ichong vs. hernandez [101 phil 1155; l-7995; 31 may 1957]

7/25/2019 Ichong vs. Hernandez [101 Phil 1155; L-7995; 31 May 1957]

1/21

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

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

LAO H. ICHONG, in his on !"ha#$ an% in !"ha#$ o$ o&h"' a#i"n '"si%"n&s, (o')o'a&ions an%)a'&n"'shi)s a%*"'s"#y a$$"(&"%. !y R")+!#i( A(& No. 11,petitioner,vs.AIME HERNAN/E0, S"('"&a'y o$ inan(", an% MARCELINO SARMIENTO, Ci&y T'"as+'"' o$Mani#a,respondents.

Ozaeta, Lichauco and Picazo and Sycip, Quisumbing, Salazar and Associates for petitioner.Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for respondentSecretary of inance.City iscal !ugenio Angeles and Assistant City iscal !ulogio S. Serrano for respondent City

"reasurer.#ionisio $eyes as Amicus Curiae.%arcial G. %endiola as Amicus Curiae.!miliano $. &a'arro as Amicus Curiae.

LA2RA/OR, J.

I. "he case and issue, in general

This Court has before it the delicate task of passin upon the validit! and constitutionalit! of aleislative enact"ent, funda"ental and far#reachin in sinificance. The enact"ent poses $uestionsof due process, police po%er and e$ual protection of the la%s. It also poses an i"portant issue of

fact, that is %hether the conditions %hich the disputed la% purports to re"ed! reall! or actuall! e&ist.Ad"ittedl! sprinin fro" a deep, "ilitant, and positive nationalistic i"pulse, the la% purports toprotect citi'en and countr! fro" the alien retailer. Throuh it, and %ithin the field of econo"! itreulates, Conress atte"pts to translate national aspirations for econo"ic independence andnational securit!, rooted in the drive and ure for national survival and %elfare, into a concrete andtanible "easures desined to free the national retailer fro" the co"petin do"inance of the alien,so that the countr! and the nation "a! be free fro" a supposed econo"ic dependence andbondae. (o the facts and circu"stances )ustif! the enact"ent*

II. Pertinent pro'isions of $epublic Act &o. (()*

Republic Act No. ++- is entitled An Act to Reulate the Retail Business. In effect it nationali'es theretail trade business. The "ain provisions of the Act are/ 0+1 a prohibition aainst persons, notciti'ens of the Philippines, and aainst associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of%hich are not %holl! o%ned b! citi'ens of the Philippines, fro" enain directl! or indirectl! in theretail trade2 031 an e&ception fro" the above prohibition in favor of aliens actuall! enaed in saidbusiness on Ma! +4, +546, %ho are allo%ed to continue to enaed therein, unless their licenses areforfeited in accordance %ith the la%, until their death or voluntar! retire"ent in case of naturalpersons, and for ten !ears after the approval of the Act or until the e&piration of ter" in case of

)uridical persons2 071 an e&ception therefro" in favor of citi'ens and )uridical entities of the 8nited9tates2 061 a provision for the forfeiture of licenses 0to enae in the retail business1 for violation ofthe la%s on nationali'ation, control %eihts and "easures and labor and other la%s relatin to trade,


2/21

co""erce and industr!2 041 a prohibition aainst the establish"ent or openin b! aliens actuall!enaed in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business, 0:1 a provisionre$uirin aliens actuall! enaed in the retail business to present for reistration %ith the properauthorities a verified state"ent concernin their businesses, ivin, a"on other "atters, the natureof the business, their assets and liabilities and their offices and principal offices of )udicial entities2and 0;1 a provision allo%in the heirs of aliens no% enaed in the retail business %ho die, to

continue such business for a period of si& "onths for purposes of li$uidation.

III. Grounds upon +hich petition is basedAns+er thereto

Petitioner, for and in his o%n behalf and on behalf of other alien residents corporations andpartnerships adversel! affected b! the provisions of Republic Act. No. ++-, brouht this action toobtain a )udicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional, and to en)oin the 9ecretar! of


3/21

public %elfare have beco"e al"ost all#e"bracin and have transcended hu"an foresiht.ther%ise stated, as %e cannot foresee the needs and de"ands of public interest and %elfare in thisconstantl! chanin and proressive %orld, so %e cannot deli"it beforehand the e&tent or scope ofpolice po%er b! %hich and throuh %hich the 9tate seeks to attain or achieve interest or %elfare. 9oit is that Constitutions do not define the scope or e&tent of the police po%er of the 9tate2 %hat the!do is to set forth the li"itations thereof. The "ost i"portant of these are the due process clause and

the e$ual protection clause.

b. Di"itations on police po%er.

