Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-7995 May 31, 1957

LAO H. ICHONG, in his o n !"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$ 1inan(", 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 respondent Secretary 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.3 I. "he case and issue, in general This Court has before it the delicate task of passin upon the validit! and constitutionalit! of a le islative enact"ent, funda"ental and far#reachin in si nificance. The enact"ent poses $uestions of due process, police po%er and e$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! sprin in fro" a deep, "ilitant, and positive nationalistic i"pulse, the la% purports to protect citi'en and countr! fro" the alien retailer. Throu h it, and %ithin the field of econo"! it re ulates, Con ress atte"pts to translate national aspirations for econo"ic independence and national securit!, rooted in the drive and ur e for national survival and %elfare, into a concrete and tan ible "easures desi ned 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 and bonda e. (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 Re ulate the Retail Business.. In effect it nationali'es the retail trade business. The "ain provisions of the Act are/ 0+1 a prohibition a ainst persons, not citi'ens of the Philippines, and a ainst associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of %hich are not %holl! o%ned b! citi'ens of the Philippines, fro" en a in directl! or indirectl! in the retail trade2 031 an e&ception fro" the above prohibition in favor of aliens actuall! en a ed in said business on Ma! +4, +546, %ho are allo%ed to continue to en a ed therein, unless their licenses are forfeited in accordance %ith the la%, until their death or voluntar! retire"ent in case of natural persons, 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 8nited 9tates2 061 a provision for the forfeiture of licenses 0to en a e in the retail business1 for violation of the la%s on nationali'ation, control %ei hts and "easures and labor and other la%s relatin to trade, co""erce and industr!2 041 a prohibition a ainst the establish"ent or openin b! aliens actuall! en a ed in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business, 0:1 a provision re$uirin aliens actuall! en a ed in the retail business to present for re istration %ith the proper authorities a verified state"ent concernin their businesses, ivin , a"on other "atters, the nature of the business, their assets and liabilities and their offices and principal offices of )udicial entities2 and 0;1 a provision allo%in the heirs of aliens no% en a ed in the retail business %ho die, to continue such business for a period of si& "onths for purposes of li$uidation. III. Grounds upon +hich petition is based,Ans+er thereto Petitioner, for and in his o%n behalf and on behalf of other alien residents corporations and partnerships adversel! affected b! the provisions of Republic Act. No. ++,-, brou ht this action to obtain a )udicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional, and to en)oin the 9ecretar! of <inance and all other persons actin under hi", particularl! cit! and "unicipal treasurers, fro" enforcin its provisions. Petitioner attacks the constitutionalit! of the Act, contendin that/ 0+1 it denies to alien residents the e$ual protection of the la%s and deprives of their libert! and propert! %ithout due process of la% 2 031 the sub)ect of the Act is not e&pressed or co"prehended in the title thereof2 071 the Act violates international and treat! obli ations of the Republic of the Philippines2 061 the provisions of the Act a ainst the trans"ission b! aliens of their retail business thru hereditar! succession, and those re$uirin +--= <ilipino capitali'ation for a corporation or entit! to entitle it to en a e in the retail business, violate the spirit of 9ections + and 4, Article >III and 9ection , of Article >I? of the Constitution. In ans%er, the 9olicitor#@eneral and the <iscal of the Cit! of Manila contend that/ 0+1 the Act %as passed in the valid e&ercise of the police po%er of the 9tate, %hich e&ercise is authori'ed in the Constitution in the interest of national econo"ic survival2 031 the Act has onl! one sub)ect e"braced in the title2 071 no treat! or international obli ations are infrin ed2 061 as re ards hereditar! succession, onl! the for" is affected but the value of

the propert! is not i"paired, and the institution of inheritance is onl! of statutor! ori in. I?. Preliminary consideration of legal principles in'ol'ed a. The police po%er. A There is no $uestion that the Act %as approved in the e&ercise of the police po%er, but petitioner clai"s that its e&ercise in this instance is attended b! a violation of the constitutional re$uire"ents of due process and e$ual protection of the la%s. But before proceedin to the consideration and resolution of the ulti"ate issue involved, it %ould be %ell to bear in "ind certain basic and funda"ental, albeit preli"inar!, considerations in the deter"ination of the ever recurrent conflict bet%een police po%er and the uarantees of due process and e$ual protection of the la%s. Bhat is the scope of police po%er, and ho% are the due process and e$ual protection clauses related to it* Bhat is the province and po%er of the le islature, and %hat is the function and dut! of the courts* These consideration "ust be clearl! and correctl! understood that their application to the facts of the case "a! be brou ht forth %ith clarit! and the issue accordin l! resolved. It has been said the police po%er is so far # reachin in scope, that it has beco"e al"ost i"possible to li"it its s%eep. As it derives its e&istence fro" the ver! e&istence of the 9tate itself, it does not need to be e&pressed or defined in its scope2 it is said to be co#e&tensive %ith self# protection and survival, and as such it is the "ost positive and active of all overn"ental processes, the "ost essential, insistent and illi"itable. Especiall! is it so under a "odern de"ocratic fra"e%ork %here the de"ands of societ! and of nations have "ultiplied to al"ost uni"a inable proportions2 the field and scope of police po%er has beco"e al"ost boundless, )ust as the fields of public interest and public %elfare have beco"e al"ost all#e"bracin and have transcended hu"an foresi ht. Cther%ise stated, as %e cannot foresee the needs and de"ands of public interest and %elfare in this constantl! chan in and pro ressive %orld, so %e cannot deli"it beforehand the e&tent or scope of police po%er b! %hich and throu h %hich the 9tate seeks to attain or achieve interest or %elfare. 9o it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or e&tent of the police po%er of the 9tate2 %hat the! do is to set forth the li"itations thereof. The "ost i"portant of these are the due process clause and the e$ual protection clause. b. Di"itations on police po%er. A The basic li"itations of due process and e$ual protection are found in the follo%in provisions of our Constitution/

