SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v.

LANTION

October 26, 2012 § 1 Comment

FACTS:
Secretary Of Justice Franklin Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines,
signed in Manila the “extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Philippines and the
Government of the U.S.A. The Philippine Senate ratified the said Treaty.
On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S Note
Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jiminez to the
United States.
On the same day petitioner designate and authorizing a panel of attorneys to take charge of and to
handle the case. Pending evaluation of the aforestated extradition documents, Mark Jiminez through
counsel, wrote a letter to Justice Secretary requesting copies of the official extradition request from the
U.S Government and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have
received copies of the requested papers but the petitioner denied the request for the consistency of
Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty stated in Article 7 that the Philippine Government must present
the interests of the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for extradition.

ISSUE: Whether or not to uphold a citizen’s basic due process rights or the governments ironclad duties
under a treaty.

RULING: Petition dismissed.

The human rights of person, whether citizen or alien , and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our
Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the
government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty
obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of
binding obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our
Constitution as part of the law of the land.
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situation in
which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provision of the
constitution or statute of the local state.

Petitioner (Secretary of Justice) is ordered to furnish Mark Jimenez copies of the extradition request and
its supporting papers, and to grant him (Mark Jimenez) a reasonable period within which to file his
comment with supporting evidence.

“Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no
further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.

“The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations in
which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the
constitution or statute of the local state.

“Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed
that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international
law in observance of the incorporation clause in the above cited constitutional provision.
“In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule
of international law and a municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by
the municipal courts, for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law and are accordingly
bound by it in all circumstances.

“The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or imply
the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere. The doctrine of
incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law are given equal
standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex
posterior derogate priori takes effect – a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty.
In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines,
both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution

TAÑADA VS. ANGARA

272 SCRA 18

Facts:

On April 15, 1994, respondent Navarro, Secretary of Department of Trade and Industry and a
representative of the Philippine government, signed in the Final Act Embodying the Results of the
Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. Bys signing the Final Act, the Philippines agreed to submit
the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization that require the Philippines, among others,
“to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local
products”. To that effect, the President ratified and submitted the same to the Senate for its
concurrence pursuant to Section21, Article VII of the Constitution. Hence the petitioner assailed the
WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified
Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced
goods”.

Issue: Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization contravene
the provisions of Sec. 19, Art. II, and Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII, all of the 1987 Philippines Constitution.

Held:

The court ruled the petition in favor of the respondents.

Article II of the Constitution is a "declaration of principles and state policies." These principles in Article
II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are
used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the
legislature in its enactment of laws.

The provisions of Sec. 10 and 12, Article XII of the Constitution, general principles relating to the national
economy and patrimony, is enforceable only in regard to “the grants or rights, privileges and
concessions covering national economy and patrimony” and not to every aspect of trade and commerce.
While the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the
same time, it 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. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist
policy.

On the other hand, there is no basis on the contention that under WTO, local industries will all be wiped
out and that Filipino will be deprived of control of the economy, in fact, WTO recognizes need to protect
weak economies like the Philippines.

Tanada vs Angara 272 SCRA 18

Facts

On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented by its Secretary of the Department of Trade
and Industry signed the Final Act binding the Philippine Government to submit to its respective
competent authorities the WTO (World Trade Organization) Agreements to seek approval for such. On
December 14, 1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate to ratify the WTO
Agreement.
This is a petition assailing the constitutionality of the WTO agreement as it violates Sec 19, Article II,
providing for the development of a self reliant and independent national economy, and Sections 10 and
12, Article XII, providing for the “Filipino first” policy.

Issue

Whether or not the Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Agreement is unconstitutional

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled the Resolution No. 97 is not unconstitutional. While the constitution mandates
a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need
for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits
protection of Filipino interests only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In
other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. Furthermore, the
constitutional policy of a “self-reliant and independent national economy” does not necessarily rule out
the entry of foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor
“mendicancy in the international community.”
The Senate, after deliberation and voting, gave its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a
part of the law of the land”. The Supreme Court gave due respect to an equal department in
government. It presumes its actions as regular and done in good faith unless there is convincing proof
and persuasive agreements to the contrary. As a result, the ratification of the WTO Agreement limits or
restricts the absoluteness of sovereignty. A treaty engagement is not a mere obligation but creates a
legally binding obligation on the parties. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is
bound to make its legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the
obligations undertaken.
G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997

Wigberto E. Tanada et al, in representation of various taxpayers and as non-governmental

organizations, petitioners,

vs.