The basic li"itations of due process and e$ual protection are found in the follo%in provisions of ourConstitution/

9ECTIN +.0+1 No person shall be deprived of life, libert! or propert! %ithout due process ofla%, nor an! person be denied the e$ual protection of the la%s. 0Article III, Phil. Constitution1

These constitutional uarantees %hich e"bod! the essence of individual libert! and freedo" inde"ocracies, are not li"ited to citi'ens alone but are ad"ittedl! universal in their application, %ithout

reard to an! differences of race, of color, or of nationalit!. 0ick o vs. Fopkins, 7-, D. ed. 33-,33:.1

c. The, e$ual protection clause.

The e$ual protection of the la% clause is aainst undue favor and individual or class privilee, as%ell as hostile discri"ination or the oppression of ine$ualit!. It is not intended to prohibit leislation,%hich is li"ited either in the ob)ect to %hich it is directed or b! territor! %ithin %hich is to operate. Itdoes not de"and absolute e$ualit! a"on residents2 it "erel! re$uires that all persons shall betreated alike, under li-e circumstances and conditionsboth as to privilees conferred and liabilitiesenforced. The e$ual protection clause is not infrined b! leislation %hich applies onl! to thosepersons fallin %ithin a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons %ithin such class, and

reasonable rounds e&ists for "akin a distinction bet%een those %ho fall %ithin such class andthose %ho do not. 03 Coole!, Constitutional Di"itations, 36#34.1

d. The due process clause.

The due process clause has to do %ith the reasonableness of leislation enacted in pursuance of thepolice po%er. Is there public interest, a public purpose2 is public %elfare involved* Is the Actreasonabl! necessar! for the acco"plish"ent of the leislatureGs purpose2 is it not unreasonable,arbitrar! or oppressive* Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection %ith the "atterinvolved2 or has there not been a capricious use of the leislative po%er* Can the ai"s conceivedbe achieved b! the "eans used, or is it not "erel! an un)ustified interference %ith private interest*These are the $uestions that %e ask %hen the due process test is applied.

The conflict, therefore, bet%een police po%er and the uarantees of due process and e$ualprotection of the la%s is "ore apparent than real. Properl! related, the po%er and the uaranteesare supposed to coe&ist. The balancin is the essence or, shall it be said, the indispensable "eansfor the attain"ent of leiti"ate aspirations of an! de"ocratic societ!. There can be no absolutepo%er, %hoever e&ercise it, for that %ould be t!rann!. et there can neither be absolute libert!, forthat %ould "ean license and anarch!. 9o the 9tate can deprive persons of life, libert! and propert!,provided there is due process of la%2 and persons "a! be classified into classes and roups,provided ever!one is iven the e$ual protection of the la%. The test or standard, as al%a!s, isreason. The police po%er leislation "ust be fir"l! rounded on public interest and %elfare, and a


4/21

reasonable relation "ust e&ist bet%een purposes and "eans. And if distinction and classification hasbeen "ade, there "ust be a reasonable basis for said distinction.

e. Legislati'e discretion not subect to udicial re'ie+.

No%, in this "atter of e$uitable balancin, %hat is the proper place and role of the courts* It "ust

not be overlooked, in the first place, that the leislature, %hich is the constitutional repositor! ofpolice po%er and e&ercises the preroative of deter"inin the polic! of the 9tate, is b! force ofcircu"stances pri"aril! the )ude of necessit!, ade$uac! or reasonableness and %isdo", of an! la%pro"ulated in the e&ercise of the police po%er, or of the "easures adopted to i"ple"ent the publicpolic! or to achieve public interest. n the other hand, courts, althouh 'ealous uardians ofindividual libert! and riht, have nevertheless evinced a reluctance to interfere %ith the e&ercise ofthe leislative preroative. The! have done so earl! %here there has been a clear, patent orpalpable arbitrar! and unreasonable abuse of the leislative preroative. Moreover, courts are notsupposed to override leiti"ate polic!, and courts never in$uire into the %isdo" of the la%.

?. !conomic problems sought to be remedied

ith the above considerations in "ind, %e %ill no% proceed to delve directl! into the issue involved.If the disputed leislation %ere "erel! a reulation, as its title indicates, there %ould be no $uestionthat it falls %ithin the leiti"ate scope of leislative po%er. But it oes further and prohibits a roup ofresidents, the aliens, fro" enain therein. The proble" beco"es "ore co"ple& because itssub)ect is a co""on, trade or occupation, as old as societ! itself, %hich fro" the i""e"orial hasal%a!s been open to residents, irrespective of race, color or citi'enship.

a. I"portance of retail trade in the econo"! of the nation.