9ECTICN +.0+1 No person shall be deprived of life, libert! or propert! %ithout due process of la%, nor an! person be denied the e$ual protection of the la%s. 0Article III, Phil. Constitution1 These constitutional uarantees %hich e"bod! the essence of individual libert! and freedo" in de"ocracies, are not li"ited to citi'ens alone but are ad"ittedl! universal in their application, %ithout re ard to an! differences of race, of color, or of nationalit!. 0Eick Bo vs. Fopkins, 7-, D. ed. 33-, 33:.1 c. The, e$ual protection clause. A The e$ual protection of the la% clause is a ainst undue favor and individual or class privile e, as %ell as hostile discri"ination or the oppression of ine$ualit!. It is not intended to prohibit le islation, %hich is li"ited either in the ob)ect to %hich it is directed or b! territor! %ithin %hich is to operate. It does not de"and absolute e$ualit! a"on residents2 it "erel! re$uires that all persons shall be treated alike, under li-e circumstances and conditions both as to privile es conferred and liabilities enforced. The e$ual protection clause is not infrin ed b! le islation %hich applies onl! to those persons 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 and those %ho do not. 03 Coole!, Constitutional Di"itations, ,36#,34.1 d. The due process clause. A The due process clause has to do %ith the reasonableness of le islation enacted in pursuance of the police po%er. Is there public interest, a public purpose2 is public %elfare involved* Is the Act reasonabl! necessar! for the acco"plish"ent of the le islatureGs purpose2 is it not unreasonable, arbitrar! or oppressive* Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection %ith the "atter involved2 or has there not been a capricious use of the le islative po%er* Can the ai"s conceived be achieved b! the "eans used, or is it not "erel! an un)ustified interference %ith private interest* These are the $uestions that %e ask %hen the due process test is applied. The conflict, therefore, bet%een police po%er and the uarantees of due process and e$ual protection of the la%s is "ore apparent than real. Properl! related, the po%er and the uarantees are supposed to coe&ist. The balancin is the essence or, shall it be said, the indispensable "eans for the attain"ent of le iti"ate aspirations of an! de"ocratic societ!. There can be no absolute po%er, %hoever e&ercise it, for that %ould be t!rann!. Eet there can neither be absolute libert!, for that %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, is reason. The police