EDGARDO ANGARA, et al, respondents.

Facts:

This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers, taxpayers, and various
NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.

Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and against to
the “Filipino First” policy. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading
partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products.
Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting
and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement and
as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.

Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since the said
Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant that Congress
could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general welfare if such legislation
would not conform to the WTO Agreement.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.

2. Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and
the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and
three (3) of that agreement’ cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the letter,
spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution.

3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise
of legislative power by Congress.

4. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by this
Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
 5. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of the
Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’ implied rejection of the
treaty embodied in the Final Act.

Discussions:

 1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

 Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national

economy controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,
goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the
international community.” The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak and
developing economies, which comprise the vast majority of its members. Unlike in the UN
where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security Council, in the WTO,
decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with each member’s vote equal in weight
to that of any other. Hence, poor countries can protect their common interests more effectively
through the WTO than through one-on-one negotiations with developed countries. Within the
WTO, developing countries can form powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more
decisively than outside the Organization. Which is not merely a matter of practical alliances but
a negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus, the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement
recognize the need of developing countries like the Philippines to “share in the growth in
international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development.”

 In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy
of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of
incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which
are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. A state which has contracted valid
international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be
necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the
General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedures. With regard to Infringement of
a design patent, WTO members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of
implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own internal systems and processes.

 The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is
balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity
with all nations. The Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave
its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the land” is a
legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and power.
Rulings:

1. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the
right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. As explained by former Chief
Justice Roberto Concepcion, “the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not
a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this
nature.”

2. While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it 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. In other words, the Constitution
did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and
services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not
encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments 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.

3. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater
benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live
with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also
commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown by the
foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without
violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines “adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy
of cooperation and amity with all nations.”

4. The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable burden,
consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in
our judicial system.

5. The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act
required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement.
Moreover, the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the members’
deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated August 11,
1994, the senators of the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was concurring in
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 185, L

2662 March 26, 1949

Facts :

Shigenori Kuroda, a formerly a Lietenant-General of the japanese imperial army and commanding
general of the japanese imperial forces in the philippines during a period covering 1943 and 1944 who is
now charge before a military commission convened by the chief of staff of the armed forces of the
philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duties as such command,
permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against noncombatant civilians and
prisoners of the imperial japanese forces in the violations of the laws and customer of war. Petitioner
argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for its acts committed
in violation of Hague Convention and the Geneva convention because the Philippines is not signatory to
Hague Convention and signed the Geneva only in 1947. He also challenges the participation of the two
American attorneys in the prosecution of his case on the ground that said attorneys are not qualified to
practice law in the Philippines.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the executive order no. 68 is a ground for the violations of our provision of
constitutions law and to our local law. 2. Whether or not Atty. Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port is
allowed to practice the law professions in the philippines.

Ruling :

The court holds that the Executive Order is valid and Constitutional. Article 2 of our Constitution
provides i

n its section 3 that ” The Philippines renounces war as an

instruments of national policy and adopts the generally accepted principle of international law as part of

the law of nation.”

In accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law of the present day, including
the Hague and Geneva Convention and significant precedents of international jurisprudence established
by the U.N, all the persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing, or waging a
war of aggression and commission of the crimes and offenses consequential and incidental thereto, in
violation of the laws and customs of war of humanity and civilization, are held accountable therefore.
Consequently, in the promulgation and enforcement of Executive Order no. 68, the President of the
Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally accepted principles and policies of international
law which are part our Constitution. On the second issue, the court ruled that the appointment of the
two American attorneys is not violative of our national sovereignty. It is only fair and proper that the U.S
which has submitted the vindication of crimes against her government and her people to a tribunal of
our nation should be allowed representation in the trial of those very crimes. The lest that we could do
in the spirit of comity is to allow this representation in said trial. The petition was denied.
KURODA vs JALANDONI

83 PHIL 171

FACTS: Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army and
Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in The Philippines during a period covering 19433
and 19444 who is now charged before a military Commission convened by the Chief of Staff of the
Armed forces of the Philippines with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as
such command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against
noncombatant civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces in violation of the laws and
customs of war" comes before this Court seeking to establish the illegality of Executive Order No. 68 of
the President of the Philippines: to enjoin and prohibit respondents Melville S. Hussey and Robert Port
from participating in the prosecution of petitioner's case before the Military Commission and to
permanently prohibit respondents from proceeding with the case of petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether Military Commission has jurisdiction to try petitioner for acts committed in violation of
the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention even the Philippine was not a signatory to such
treaty?