In a pri"itive econo"! %here fa"ilies produce all that the! consu"e and consu"e all that the!produce, the dealer, of course, is unkno%n. But as roup life develops and fa"ilies bein to live inco""unities producin "ore than %hat the! consu"e and needin an infinite nu"ber of thins the!

do not produce, the dealer co"es into e&istence. As villaes develop into bi co""unities andspeciali'ation in production beins, the dealerGs i"portance is enhanced. 8nder "odern conditionsand standards of livin, in %hich "anGs needs have "ultiplied and diversified to unli"ited e&tentsand proportions, the retailer co"es as essential as the producer, because thru hi" the infinite variet!of articles, oods and needed for dail! life are placed %ithin the eas! reach of consu"ers. Retaildealers perfor" the functions of capillaries in the hu"an bod!, thru %hich all the needed food andsupplies are "inistered to "e"bers of the co""unities co"prisin the nation.

There cannot be an! $uestion about the i"portance of the retailer in the life of the co""unit!. Fe"inisters to the residentGs dail! needs, food in all its increasin for"s, and the various little adetsand thins needed for ho"e and dail! life. Fe provides his custo"ers around his store %ith the riceor corn, the fish, the salt, the vinear, the spices needed for the dail! cookin. Fe has cloths to sell,even the needle and the thread to se% the" or darn the clothes that %ear out. The retailer, therefore,

fro" the lo%l! peddler, the o%ner of a s"all sarisaristore, to the operator of a depart"ent store or,a super"arket is so "uch a part of da!#to#da! e&istence.

b. The alien retailerGs trait.

The alien retailer "ust have started pl!in his trades in this countr! in the bier centers ofpopulation 0Ti"e there %as %hen he %as unkno%n in provincial to%ns and villaes1. 9lo%l! butraduall! be invaded to%ns and villaes2 no% he predo"inates in the cities and bi centers ofpopulation. Fe even pioneers, in far a%a! nooks %here the beinnins of co""unit! life appear,


5/21

"inisterin to the dail! needs of the residents and purchasin their aricultural produce for sale inthe to%ns. It is an undeniable fact that in "an! co""unities the alien has replaced the nativeretailer. Fe has sho%n in this trade, industr! %ithout li"it, and the patience and forbearance of aslave.

(eroator! epithets are hurled at hi", but he lauhs these off %ithout "ur"ur2 insults of ill#bred and

insolent neihbors and custo"ers are "ade in his face, but he heeds the" not, and he forets andforives. The co""unit! takes note of hi", as he appears to be har"less and e&tre"el! useful.

c. Alleed alien control and do"inance.

There is a eneral feelin on the part of the public, %hich appears to be true to fact, about thecontrollin and do"inant position that the alien retailer holds in the nationGs econo"!.


6/21

+56/ 0Census1


7/21

thers .............................................. 36,5+: 37,::

+565/


8/21

econo"ic life of the citi'ens, in connection %ith the nationalistic provisions of the Constitution, hesa!s/

But there has been a eneral feelin that alien do"inance over the econo"ic life of thecountr! is not desirable and that if such a situation should re"ain, political independencealone is no uarantee to national stabilit! and strenth.


9/21

pre)udice of the consu"in public, so "uch so that the @overn"ent has had to establish theNational Rice and Corn Corporation to save the public fro" their continuous hoardin practices andtendencies2 that the! have violated price control la%s, especiall! on foods and essentialco""odities, such that the leislature had to enact a la% 09ec. 5, Republic Act No. ++:1,authori'in their i""ediate and auto"atic deportation for price control convictions2 that the! havesecret co"binations a"on the"selves to control prices, cheatin the operation of the la% of suppl!

and de"and2 that the! have connived to bo!cott honest "erchants and traders %ho %ould not cateror !ield to their de"ands, in unla%ful restraint of freedo" of trade and enterprise. The! are believedb! the public to have evaded ta& la%s, s"uled oods and "one! into and out of the land, violatedi"port and e&port prohibitions, control la%s and the like, in derision and conte"pt of la%ful authorit!.It is also believed that the! have enaed in corruptin public officials %ith fabulous bribes, indirectl!causin the prevalence of raft and corruption in the @overn"ent. As a "atter of fact appeals tounscrupulous aliens have been "ade both b! the @overn"ent and b! their o%n la%ful diplo"aticrepresentatives, action %hich i"pliedl! ad"its a prevailin feelin about the e&istence of "an! of theabove practices.

