Case 2

Ichong (on behalf of all aliens affected by RA 1180) v Hernandez (Sec. of Finance)
Sarmiento, City Treasurer of Manila

Facts:

 Ichong, on his behalf, and all aliens affected by RA 1180 (designed to regulate the retail
business, it distinguishes a Filipino trader from that of a resident alien trader),
questions its constitutionality contending that denies to alien residents the equal
protection of the laws and deprives them of their liberty and property without due
process of law
 Ichong’s contentions: (ETIWN)
1. denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives them 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. Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines

4.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 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, the act is
embraced in one title, no international treaty has been infringed, 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.

 Ichong denies that there is alien predominance in trade, however, it was proven in a
statistics record which stated aliens (Chinese), earned more than Filipinos. (It endangers
national interest and allows the economy of the PH to be under alien control)

Issue: WON RA 1180 violates due process and equal protection clause and police power

Ruling:

Petition of Ichong is denied

 The SC cannot review the exercise of police power since such is a political question
Police power cannot be delimited, since State cannot foresee the needs and demands of
public interest. However, it’s limitation is the equal protection clause. Exercise of such
is always REASON
  There is no abuse of equal protection and due process since it is not an absolute right.
It may be dispensed with as long as it is REASONABLE
Reasons: Resident aliens do not contribute to wealth of the economy, have no loyalty.
They’ve hoarded PH supplies in order to sell for a higher price. For the sake of national
interest
 Broadly speaking, the power of the legislature to make distinctions and classifications
among persons is not curtailed or denied by the equal protection of the laws clause. The
legislative power admits of a wide scope of discretion, and a law can be violative of the
constitutional limitation only when the classification is without reasonable basis
 Due process limitation: Reasonability, to be decided by legislative (political
question)
 It does not violate the Constitution, Art. XIV, sec. 8: , "no franchise, certicate, or
any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted
except to citizens of the Philippines
 It does not prohibit alien succession, however, it prohibits only to aliens who are
convicted of certain offenses
 It does not violate the one title on subject rule. What it prohibits is 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
 It does not violate international treaties and obligations
Petitioner contends it violates UN Human Rights and UN Charter. The Declaration of
Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. The United Nations Charter
imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects.
It does not violate the Treaty of China which states 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 discriminated against because nationals of all other countries,
who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from
engaging in the retail trade.

The classification between aliens and Filipino is justified since the aim of both traders are
different. It is substantial. (Loyalty, aim)

aliens do not naturally possess the sympathetic consideration and regard for customers with
whom they come in daily contact, nor the patriotic desire to help bolster the nation's economy,
except in so far as it enhances their prot, nor the loyalty and allegiance which the national owes
to the land
The law in question is deemed absolutely necessary to bring about the desired
legislative objective, to free national economy from alien control and dominance. It is not
necessarily unreasonable because it affects private rights and privileges. The test of
reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness or adequacy under all circumstances of the
means adopted to carry out its purpose into effect

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

The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege,
as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit
legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which it
is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all
persons shall be treated alike, u n d e r lik e cir c u m s t a n c e s a n d c o n d itio n s both as to
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced

the State can deprive persons of life, liberty and property, provided there is due process
of law; and persons may be classied into classes and groups, provided everyone is given the
equal protection of the law. The test or standard, as always, is reason

Furthermore, 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 unreasonable