HELD: Military Commission has jurisdiction to try for the acts committed.It cannot be denied that the
rules and regulations of the two convention form part of and are wholly based on the generally
accepted principles of international law.These rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent
nations, United States and Japan, who were signatories of two conventions.Such rules and principles
therefore,form part of the law of our nation even the Philippine was not a signatory to the conventions
embodying them,for our Constitution has been deliberatley general and extensive in its scope and is not
confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which
our government may have been or shall be a signatory.

Issue:

Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 was valid and constitutional

Held:

Executive Order No. 68 is valid and constitutional. In addition to the promulgation and enforcement of
Executive Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in conformity with the generally
accepted principles of international law which are part of our constitution. The President as Commander
in chief was fully empowered in the issuance and enforcement of Executive Order No. 68. It cannot be
denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part of and are wholly
based on the generally accepted principles of international law. In facts, these rules and principles were
accepted by the United States and Japan who were signatories to the Conventions. The rules and
principles form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the
conventions. Our constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not
confined to the recognition of the rule and principle of international law as continued in treaties to
which our government may have been or shall be a signatory. Furthermore, when the crimes were
allegedly committed, the Philippines was under the sovereignty of United States and thus we were
equally bound together with the United States and with Japan to the rights and obligations contained in
the treaties signed by these two countries. These rights and obligations give us full sovereignty. In case
of emergency as a free state this entitle us to enforce our right to punish those who committed crimes
against our people. In addition to, there is nothing in said executive order which requires that counsel
appearing before said commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines in
accordance with the Rules of Court. In military tribunals counsel for the parties are usually military
personnel who are neither attorney nor even possessed of legal training. The military Commission
having been convened by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under
the provision of Executive Order No. 68 and having said petition in its custody this court will not
interfere with the due process of such military Commission.

Issue
1.Whether or not Executive Order No. 68 is constitutional
2.Whether or not the US is a party of interest to this case

Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Order No. 68, creating the National War Crimes Office and
prescribing rules on the trial of accused war criminals, is constitutional as it is aligned with Sec 3,Article 2
of the Constitution which states that “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy
and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.” The
generally accepted principles of international law include those formed during the Hague Convention,
the Geneva Convention and other international jurisprudence established by United Nations. These
include the principle that all persons, military or civilian, who have been guilty of planning, preparing or
waging a war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses in violation of laws and
customs of war, are to be held accountable. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines abides by
these principles and therefore has a right to try persons that commit such crimes and most especially
when it is committed against its citizens. It abides with it even if it was not a signatory to these
conventions by the mere incorporation of such principles in the constitution.
The United States is a party of interest because the country and its people have been equally, if not
more greatly, aggrieved by the crimes with which the petitioner is charged for. By virtue of Executive
Order No. 68, the Military Commission is a special military tribunal and that the rules as to parties and
representation are not governed by the rules of court but by the very provisions of this special law.

Ichong vs Hernandez

Conflict with fundamental law; Police power

ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ

G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships
adversely affected. by Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner,

vs.

JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila,
respondents.

Facts:

Driven by aspirations for economic independence and national security, the Congress enacted Act No.
1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business.” The main provisions of the Act, among others,
are:

(1) Prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations, among others,
from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade; and

(2) Prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of
additional stores or branches of retail business.
Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships
adversely affected by the said Act, brought an action to obtain a judicial declaration, and to enjoin the
Secretary of Finance, Jaime Hernandez, and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and
municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the Act,
contending that:

It denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property
without due process of law.

The subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof.

The Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines.

Issue/s:

Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles.

Discussions:

A generally accepted principle of international law, should be observed by us in good faith. If a treaty
would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise
of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the
medium of a treaty.
Ruling/s:

Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, the Supreme Court saw
no conflict between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of
the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all
persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred
and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which
applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such
class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class
and those who do not.”