The circu"stances above set forth create %ell founded fears that %orse thins "a! co"e in thefuture. The present do"inance of the alien retailer, especiall! in the bi centers of population,therefore, beco"es a potential source of daner on occasions of %ar or other cala"it!. e do nothave here in this countr! isolated roups of har"less aliens retailin oods a"on nationals2 %hat%e have are %ell orani'ed and po%erful roups that do"inate the distribution of oods andco""odities in the co""unities and bi centers of population. The! o%e no alleiance or lo!alt! tothe 9tate, and the 9tate cannot rel! upon the" in ti"es of crisis or e"erenc!. hile the nationalholds his life, his person and his propert! sub)ect to the needs of his countr!, the alien "a! evenbeco"e the potential ene"! of the 9tate.

f. La+ enacted in interest of national economic sur'i'al and security.

e are full! satisfied upon a consideration of all the facts and circu"stances that the disputed la% isnot the product of racial hostilit!, pre)udice or discri"ination, but the e&pression of the leiti"atedesire and deter"ination of the people, thru their authori'ed representatives, to free the nation fro"

the econo"ic situation that has unfortunatel! been saddled upon it rihtl! or %ronl!, to itsdisadvantae. The la% is clearl! in the interest of the public, na! of the national securit! itself, andindisputabl! falls %ithin the scope of police po%er, thru %hich and b! %hich the 9tate insures itse&istence and securit! and the supre"e %elfare of its citi'ens.

?I. "he !/ual Protection Limitation

a. b)ections to alien participation in retail trade. The ne&t $uestion that no% poses solution is,(oes the la% den! the e$ual protection of the la%s* As pointed out above, the "ere fact of alienaeis the root and cause of the distinction bet%een the alien and the national as a trader. The alienresident o%es alleiance to the countr! of his birth or his adopted countr!2 his sta! here is forpersonal convenience2 he is attracted b! the lure of ain and profit. Fis ai" or purpose of sta!, %e

ad"it, is neither illeiti"ate nor i""oral, but he is naturall! lackin in that spirit of lo!alt! andenthusias" for this countr! %here he te"poraril! sta!s and "akes his livin, or of that spirit ofreard, s!"path! and consideration for his


10/21

Another ob)ection to the alien retailer in this countr! is that he never reall! "akes a enuinecontribution to national inco"e and %ealth. Fe undoubtedl! contributes to eneral distribution, butthe ains and profits he "akes are not invested in industries that %ould help the countr!Gs econo"!and increase national %ealth. The alienGs interest in this countr! bein "erel! transient andte"porar!, it %ould indeed be ill#advised to continue entrustin the ver! i"portant function of retaildistribution to his hands.

The practices resorted to b! aliens in the control of distribution, as alread! pointed out above, theirsecret "anipulations of stocks of co""odities and prices, their utter disreard of the %elfare of theircusto"ers and of the ulti"ate happiness of the people of the nation of %hich the! are "ere uests,%hich practices, "anipulations and disreard do not attend the e&ercise of the trade b! thenationals, sho% the e&istence of real and actual, positive and funda"ental differences bet%een analien and a national %hich full! )ustif! the leislative classification adopted in the retail trade"easure. These differences are certainl! a valid reason for the 9tate to prefer the national over thealien in the retail trade. e %ould be doin violence to fact and realit! %ere %e to hold that noreason or round for a leiti"ate distinction can be found bet%een one and the other.

b. #ifference in alien aims and purposes sufficient basis for distinction.

The above ob)ectionable characteristics of the e&ercise of the retail trade b! the aliens, %hich areactual and real, furnish sufficient rounds for leislative classification of retail traders into nationalsand aliens. 9o"e "a! disaree %ith the %isdo" of the leislatureGs classification. To this %e ans%er,that this is the preroative of the la%#"akin po%er. 9ince the Court finds that the classification isactual, real and reasonable, and all persons of one class are treated alike, and as it cannot be saidthat the classification is patentl! unreasonable and unfounded, it is in dut! bound to declare that theleislature acted %ithin its leiti"ate preroative and it can not declare that the act transcends theli"it of e$ual protection established b! the Constitution.

Broadl! speakin, the po%er of the leislature to "ake distinctions and classifications a"onpersons is not curtailed or denied b! the e$ual protection of the la%s clause. The leislative po%erad"its of a %ide scope of discretion, and a la% can be violative of the constitutional li"itation onl!

%hen the classification is %ithout reasonable basis. In addition to the authorities %e have earliercited, %e can also refer to the case of Linsey 's. &atural Carbonic as Co. 0+5++1, 44 D. ed., 7:5,%hich clearl! and succinctl! defined the application of e$ual protection clause to a la% souht to bevoided as contrar! thereto/

. . . . +. The e$ual protection clause of the


11/21

In the case of Smith 0ell 1 Co. 's. &ati'idad, 6- Phil. +7:, %here the validit! of Act No. 3;:+ of thePhilippine Deislature %as in issue, because of a condition therein li"itin the o%nership of vesselsenaed in coast%ise trade to corporations for"ed b! citi'ens of the Philippine Islands or the 8nited9tates, thus den!in the riht to aliens, it %as held that the Philippine Deislature did not violate thee$ual protection clause of the Philippine Bill of Rihts. The leislature in enactin the la% had asulti"ate purpose the encourae"ent of Philippine shipbuildin and the safet! for these Islands fro"

forein interlopers. e held that this %as a valid e&ercise of the police po%er, and all presu"ptionsare in favor of its constitutionalit!. In substance, %e held that the li"itation of do"estic o%nership ofvessels enaed in coast%ise trade to citi'ens of the Philippines does not violate the e$ualprotection of the la% and due process or la% clauses of the Philippine Bill of Rihts. In renderin saiddecision %e $uoted %ith approval the concurrin opinion of Hustice Hohnson in the case of Gibbons's. Ogden, 5 heat., I, as follo%s/