po%er le islation "ust be fir"l! rounded on public interest and %elfare, and a reasonable relation "ust e&ist bet%een purposes and "eans. And if distinction and classification has been "ade, there "ust be a reasonable basis for said distinction. e. Legislati'e discretion not sub.ect to .udicial re'ie+ . A No%, in this "atter of e$uitable balancin , %hat is the proper place and role of the courts* It "ust not be overlooked, in the first place, that the le islature, %hich is the constitutional repositor! of police po%er and e&ercises the prero ative of deter"inin the polic! of the 9tate, is b! force of circu"stances pri"aril! the )ud e of necessit!, ade$uac! or reasonableness and %isdo", of an! la% pro"ul ated in the e&ercise of the police po%er, or of the "easures adopted to i"ple"ent the public polic! or to achieve public interest. Cn the other hand, courts, althou h 'ealous uardians of individual libert! and ri ht, have nevertheless evinced a reluctance to interfere %ith the e&ercise of the le islative prero ative. The! have done so earl! %here there has been a clear, patent or palpable arbitrar! and unreasonable abuse of the le islative prero ative. Moreover, courts are not supposed to override le iti"ate polic!, and courts never in$uire into the %isdo" of the la%. ?. !conomic problems sought to be remedied Bith the above considerations in "ind, %e %ill no% proceed to delve directl! into the issue involved. If the disputed le islation %ere "erel! a re ulation, as its title indicates, there %ould be no $uestion that it falls %ithin the le iti"ate scope of le islative po%er. But it oes further and prohibits a roup of residents, the aliens, fro" en a in therein. The proble" beco"es "ore co"ple& because its sub)ect is a co""on, trade or occupation, as old as societ! itself, %hich fro" the i""e"orial has al%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. A 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 be in to live in co""unities producin "ore than %hat the! consu"e and needin an infinite nu"ber of thin s the! do not produce, the dealer co"es into e&istence. As villa es develop into bi co""unities and speciali'ation in production be ins, the dealerGs i"portance is enhanced. 8nder "odern conditions and standards of livin , in %hich "anGs needs have "ultiplied and diversified to unli"ited e&tents and 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. Retail dealers perfor" the functions of capillaries in the hu"an bod!, thru %hich all the needed food and supplies 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 ad ets and thin s needed for ho"e and dail! life. Fe provides his custo"ers around his store %ith the rice or corn, the fish, the salt, the vine ar, 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 sari,sari store, 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. A The alien retailer "ust have started pl!in his trades in this countr! in the bi er centers of population 0Ti"e there %as %hen he %as unkno%n in provincial to%ns and villa es1. 9lo%l! but raduall! be invaded to%ns and villa es2 no% he predo"inates in the cities and bi centers of population. Fe even pioneers, in far a%a! nooks %here the be innin s of co""unit! life appear, "inisterin to the dail! needs of the residents and purchasin their a ricultural produce for sale in the to%ns. It is an undeniable fact that in "an! co""unities the alien has replaced the native retailer. Fe has sho%n in this trade, industr! %ithout li"it, and the patience and forbearance of a slave. (ero ator! epithets are hurled at hi", but he lau hs these off %ithout "ur"ur2 insults of ill#bred and insolent nei hbors and custo"ers are "ade in his face, but he heeds the" not, and he for ets and for ives. The co""unit! takes note of hi", as he appears to be har"less and e&tre"el! useful. c. Alle ed alien control and do"inance. A There is a eneral feelin on the part of the public, %hich appears to be true to fact, about the controllin and do"inant position that the alien retailer holds in the nationGs econo"!. <ood and other essentials, clothin , al"ost all articles of dail! life reach the residents "ostl! throu h hi". In bi cities and centers of population he has ac$uired not onl! predo"inance, but apparent control over distribution of al"ost all kinds of oods, such as lu"ber, hard%are, te&tiles, roceries, dru s, su ar, flour, arlic, and scores of other oods and articles. And %ere it not for so"e national corporations like the Naric, the Na"arco, the <aco"as and the Acefa, his control over principal foods and products %ould easil! beco"e full and co"plete. Petitioner denies that there is alien predo"inance and control in the retail trade. In one breath it is said that the fear is unfounded and the threat is i"a ined2 in another, it is char ed that the la% is "erel! the result of radicalis" and pure and unabashed nationalis". Aliena e, it is said, is not an ele"ent of control2 also so "an! un"ana eable factors in the retail

business "ake control virtuall! i"possible. The first ar u"ent %hich brin s up an issue of fact "erits serious consideration. The others are "atters of opinion %ithin the e&clusive co"petence of the le islature and be!ond our prero ative to pass upon and decide. The best evidence are the statistics on the retail trade, %hich put do%n the fi ures in black and %hite. Bet%een the constitutional convention !ear 0+5741, %hen the fear of alien do"ination and control of the retail trade alread! filled the "inds of our leaders %ith fears and "is ivin s, and the !ear of the enact"ent of the nationali'ation of the retail trade act 0+5461, official statistics un"istakabl! point out to the ever#increasin do"inance and control b! the alien of the retail trade, as %itness the follo%in tables/ Assets Eear and Nationalit! +56 +/ <ilipino .......... +-:,:;+ 3--,737,+7, 44.,3 ++,,76,,:53 73.5, 6-,+,;,-5++.3+;6,+,+,536 +6,,,+7,375 +7,:7-,375 Retailers No.# Establish"e nts @ross 9ales Per cent (istributio Pesos n

+56 5/ <ilipino .......... ++7,:45 3+7,64+,:-3 :-.,5 +34,337,77: 74.;3 +3,-4:,7:4 7.75

6:3,473,5-+ 4

Chinese .......... +:,36, Cthers .......... +54 +/ <ilipino ......... ++5,743 6,:

753,6+6,,;4 6 +-,-;,,7:6

336,-47,:3- :+.-5 +76,734,7-7 7:.:,,:+6,-34 3.7+

6::,-4,,-43 4

Chinese .......... +;,635 Cthers .......... 76;

6-6,6,+,7,6 6 ;,:64,73;

Pesos

Chinese ........... +4,74: Cthers ............ +,:6: +56 ;/ <ilipino .......... +++,+-;

3-,,:4,,56: :4.-4 +-:,+4:,3+, 77.4: ,,;:+,3:.65

3;5,4,7,777 3-4,;-+,+76 6,53;,+:,

Chinese ........... +7,;;6 Cthers ........... +56 ,/ 0Census1 <ilipino .......... ++7,:7+ 746

