Ichong v.

Hernandez
G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
Petitioner: Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents,
corporations and partnerships adversely affected by RA 1180
Respondents: Jamie Hernandez, Secretary of Finance and Marcelino Sarmiento, City
Treasurer of Manila
Facts:
Petitioner Lao H. Ichong brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that Republic
Act 1180 is unconstitutional, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other
persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its
provisions. Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (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. 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.
Issue:
Whether or not Republic Act 1180 violates the equal protection of laws.
Held/Ruling:
No. According to the Court, RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power. It was also
then provided that police power cannot be bargained away through the medium of a
treaty or a contract. The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of
the State. 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, 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. The petition is hereby denied,
with costs against petitioner.
SC Decision: The petition was denied, with costs against petitioner.