Dicensin acts, in fact, in leislation, are universall! restrainin acts2 as, for e&a"ple, actslicensin a"in houses, retailers of spirituous li$uors, etc. The act, in this instance, isdistinctl! of that character, and for"s part of an e&tensive s!ste", the ob)ect of %hich is toencourae A"erican shippin, and place the" on an e$ual footin %ith the shippin of othernations. Al"ost ever! co""ercial nation reserves to its o%n sub)ects a "onopol! of itscoastin trade2 and a countervailin privilee in favor of A"erican shippin is conte"plated,in the %hole leislation of the 8nited 9tates on this sub)ect. It is not to ive the vessel an

A"erican character, that the license is ranted2 that effect has been correctl! attributed tothe act of her enroll"ent. But it is to confer on her A"erican privilees, as contradistinuished fro" forein2 and to preserve the @overn"ent fro" fraud b! foreiners2 insurreptitiousl! intrudin the"selves into the A"erican co""ercial "arine, as %ell as fraudsupon the revenue in the trade coast%ise, that this %hole s!ste" is pro)ected.

The rule in eneral is as follo%s/

Aliens are under no special constitutional protection %hich forbids a classification other%ise)ustified si"pl! because the li"itation of the class falls alon the lines of nationalit!. That%ould be re$uirin a hiher deree of protection for aliens as a class than for si"ilar classes

than for si"ilar classes of A"erican citi'ens. Broadl! speakin, the difference in statusbet%een citi'ens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the e&erciseof police po%er. 03 A"., Hur. 6:#6:5.1

In Common+ealth 's. 2ana, + N. E. +65 0Massachusetts, +5-;1, a statute on the licensin ofha%kers and peddlers, %hich provided that no one can obtain a license unless he is, or has declaredhis intention, to beco"e a citi'en of the 8nited 9tates, %as held valid, for the follo%in reason/ It"a! see" %ise to the leislature to li"it the business of those %ho are supposed to have reard forthe %elfare, ood order and happiness of the co""unit!, and the court cannot $uestion this

)ud"ent and conclusion. In 0loomfield 's. State, 55 N. E. 7-5 0hio, +5+31, a statute %hichprevented certain persons, a"on the" aliens, fro" enain in the traffic of li$uors, %as found notto be the result of race hatred, or in hospitalit!, or a deliberate purpose to discri"inate, but %as

based on the belief that an alien cannot be sufficientl! ac$uainted %ith our institutions and our lifeas to enable hi" to appreciate the relation of this particular business to our entire social fabric, and%as not, therefore, invalid. In hio e& rel. Clar-e 's. #ec-ebach, 3;6 8. 9. 753, ;+ D. ed. ++40+53:1, the 8.9. 9upre"e Court had under consideration an ordinance of the cit! of Cincinnatiprohibitin the issuance of licenses 0pools and billiard roo"s1 to aliens. It held that plainl! irrationaldiscri"ination aainst aliens is prohibited, but it does not follo% that alien race and alleiance "a!not bear in so"e instances such a relation to a leiti"ate ob)ect of leislation as to be "ade thebasis of per"itted classification, and that it could not state that the leislation is clearl! %ron2 andthat latitude "ust be allo%ed for the leislative appraise"ent of local conditions and for the


12/21

leislative choice of "ethods for controllin an apprehended evil. The case of State 's. Carrol, +36N. E. +35 0hio, +5+51 is a parallel case to the one at bar. InAsa-ura 's. City of Seattle, 3+- P. 7-0ashinton, +5331, the business of pa%n brookin %as considered as havin tendencies in)urinpublic interest, and li"itin it to citi'ens is %ithin the scope of police po%er. A si"ilar statute den!inaliens the riht to enae in auctioneerin %as also sustained in 3right 's. %ay, D.R.A., +5+4 P. +4+0Minnesota, +5+61. 9o also inAnton 's. 4an 3in-le, 35;


13/21

's. 4an 3in-le, 35;


14/21

In the case of La+ton 's. Steele, 7 D. ed. 74, 7. it %as also held/

. . . . To )ustif! the state in thus interposin its authorit! in behalf of the public, it "ust appear,first, that the interests of the public enerall!, as distinuished fro" those of a particularclass, re$uire such interference2 and second, that the "eans are reasonabl! necessar! forthe acco"plish"ent of the purpose, and not undul! oppressive upon individuals. . . .