3+7,763,3:6 :;.757,+44,645 +-,4+6,:;4 35.7, 7.73

6:;,+:+,::; 356,,56,33; 5,554,6-3

Chinese .......... +3,-,; Cthers .......... 633

A?ERA@E A99ET9 AN( @RC99 9ADE9 PER E9TABDI9FMENT Eear Nationalit! +56+/ <ilipino ............................................. Chinese .............................................. Cthers ............................................... +56;/ <ilipino ............................................. Chinese ........................................... Cthers .............................................. +56,/ 0Census1 <ilipino ............................................. Chinese ............................................. Cthers .............................................. +565/ <ilipino ............................................. Chinese .............................................. Cthers .............................................. +54+/ <ilipino ............................................. Chinese ............................................. Cthers ............................................... +,,;; ;,;-; 36,,36 7,5-4 77,3-; 33,-77 +,,;, ;,;-; 36,,-; 6,-:5 36,+43 3-,;7; +,,;, ;,;-; 36,5+: 6,+++ 36,75, 37,:,: +,,;, ;,;-; 36,;65 3,4+: +6,576 +7,5+5 +,,;, ;,;-; 36,6+4 +,:77 5,:5+ ,,3,+ and RetailerGs Ite" Assets 0Pesos1 @ross 9ales 0Pesos1

b! the Bureau of Census and 9tatistics, (epart"ent of Co""erce and Industr!2 pp. +,#+5 of Ans%er.1 The above statistics do not include corporations and partnerships, %hile the fi ures on <ilipino establish"ents alread! include "ere "arket vendors, %hose capital is necessaril! s"all.. The above fi ures reveal that in percenta e distribution of assests and ross sales, alien participation has steadil! increased durin the !ears. It is true, of course, that <ilipinos have the ed e in the nu"ber of retailers, but aliens "ore than "ake up for the nu"erical ap throu h their assests and ross sales %hich avera e bet%een si& and seven ti"es those of the ver! "an! <ilipino retailers. Nu"bers in retailers, here, do not i"pl! superiorit!2 the alien invests "ore capital, bu!s and sells si& to seven ti"es "ore, and ains "uch "ore. The sa"e official report, pointin out to the kno%n predo"inance of forei n ele"ents in the retail trade, re"arks that the <ilipino retailers %ere lar el! en a ed in "inor retailer enterprises. As observed b! respondents, the native invest"ent is thinl! spread, and the <ilipino retailer is practicall! helpless in "atters of capital, credit, price and suppl!. d. Alien control and threat, sub.ect of apprehension in Constitutional con'ention. A It is this do"ination and control, %hich %e believe has been sufficientl! sho%n to e&ist, that is the le islatureGs tar et in the enact"ent of the disputed nationali'ation %ould never have been adopted. The fra"ers of our Constitution also believed in the e&istence of this alien do"inance and control %hen the! approved a resolution cate oricall! declarin a"on other thin s, that .it is the sense of the Convention that the public interest re$uires the nationali'ation of the retail trade2 . . . .. 0II Arue o, The <ra"in of the Philippine Constitution, ::3#::7, $uoted on pa e :; of Petitioner.1 That %as t%ent!#t%o !ears a o2 and the events since then have not been either pleasant or co"fortin . (ean 9inco of the 8niversit! of the Philippines Colle e of Da%, co""entin on the patri"on! clause of the Prea"ble opines that the fathers of our Constitution %ere "erel! translatin the eneral preoccupation of <ilipinos .of the dan ers fro" alien interests that had alread! brou ht under their control the co""ercial and other econo"ic activities of the countr!. 09inco, Phil. Political Da%, +-th ed., p. ++612 and anal!'in the concern of the "e"bers of the constitutional convention for the econo"ic life of the citi'ens, in connection %ith the nationalistic provisions of the Constitution, he sa!s/ But there has been a eneral feelin that alien do"inance over the econo"ic life of the countr! is not desirable and that if such a situation should re"ain, political independence alone is no uarantee to national stabilit! and stren th. <ilipino private capital is not bi enou h to %rest fro" alien hands the control of the national econo"!. Moreover, it is but of recent for"ation and

0Esti"ated Assets and @ross 9ales of Retail Establish"ents, B! Eear and Nationalit! of C%ners, Bench"ark/ +56, Census, issued