Ichong vs Hernandez

G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

Facts: Petitioner, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents corporations and
partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of Republic Act. No. 1180, “An Act to Regulate the
Retail Business,” filed to obtain a judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional 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; (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.

Issue: Whether RA 1180 denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their
liberty and property without due process of law

Held: No. 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 is to operate. It
does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated
alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling
within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exists
for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. (2 Cooley,
Constitutional Limitations, 824-825.)

The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the
police power. Is there public interest, a public purpose; is public welfare involved? Is the Act reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the legislature’s purpose; is it not unreasonable, arbitrary or
oppressive? Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection with the matter involved; or has there
not been a capricious use of the legislative power? Can the aims conceived be achieved by the means
used, or is it not merely an unjustified interference with private interest? These are the questions that
we ask when the due process test is applied.

The conflict, therefore, between police power and the guarantees of due process and equal protection
of the laws is more apparent than real. Properly related, the power and the guarantees are supposed to
coexist. The balancing is the essence or, shall it be said, the indispensable means for the attainment of
legitimate aspirations of any democratic society. There can be no absolute power, whoever exercise it,
for that would be tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty, for that would mean license and
anarchy. So the State can deprive persons of life, liberty and property, provided there is due process of
law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups, provided everyone is given the equal
protection of the law. The test or standard, as always, is reason. The police power legislation must be
firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes
and means. And if distinction and classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for
said distinction.

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.

152 Ichong vs. Hernandez,

101 Phil. 115 (1957)

TOPIC

: Adoption of International Law

PONENTE

: LABRADOR J.

AUTHOR

: DADOR NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS: (chronological order)

1.

Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships
adversely affected by RA 1180 files this petition attacking the constitutionality of the said. 2.

Background of RA 1180: The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business). Its
purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Phil. from having a stranglehold upon the

people’s economic life.

a.

a prohibition against aliens and against associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of which
are not wholly owned by Filipinos, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade b.

aliens actually engaged in the retail business on May 15, 1954 are allowed to continue their business,
unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance with law, until their death or voluntary retirement. In
case of juridical persons, ten years after the approval of the Act or until the expiration of term. Citizens
and juridical entities of the United States were exempted from this Act. a.

provision for the forfeiture of licenses to engage in the retail business for violation of the laws on
nationalization, economic control weights and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade,
commerce and industry. b.

provision against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of
additional stores or branches of retail business 3.
According to Ichong, Republic Act 1180 is unconstitutional, because:

a.

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

b.

the subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof;

c.

the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines;

d.

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.

4.

OSG’s ARGUMENTS

a.

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.

the Act has only one subject embraced in the title;

c.
no treaty or international obligations are infringed;

d.

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(S)

1.

Is the law in violation of Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration of the Human Rights adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly and The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines
and the Republic of China (INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATIONS)?

2.

Whether or not the Act deprives the aliens of the equal protection of the laws and due process because
it is a valid exercise of police power?

HELD: 1.

No. 2.

No.

RATIO

: 1.

Nations Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects
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. As to the treaty with China, moreover, 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 lawand the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the

police power

2.

A.

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; B.

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;

Official statistics point out to the ever-increasing dominance and control by alien of the

retail trade. It is this domination and control that is the legislature’s target in the

enactment of the Act.

The mere fact of alienage is the root cause of the distinction between the alien and the national as a
trader. The alien is naturally lacking in that spirit of loyalty and enthusiasm for the Phil. where he
temporarily stays and makes his living. The alien owes no allegiance or loyalty to the State, and the State
cannot rely on him/her in times of crisis or emergency.

While the citizen holds his life, his person and his property subject to the needs of the country, the alien
may become the potential enemy of the State. C.

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; D.

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

E.

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. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE

: The police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional
agreement.

EMERGENCY RECIT:

RA 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business) which limits the power of aliens on the Retail Industry

is the issue in this case. According to Ichiong, this is, among others, in violation of the country’s

international obligations (Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration of the Human Rights adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly and The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the
Philippines and the Republic of China). The SC ruled in the negative. It believes that this is a proper
exercise of police power which may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other
conventional agreement.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S)

:
Share this document