Prata 8nderta-ing Co. 's. State 0oard of !mbalming, +-6 ADR, 75, 754, fi&es this test ofconstitutionalit!/

In deter"inin %hether a iven act of the Deislature, passed in the e&ercise of the policepo%er to reulate the operation of a business, is or is not constitutional, one of the first$uestions to be considered b! the court is %hether the po%er as e&ercised has a sufficientfoundation in reason in connection %ith the "atter involved, or is an arbitrar!, oppressive,and capricious use of that po%er, %ithout substantial relation to the health, safet!, "orals,co"fort, and eneral %elfare of the public.

b. Petitioner9s argument considered.

PetitionerGs "ain aru"ent is that retail is a co""on, ordinar! occupation, one of those privileeslon ao reconi'ed as essential to the orderl! pursuant of happiness b! free "en2 that it is a ainfuland honest occupation and therefore be!ond the po%er of the leislature to prohibit and penali'ed.This aru"ents overlooks fact and realit! and rests on an incorrect assu"ption and pre"ise, i.e.,that in this countr! %here the occupation is enaed in b! petitioner, it has been so enaed b! hi",b! the alien in an honest creditable and uni"peachable "anner, %ithout har" or in)ur! to theciti'ens and %ithout ulti"ate daner to their econo"ic peace, tran$uilit! and %elfare. But theDeislature has found, as %e have also found and indicated, that the privilee has been so rossl!abused b! the alien, thru the illeiti"ate use of pernicious desins and practices, that he no% en)o!sa "onopolistic control of the occupation and threatens a deadl! stranlehold on the nationGsecono"! endanerin the national securit! in ti"es of crisis and e"erenc!.

The real $uestion at issue, therefore, is not that posed b! petitioner, %hich overlooks and inores thefacts and circu"stances, but this, Is the e&clusion in the future of aliens fro" the retail tradeunreasonable. Arbitrar! capricious, takin into account the illeiti"ate and pernicious for" and"anner in %hich the aliens have heretofore enaed therein* As thus correctl! stated the ans%er isclear. The la% in $uestion is dee"ed absolutel! necessar! to brin about the desired leislativeob)ective, i.e., to free national econo"! fro" alien control and do"inance. It is not necessaril!unreasonable because it affects private rihts and privilees 0++ A". Hur. pp. +--#+-+.1 The test ofreasonableness of a la% is the appropriateness or ade$uac! under all circu"stances of the "eansadopted to carr! out its purpose into effect 0:d.1 Huded b! this test, disputed leislation, %hich is not"erel! reasonable but actuall! necessar!, "ust be considered not to have infrined theconstitutional li"itation of reasonableness.

The necessit! of the la% in $uestion is e&plained in the e&planator! note that acco"panied the bill,%hich later %as enacted into la%/

This bill proposes to reulate the retail business. Its purpose is to prevent persons %ho arenot citi'ens of the Philippines fro" havin a stranle hold upon our econo"ic life. If thepersons %ho control this vital arter! of our econo"ic life are the ones %ho o%e no alleianceto this Republic, %ho have no profound devotion to our free institutions, and %ho have noper"anent stake in our peopleGs %elfare, %e are not reall! the "asters of our destin!. Allaspects of our life, even our national securit!, %ill be at the "erc! of other people.


15/21

In seekin to acco"plish the foreoin purpose, %e do not propose to deprive persons %hoare not citi'ens of the Philippines of their "eans of livelihood. hile this bill seeks to takea%a! fro" the hands of persons %ho are not citi'ens of the Philippines a po%er that can be%ielded to paral!'e all aspects of our national life and endaner our national securit! itrespects e&istin rihts.

The approval of this bill is necessar! for our national survival.

If political independence is a leiti"ate aspiration of a people, then econo"ic independence is nonethe less leiti"ate.


16/21

A cursor! stud! of the provisions of the la% i""ediatel! reveals ho% tolerant, ho% reasonable theDeislature has been. The la% is "ade prospective and reconi'es the riht and privilee of thosealread! enaed in the occupation to continue therein durin the rest of their lives2 and si"ilarreconition of the riht to continue is accorded associations of aliens. The riht or privilee is deniedto those onl! upon conviction of certain offenses. In the deliberations of the Court on this case,attention %as called to the fact that the privilee should not have been denied to children and heirs

of aliens no% enaed in the retail trade. 9uch provision %ould defeat the la% itself, its ai"s andpurposes. Beside, the e&ercise of leislative discretion is not sub)ect to )udicial revie%. It is %ellsettled that the Court %ill not in$uire into the "otives of the Deislature, nor pass upon eneral"atters of leislative )ud"ent. The Deislature is pri"aril! the )ude of the necessit! of anenact"ent or of an! of its provisions, and ever! presu"ption is in favor of its validit!, and thouh theCourt "a! hold vie%s inconsistent %ith the %isdo" of the la%, it "a! not annul the leislation if notpalpabl! in e&cess of the leislative po%er.