hence, lar el! ine&perienced, ti"id and hesitant. 8nder such conditions, the overn"ent as the instru"entalit! of the national %ill, has to step in and assu"e the initiative, if not the leadership, in the stru le for the econo"ic freedo" of the nation in so"e%hat the sa"e %a! that it did in the crusade for political freedo". Thus . . . it 0the Constitution1 envisa es an or ani'ed "ove"ent for the protection of the nation not onl! a ainst the possibilities of ar"ed invasion but also a ainst its econo"ic sub)u ation b! alien interests in the econo"ic field. 0Phil. Political Da% b! 9inco, +-th ed., p. 6;:.1 Belief in the e&istence of alien control and predo"inance is felt in other $uarters. <ilipino business"en, "anufacturers and producers believe so2 the! fear the dan ers co"in fro" alien control, and the! e&press senti"ents of econo"ic independence. Bitness thereto is Resolution No. +, approved on Hul! +,, +547, of the <ifth National convention of <ilipino Business"en, and a si"ilar resolution, approved on March 3-, +546, of the 9econd National Convention of Manufacturers and Producers. The "an in the street also believes, and fears, alien predo"inance and control2 so our ne%spapers, %hich have editoriall! pointed out not onl! to control but to alien stran lehold. Be, therefore, find alien do"ination and control to be a fact, a realit! proved b! official statistics, and felt b! all the sections and roups that co"pose the <ilipino co""unit!. e. #angers of alien control and dominance in retail . A But the dan ers arisin fro" alien participation in the retail trade does not see" to lie in the predo"inance alone2 there is a prevailin feelin that such predo"inance "a! trul! endan er the national interest. Bith a"ple capital, unit! of purpose and action and thorou h or ani'ation, alien retailers and "erchants can act in such co"plete unison and concert on such vital "atters as the fi&in of prices, the deter"ination of the a"ount of oods or articles to be "ade available in the "arket, and even the choice of the oods or articles the! %ould or %ould not patroni'e or distribute, that fears of dislocation of the national econo"! and of the co"plete subservience of national econo"! and of the consu"in public are not entirel! unfounded. Nationals, producers and consu"ers alike can be placed co"pletel! at their "erc!. This is easil! illustrated. 9uppose an article of dail! use is desired to be prescribed b! the aliens, because the producer or i"porter does not offer the" sufficient profits, or because a ne% co"petin article offers bi er profits for its introduction. All that aliens %ould do is to a ree to refuse to sell the first article, eli"inatin it fro" their stocks, offerin the ne% one as a substitute. Fence, the producers or i"porters of the prescribed article, or its consu"ers, find the article suddenl! out of the prescribed article, or its consu"ers, find the article suddenl! out of circulation. <reedo" of trade is thus curtailed and free enterprise correspondin l! suppressed. Be can even o farther than theoretical illustrations to sho% the pernicious influences of alien do"ination. @rave abuses have characteri'ed the

e&ercise of the retail trade b! aliens. It is a fact %ithin )udicial notice, %hich courts of )ustice "a! not properl! overlook or i nore in the interests of truth and )ustice, that there e&ists a eneral feelin on the part of the public that alien participation in the retail trade has been attended b! a pernicious and intolerable practices, the "ention of a fe% of %hich %ould suffice for our purposes2 that at so"e ti"e or other the! have cornered the "arket of essential co""odities, like corn and rice, creatin artificial scarcities to )ustif! and enhance profits to unreasonable proportions2 that the! have hoarded essential foods to the inconvenience and pre)udice of the consu"in public, so "uch so that the @overn"ent has had to establish the National Rice and Corn Corporation to save the public fro" their continuous hoardin practices and tendencies2 that the! have violated price control la%s, especiall! on foods and essential co""odities, such that the le islature 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! have secret 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 cater or !ield to their de"ands, in unla%ful restraint of freedo" of trade and enterprise. The! are believed b! the public to have evaded ta& la%s, s"u led oods and "one! into and out of the land, violated i"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 en a ed 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 to unscrupulous aliens have been "ade both b! the @overn"ent and b! their o%n la%ful diplo"atic representatives, action %hich i"pliedl! ad"its a prevailin feelin about the e&istence of "an! of the above practices. The circu"stances above set forth create %ell founded fears that %orse thin s "a! co"e in the future. The present do"inance of the alien retailer, especiall! in the bi centers of population, therefore, beco"es a potential source of dan er on occasions of %ar or other cala"it!. Be do not have here in this countr! isolated roups of har"less aliens retailin oods a"on nationals2 %hat %e have are %ell or ani'ed and po%erful roups that do"inate the distribution of oods and co""odities in the co""unities and bi centers of population. The! o%e no alle iance or lo!alt! to the 9tate, and the 9tate cannot rel! upon the" in ti"es of crisis or e"er enc!. Bhile the national holds his life, his person and his propert! sub)ect to the needs of his countr!, the alien "a! even beco"e the potential ene"! of the 9tate. f. La+ enacted in interest of national economic sur'i'al and security . A Be are full! satisfied upon a consideration of all the facts and circu"stances that the disputed la% is not the product of racial hostilit!, pre)udice or discri"ination, but the e&pression of the le iti"ate desire 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 ri htl! or %ron l!, to its disadvanta e. The la% is clearl! in the interest of the public, na! of the national securit! itself, and indisputabl! falls %ithin the scope of police po%er, thru %hich and b! %hich the 9tate insures its e&istence and securit! and the supre"e %elfare of its citi'ens. ?I. "he !/ual Protection Limitation a. Cb)ections to alien participation in retail trade. A 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 aliena e is the root and cause of the distinction bet%een the alien and the national as a trader. The alien resident o%es alle iance to the countr! of his birth or his adopted countr!2 his sta! here is for personal convenience2 he is attracted b! the lure of ain and profit. Fis ai" or purpose of sta!, %e ad"it, is neither ille iti"ate nor i""oral, but he is naturall! lackin in that spirit of lo!alt! and enthusias" for this countr! %here he te"poraril! sta!s and "akes his livin , or of that spirit of re ard, s!"path! and consideration for his <ilipino custo"ers as %ould prevent hi" fro" takin advanta e of their %eakness and e&ploitin the". The faster he "akes his pile, the earlier can the alien o back to his beloved countr! and his beloved kin and countr!"en. The e&perience of the countr! is that the alien retailer has sho%n such utter disre ard for his custo"ers and the people on %ho" he "akes his profit, that it has been found necessar! to adopt the le islation, radical as it "a! see". Another ob)ection to the alien retailer in this countr! is that he never reall! "akes a enuine contribution to national inco"e and %ealth. Fe undoubtedl! contributes to eneral distribution, but the 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 and te"porar!, it %ould indeed be ill#advised to continue entrustin the ver! i"portant function of retail distribution to his hands. The practices resorted to b! aliens in the control of distribution, as alread! pointed out above, their secret "anipulations of stocks of co""odities and prices, their utter disre ard of the %elfare of their custo"ers and of the ulti"ate happiness of the people of the nation of %hich the! are "ere uests, %hich practices, "anipulations and disre ard do not attend the e&ercise of the trade b! the nationals, sho% the e&istence of real and actual, positive and funda"ental differences bet%een an alien and a national %hich full! )ustif! the le islative classification adopted in the retail trade "easure. These differences are certainl! a valid reason for the 9tate to prefer the national over the alien in the retail trade. Be %ould be doin violence to fact and realit! %ere %e to hold that no reason or round for a le iti"ate distinction can be found bet%een one and the other. b. #ifference in alien aims and purposes sufficient basis for distinction . A

