152 Ichong vs.

Hernandez, AUTHOR: DADOR

101 Phil. 115 (1957) NOTES: (if applicable)
TOPIC: Adoption of International Law
PONENTE: LABRADOR J.
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
peoples 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. OSGs 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 legislatures 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 countrys
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):