17/21

The %ord reulate is of broad i"port, and necessaril! implies some degree of restraintandprohibition of acts usuall! done in connection %ith the thin to be reulated. hile %ordreulate does not ordinaril! conve! "eanin of prohibit, there is no absolute reason %h! itshould not have such "eanin %hen used in deleatin police po%er in connection %ith athin the best or onl! efficacious reulation of %hich involves suppression. 09tate vs. Morton,+:3 9o. ;+, +3 Da. ;, $uoted in p. 63 of Ans%er.1

The eneral rule is for the use of eneral ter"s in the title of a bill2 it has also been said that the titleneed not be an inde& to the entire contents of the la% 0I 9utherland, 9tatutor! Construction, 9ee.6-7, p. 764.1 The above rule %as follo%ed the title of the Act in $uestion adopted the "ore eneralter" reulate instead of nationali'e or prohibit. .Alleged 'iolation of international treaties and obligations

Another subordinate aru"ent aainst the validit! of the la% is the supposed violation thereb! of the

Charter of the 8nited Nations and of the (eclaration of the Fu"an Rihts adopted b! the 8nitedNations @eneral Asse"bl!. e find no "erit in the Nations Charter i"poses no strict or lealobliations reardin the rihts and freedo" of their sub)ects 0Fans elsen, The Da% of the 8nitedNations, +54+ ed. pp. 35#731, and the (eclaration of Fu"an Rihts contains nothin "ore than a"ere reco""endation or a co""on standard of achieve"ent for all peoples and all nations 0:d. p.75.1 That such is the i"port of the 8nited Nations Charter aid of the (eclaration of Fu"an Rihtscan be inferred the fact that "e"bers of the 8nited Nations rani'ations, such as Nor%a! and(en"ark, prohibit foreiners fro" enain in retail trade, and in "ost nations of the %orld la%saainst foreiners enaed in do"estic trade are adopted.

The Treat! of A"it! bet%een the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic of China of April +,+56; is also clai"ed to be violated b! the la% in $uestion. All that the treat! uarantees is e$ualit! of

treat"ent to the Chinese nationals upon the sa"e ter"s as the nationals of an! other countr!. Butthe nationals of China are not discri"inatin aainst because nationals of all other countries, e&ceptthose of the 8nited 9tates, %ho are ranted special rihts b! the Constitution, are all prohibited fro"enain in the retail trade. But even supposin that the la% infrines upon the said treat!, the treat!is al%a!s sub)ect to $ualification or a"end"ent b! a subse$uent la% 08. 9. vs. Tho"pson, 34, . Conclusion


18/21

Resu"in %hat %e have set forth above %e hold that the disputed la% %as enacted to re"ed! a realactual threat and daner to national econo"! posed b! alien do"inance and control of the retailbusiness and free citi'ens and countr! fro" do"inance and control2 that the enact"ent clearl! falls%ithin the scope of the police po%er of the 9tate, thru %hich and b! %hich it protects its o%npersonalit! and insures its securit! and future2 that the la% does not violate the e$ual protectionclause of the Constitution because sufficient rounds e&ist for the distinction bet%een alien and

citi'en in the e&ercise of the occupation reulated, nor the due process of la% clause, because thela% is prospective in operation and reconi'es the privilee of aliens alread! enaed in theoccupation and reasonabl! protects their privilee2 that the %isdo" and efficac! of the la% to carr!out its ob)ectives appear to us to be plainl! evident as a "atter of fact it see"s not onl!appropriate but actuall! necessar! and that in an! case such "atter falls %ithin the preroative ofthe Deislature, %ith %hose po%er and discretion the Hudicial depart"ent of the @overn"ent "a!not interfere2 that the provisions of the la% are clearl! e"braced in the title, and this suffers fro" noduplicit! and has not "isled the leislators or the se"ent of the population affected2 and that itcannot be said to be void for supposed conflict %ith treat! obliations because no treat! has actuall!been entered into on the sub)ect and the police po%er "a! not be curtailed or surrendered b! an!treat! or an! other conventional aree"ent.

9o"e "e"bers of the Court are of the opinion that the radical effects of the la% could have been"ade less harsh in its i"pact on the aliens. Thus it is stated that the "ore ti"e should have beeniven in the la% for the li$uidation of e&istin businesses %hen the ti"e co"es for the" to close. urleal dut!, ho%ever, is "erel! to deter"ine if the la% falls %ithin the scope of leislative authorit! anddoes not transcend the li"itations of due process and e$ual protection uaranteed in theConstitution. Re"edies aainst the harshness of the la% should be addressed to the Deislature2the! are be!ond our po%er and )urisdiction.

The petition is hereb! denied, %ith costs aainst petitioner.