The above ob)ectionable characteristics of the e&ercise of the retail trade b! the aliens, %hich are actual and real, furnish sufficient rounds for le islative classification of retail traders into nationals and aliens. 9o"e "a! disa ree %ith the %isdo" of the le islatureGs classification. To this %e ans%er, that this is the prero ative of the la%#"akin po%er. 9ince the Court finds that the classification is actual, real and reasonable, and all persons of one class are treated alike, and as it cannot be said that the classification is patentl! unreasonable and unfounded, it is in dut! bound to declare that the le islature acted %ithin its le iti"ate prero ative and it can not declare that the act transcends the li"it of e$ual protection established b! the Constitution. Broadl! speakin , the po%er of the le islature to "ake distinctions and classifications a"on persons is not curtailed or denied b! the e$ual protection of the la%s clause. The le islative po%er ad"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 earlier cited, %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$ual protection clause to a la% sou ht to be voided as contrar! thereto/ . . . . .+. The e$ual protection clause of the <ourteenth A"end"ent does not take fro" the state the po%er to classif! in the adoption of police la%s, but ad"its of the e&ercise of the %ide scope of discretion in that re ard, and avoids %hat is done onl! %hen it is %ithout an! reasonable basis, and therefore is purel! arbitrar!. 3. A classification havin so"e reasonable basis does not offend a ainst that clause "erel! because it is not "ade %ith "athe"atical nicet!, or because in practice it results in so"e ine$ualit!. 7. Bhen the classification in such a la% is called in $uestion, if an! state of facts reasonabl! can be conceived that %ould sustain it, the e&istence of that state of facts at the ti"e the la% %as enacted "ust be assu"ed. 6. Cne %ho assails the classification in such a la% "ust carr! the burden of sho%in that it does not rest upon an! reasonable basis but is essentiall! arbitrar!.. c. Authorities recognizing citizenship as basis for classification . A The $uestion as to %hether or not citi'enship is a le al and valid round for classification has alread! been affir"ativel! decided in this )urisdiction as %ell as in various courts in the 8nited 9tates. In the case of Smith 0ell 1 Co. 's. &ati'idad, 6- Phil. +7:, %here the validit! of Act No. 3;:+ of the Philippine De islature %as in issue, because of a condition therein li"itin the o%nership of vessels en a ed in coast%ise trade to corporations for"ed b! citi'ens of the Philippine Islands or the 8nited 9tates, thus den!in the ri ht to aliens, it %as held that the Philippine De islature did not violate the e$ual protection clause of the Philippine Bill of Ri hts. The le islature in enactin the la% had as ulti"ate purpose the encoura e"ent

