Ichong vs Hernandez Gr. No.

7995
Facts:
The legislative body enacted R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail
Business). In effect it nationalizes the retail business and it prevents those
who are not citizens of the Philippines from having a stranglehold to the
peoples economy. A prohibition against aliens and associations,
partnerships, and corporations which are not wholly owned or controlled by
Filipinos, from engaging to retail trades (directly or indirectly) in the country,
however, the aliens that is engaged in the retail business on May 12 1954
are allowed to continue their business until their business license or the
business itself are forfeited in accordance with the law or the aliens that
owns the business cannot transfer its ownership to a heir. Also, the personnel
and juridical persons of United States are exempted from the reach of the
said Act.
Lao Ichong, the petitioner, on behalf of himself and all aliens engaged in
retail business who was affected by the Act prayed to the court that the Law
that has been enacted in not constitutional for the following reasons: (1)It
denies aliens residents of equal protection and deprives them their own
property without due process of law; (2)the subject of the Law is not CLEARLY
stated in the title; (3)the Act violates international and treaty obligations, (4)
the provision preventing or against the transmission of the retail business
through hereditary succession, and those requiring a 100% Filipino
Capitalization for a corporation or business engaged in the retail trade.
In answer, the Solicitor General and the Fiscal of Manila asserted the
following that : (1) the act was passed in the valid exercise of police power,
which exercise is authorized in the Constitution in the interest of the national
economic survival, (2) the Act has only one subject embraced in the title, (3)
no treaty or international obligation 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.
Issue: WON the R.A. is Constitutional.
Held:
That 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 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 that 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 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 and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the
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. Conclusion of the CaseThe court held that the enactment of the law is for the protection of the
Filipino economy, by putting the Filipino retail business as front liners in the
business in the country, from the dominance and control of the aliens: it
clearly falls to valid exercise of the police power which is legislative in nature
because it regulates the use of liberty and property to promote public
welfare. It does not also violate the equal protection clause because there is
a sufficient grounds exist for the distinction of aliens and citizens for the
exercise of occupation regulated. The law did not also violate due process
clause of the constitution because it already acknowledges the privileges of
the aliens already engaged in the retail trade. The provisions of the law was
clearly embraced in the title. The Police power cannot be bargained to any
treaty or contract it must always adhere to the police power of the state.