Paras, C.;., 0engzon, $eyes, A., 0autista Angelo, Concepcion, $eyes, ;.0.L., !ndencia and eli5,;;.,concur.

S")a'a&" O)inions

PA/ILLA, J., concurrin and dissentin/

I aree to the proposition, principle or rule that courts "a! not in$uire into the %isdo" of an the Actpassed b! the Conress and dul! approved b! the President of the Republic. But the rule does notpreclude courts fro" in$uirin and deter"inin %hether the Act offends aainst a provision orprovisions of the Constitution. I a" satisfied that the Act assailed as violative of the due process ofla% and the e$ual protection of the la%s clauses of the Constitution does not infrine upon the",

insofar as it affects associations, partnership or corporations, the capital of %hich is not %holl!o%ned b! the citi'ens of the Philippines, and aliens, %ho are not and have not been enaed in theretail business. I a", ho%ever, unable to persuade "!self that it does not violate said clauses insofaras the Act applies to associations and partnerships referred to in the Act and to aliens, %ho are andhave heretofore been enaed in said business. hen the! did enae in the retail business there%as no prohibition on or aainst the" to enae in it. The! assu"ed and believed in ood faith the!%ere entitled to enaed in the business. The Act allo%s aliens to continue in business until theirdeath or voluntar! retire"ent fro" the business or forfeiture of their license2 and corporations,associations or partnership, the capital of %hich is not %holl! o%ned b! the citi'ens of the Philippines


19/21

to continue in the business for a period of ten !ears fro" the date of the approval of the Act 0+5 Hune+5461 or until the e&pir! of ter" of the e&istence of the association or partnership or corporation,%hichever event co"es first. The prohibition on corporations, the capital of %hich is not %holl!o%ned b! citi'ens of the Philippines, to enae in the retail business for a period of "ore than ten!ears fro" the date of the approval of the Act or be!ond the ter" of their corporate e&istence,%hichever event co"es first, is valid and la%ful, because the continuance of the e&istence of such

corporations is sub)ect to %hatever the Conress "a! i"pose reasonabl! upon the" b! subse$uentleislation.+But the prohibition to enae in the retail business b! associations and partnerships, thecapital of %hich is not %holl! o%ned b! citi'en of the Philippines, after ten !ears fro" the date of theapproval of the Act, even before the end of the ter" of their e&istence as areed upon b! theassociates and partners, and b! alien heirs to %ho" the retail business is trans"itted b! the death ofan alien enaed in the business, or b! his e&ecutor or ad"inistrator, a"ounts to a deprivation oftheir propert! %ithout due process of la%. To "! "ind, the ten#!ear period fro" the date of theapproval of the Act or until the e&piration of the ter" of the e&istence of the association andpartnership, %hichever event co"es first, and the si"onth period ranted to alien heirs of adeceased alien, his e&ecutor or ad"inistrator, to li$uidate the business, do not cure the defect of thela%, because the effect of the prohibition is to co"pel the" to sell or dispose of their business. Theprice obtainable at such forced sale of the business %ould be inade$uate to rei"burse andco"pensate the associates or partners of the associations or partnership, and the alien heirs of a

deceased alien, enaed in the retail business for the capital invested in it. The stock of"erchandise bouht and sold at retail does not alone constitute the business. The ood%ill that theassociation, partnership and the alien had built up durin a lon period of effort, patience andperseverance for"s part of such business. The constitutional provisions that no person shall bedeprived of his propert! %ithout due process of la%3and that no person shall be denied the e$ualprotection of the la%s7%ould have no "eanin as applied to associations or partnership and alienheirs of an alien enaed in the retail business if the! %ere to be co"pelled to sell or dispose of theirbusiness %ithin ten !ears fro" the date of the approval of the Act and before the end of the ter" ofthe e&istence of the associations and partnership as areed upon b! the associations and partnersand %ithin si& "onths after the death of their predecessor#in#interest.

The authors of the Constitution %ere viilant, careful and 'ealous in the safeuard of the o%nership

of private aricultural lands %hich toether %ith the lands of the public do"ain constitute thepriceless patri"on! and "ainsta! of the nation2 !et, the! did not dee" it %ise and prudent to deprivealiens and their heirs of such lands.6


20/21

69ection 4, Article >III, of the Constitution.

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.

Iss!e 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

He"d 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 conditionsboth 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 welfareinvolved? Is the Act reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the legislatures

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


21/21

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.

#he "a$ does not v%o"ate the e&!a" 'rotect%on c"a!se o( the )onst%t!t%on

*eca!se s!+c%ent gro!nds e%st (or the d%st%nct%on *et$een a"%en and

c%t%zen %n the eerc%se o( the occ!'at%on reg!"ated, 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.

ichong vs. hernandez [101 phil 1155; l-7995; 31 may 1957]

Documents