of Philippine shipbuildin and the safet! for these Islands fro" forei n interlopers. Be held that this %as a valid e&ercise of the police po%er, and all presu"ptions are in favor of its constitutionalit!. In substance, %e held that the li"itation of do"estic o%nership of vessels en a ed in coast%ise trade to citi'ens of the Philippines does not violate the e$ual protection of the la% and due process or la% clauses of the Philippine Bill of Ri hts. In renderin said decision %e $uoted %ith approval the concurrin opinion of Hustice Hohnson in the case of Gibbons 's. Ogden, 5 Bheat., I, as follo%s/ .Dicensin acts, in fact, in le islation, are universall! restrainin acts2 as, for e&a"ple, acts licensin a"in houses, retailers of spirituous li$uors, etc. The act, in this instance, is distinctl! of that character, and for"s part of an e&tensive s!ste", the ob)ect of %hich is to encoura e A"erican shippin , and place the" on an e$ual footin %ith the shippin of other nations. Al"ost ever! co""ercial nation reserves to its o%n sub)ects a "onopol! of its coastin trade2 and a countervailin privile e in favor of A"erican shippin is conte"plated, in the %hole le islation of the 8nited 9tates on this sub)ect. It is not to ive the vessel an A"erican character, that the license is ranted2 that effect has been correctl! attributed to the act of her enroll"ent. But it is to confer on her A"erican privile es, as contra distin uished fro" forei n2 and to preserve the @overn"ent fro" fraud b! forei ners2 in surreptitiousl! intrudin the"selves into the A"erican co""ercial "arine, as %ell as frauds upon the revenue in the trade coast%ise, that this %hole s!ste" is pro)ected.. The rule in eneral is as follo%s/ Aliens are under no special constitutional protection %hich forbids a classification other%ise )ustified si"pl! because the li"itation of the class falls alon the lines of nationalit!. That %ould be re$uirin a hi her de ree 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 status bet%een citi'ens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the e&ercise of 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 of ha%kers and peddlers, %hich provided that no one can obtain a license unless he is, or has declared his 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 le islature to li"it the business of those %ho are supposed to have re ard for the %elfare, ood order and happiness of the co""unit!, and the court cannot $uestion this )ud "ent and conclusion. In 0loomfield 's. State, 55 N. E. 7-5 0Chio, +5+31, a statute %hich prevented certain persons, a"on the" aliens, fro" en a in in the traffic of li$uors, %as found not to 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 life as

to enable hi" to appreciate the relation of this particular business to our entire social fabric., and %as not, therefore, invalid. In Chio e& rel. Clar-e 's. #ec-ebach, 3;6 8. 9. 753, ;+ D. ed. ++4 0+53:1, the 8.9. 9upre"e Court had under consideration an ordinance of the cit! of Cincinnati prohibitin the issuance of licenses 0pools and billiard roo"s1 to aliens. It held that plainl! irrational discri"ination a ainst aliens is prohibited, but it does not follo% that alien race and alle iance "a! not bear in so"e instances such a relation to a le iti"ate ob)ect of le islation as to be "ade the basis of per"itted classification, and that it could not state that the le islation is clearl! %ron 2 and that latitude "ust be allo%ed for the le islative appraise"ent of local conditions and for the le islative choice of "ethods for controllin an apprehended evil. The case of State 's. Carrol, +36 N. E. +35 0Chio, +5+51 is a parallel case to the one at bar. In Asa-ura 's. City of Seattle, 3+- P. 7- 0Bashin ton, +5331, the business of pa%n brookin %as considered as havin tendencies in)urin public interest, and li"itin it to citi'ens is %ithin the scope of police po%er. A si"ilar statute den!in aliens the ri ht to en a e in auctioneerin %as also sustained in 3right 's. %ay, D.R.A., +5+4 P. +4+ 0Minnesota, +5+61. 9o also in Anton 's. 4an 3in-le, 35; <. 76- 0Cre on, +5361, the court said that aliens are )udiciall! kno%n to have different interests, kno%led e, attitude, ps!cholo ! and lo!alt!, hence the prohibitions of issuance of licenses to the" for the business of pa%nbroker, pool, billiard, card roo", dance hall, is not an infrin e"ent of constitutional ri hts. In "emplar 's. %ichigan State 0oard of !5aminers, 5- N.B. +-4, 0Michi an, +5-31, a la% prohibitin the licensin of aliens as barbers %as held void, but the reason for the decision %as the courtGs findin s that the e&ercise of the business b! the aliens does not in an! %a! affect the "orals, the health, or even the convenience of the co""unit!. In "a-ahashi 's. ish and Game Commission, 53 D. ed. +6;5 0+56;1, a California statute bannin the issuance of co""ercial fishin licenses to person ineli ible to citi'enship %as held void, because the la% conflicts %ith <ederal po%er over i""i ration, and because there is no public interest in the "ere clai" of o%nership of the %aters and the fish in the", so there %as no ade$uate )ustification for the discri"ination. It further added that the la% %as the out ro%th of anta onis" to%ard the persons of Hapanese ancestr!. Fo%ever, t%o Hustices dissented on the theor! that fishin ri hts have been treated traditionall! as natural resources. In raser 's. %cCon+ay 1 "arley Co., ,3 <ed. 34; 0Penns!lvania, +,5;1, a state la% %hich i"posed a ta& on ever! e"plo!er of forei n#born unnaturali'ed "ale persons over 3+ !ears of a e, %as declared void because the court found that there %as no reason for the classification and the ta& %as an arbitrar! deduction fro" the dail! %a e of an e"plo!ee. d. Authorities contra e5plained. A It is true that so"e decisions of the <ederal court and of the 9tate courts in the 8nited 9tates hold that the distinction bet%een aliens and citi'ens is not a valid round for classification. But in this decision the la%s declared invalid %ere found to be either arbitrar!, unreasonable or capricious, or %ere the result or product of racial anta onis" and hostilit!, and there %as

