounds:
a. First, the law runs afoul of Sections 9, 19, and 20
of Article II of the Constitution which enjoins the
State to place 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.
b. Petitioners also invoke the provisions of the National
Economy and Patrimony under Article XII of
the 1987 Constitution
c. Second, the implementation of R.A. 8762 would
lead to alien control of the retail trade, which taken
together with alien dominance of other areas of
business, would result in the loss of effective
Filipino control of the economy.
d. Third, foreign retailers would crush Filipino
retailers and sari-sari store vendors, destroy self-
employment, and bring about more
unemployment.
e. Fourth, the World Bank-International Monetary Fund
had improperly imposed the passage of R.A.
 8762 on the government as a condition for the
release of certain loans.
f. Fifth, there is a clear and present danger that the law
would promote monopolies or combinations in
restraint of trade.
3. Respondents countered that:
a. First, petitioners have no legal standing to file
the petition as taxpayers or members of the
congress since R.A. 8762 does not involve the
The Objective of the 1987 Constitution
disbursement of public funds or infringes on their
right as legislators.
b. Second, the petition does not involve any
justiciable controversy.
c. Third, petitioners have failed to overcome the
presumption of constitutionality of R.A. 8762.
Indeed, they could not specify how the new
law violates the constitutional provisions they
cite. Sections 9, 19, and 20 of Article II of the
Constitution are not self-executing provisions
that are judicially demandable.
d. Fourth, the Constitution mandates the
regulation but not the prohibition of foreign
investments. It directs Congress to reserve to
Filipino citizens certain areas of investments upon the
recommendation of the NEDA and when the national
interest so dictates. But the Constitution leaves to the
discretion of the Congress whether or not to make
such reservation. It does not prohibit Congress from
enacting laws allowing the entry of foreigners into
certain industries not reserved by the Constitution to
Filipino citizens.
Issue: Whether or not R.A. 8762 is constitutional.
Ruling: Yes
Rationale: The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
The Constitutional provisions are not self-executing
- The provisions of Article II of the 1987 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.
- Article 2
o Section 19, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
requires the development of a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled
by Filipino entrepreneurs, it does not impose a
policy of Filipino monopoly of the economic
environment. Its objective is to prohibit foreign
powers from maneuvering our economic
policies and provide Filipinos preference in all
areas of development.
- Article 12
o While the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of
Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises
(Section 12), 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 (Section 13).
o In other words, the 1987 Constitution does not
rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods,
and services. 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.
 o Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 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
Others:
- Legal Standing. There is no clear showing the law
prejudices petitioners as taxpayers or as legislators. Still
the Court will resolve the question they raise since the
rule on standing can be relaxed when the matter paramount
public interest.
- Police Power. 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.
- WISDOM OF LAW. It is not within the province of the Court
to inquire into the wisdom of R.A. 8762 save when it blatantly
violates the Constitution.

It does not violate right to property and due process of law

- R.A. 8762, the Retail Trade Liberalization Act, lessens the

restraint on the foreigners' right to property or to engage in
an ordinarily lawful business, it cannot be said that the
law amounts to a denial of the Filipinos' right to
property and to due process of law.
- 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.

There are safeguards

- The Court is not convinced that the implementation of R.A.

8762 would eventually lead to alien control of the retail trade
business. Furthermore, the law has provided strict
safeguards on foreign participation in that business and they
have not shown how it can prejudice the local small and
medium enterprises since its implementation about a decade
ago.