no $uestion of public interest involved or pursued. In 6u Cong !ng 's. "rinidad, ;- D. ed. +-45 0+5341, the 8nited 9tates 9upre"e Court declared invalid a Philippine la% "akin unla%ful the keepin of books of account in an! lan ua e other than En lish, 9panish or an! other local dialect, but the "ain reasons for the decisions are/ 0+1 that if Chinese %ere driven out of business there %ould be no other s!ste" of distribution, and 031 that the Chinese %ould fall pre! to all kinds of fraud, because the! %ould be deprived of their ri ht to be advised of their business and to direct its conduct. The real reason for the decision, therefore, is the courtGs belief that no public benefit %ould be derived fro" the operations of the la% and on the other hand it %ould deprive Chinese of so"ethin indispensable for carr!in on their business. In 6ic- 3o 's. 2op-ins, 7- D. ed 33- 0+,,41 an ordinance conferrin po%ers on officials to %ithhold consent in the operation of laundries both as to persons and place, %as declared invalid, but the court said that the po%er ranted %as arbitrar!, that there %as no reason for the discri"ination %hich attended the ad"inistration and i"ple"entation of the la%, and that the "otive thereof %as "ere racial hostilit!. In State 's. %ontgomery, 6; A. +:4 0Maine, +5--1, a la% prohibitin aliens to en a e as ha%kers and peddlers %as declared void, because the discri"ination bore no reasonable and )ust relation to the act in respect to %hich the classification %as proposed. The case at bar is radicall! different, and the facts "ake the" so. As %e alread! have said, aliens do not naturall! possess the s!"pathetic consideration and re ard for the custo"ers %ith %ho" the! co"e in dail! contact, nor the patriotic desire to help bolster the nationGs econo"!, e&cept in so far as it enhances their profit, nor the lo!alt! and alle iance %hich the national o%es to the land. These li"itations on the $ualifications of the aliens have been sho%n on "an! occasions and instances, especiall! in ti"es of crisis and e"er enc!. Be can do no better than borro% the lan ua e of Anton 's. 4an 3in-le, 35; <. 76-, 763, to drive ho"e the realit! and si nificance of the distinction bet%een the alien and the national, thus/ . . . . It "a! be )udiciall! kno%n, ho%ever, that alien co"in into this countr! are %ithout the inti"ate kno%led e of our la%s, custo"s, and usa es that our o%n people have. 9o it is like%ise kno%n that certain classes of aliens are of different ps!cholo ! fro" our fello% countr!"en. <urther"ore, it is natural and reasonable to suppose that the forei n born, %hose alle iance is first to their o%n countr!, and %hose ideals of overn"ental environ"ent and control have been en endered and for"ed under entirel! different re i"es and political s!ste"s, have not the sa"e inspiration for the public %eal, nor are the! as %ell disposed to%ard the 8nited 9tates, as those %ho b! citi'enship, are a part of the overn"ent itself. <urther enlar e"ent, is unnecessar!. I have said enou h so that obviousl! it cannot be affir"ed %ith absolute confidence that the De islature %as %ithout plausible reason for "akin the classification, and therefore appropriate

discri"inations a ainst aliens as it relates to the sub)ect of le islation. . . . . ?II. "he #ue Process of La+ Limitation. a. $easonability, the test of the limitation7 determination by legislature decisi'e. A Be no% co"e to due process as a li"itation on the e&ercise of the police po%er. It has been stated b! the hi hest authorit! in the 8nited 9tates that/ . . . . And the uarant! of due process, as has often been held, de"ands onl! that the la% shall not be unreasonable, arbitrar! or capricious, and that the "eans selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the sub)ect sou ht to be attained. . . . . &&& &&& &&&

9o far as the re$uire"ent of due process is concerned and in the absence of other constitutional restriction a state is free to adopt %hatever econo"ic polic! "a! reasonabl! be dee"ed to pro"ote public %elfare, and to enforce that polic! b! le islation adapted to its purpose. The courts are %ithout authorit! either to declare such polic!, or, %hen it is declared b! the le islature, to override it. If the la%s passed are seen to have a reasonable relation to a proper le islative purpose, and are neither arbitrar! nor discri"inator!, the re$uire"ents of due process are satisfied, and )udicial deter"ination to that effect renders a court functus officio. . . . 0Nebbia vs. Ne% Eork, ;, D. ed. 56-, 54-, 54;.1 Another authorit! states the principle thus/ . . . . Too "uch si nificance cannot be iven to the %ord .reasonable. in considerin the scope of the police po%er in a constitutional sense, for the test used to deter"ine the constitutionalit! of the "eans e"plo!ed b! the le islature is to in$uire %hether the restriction it i"poses on ri hts secured to individuals b! the Bill of Ri hts are unreasonable, and not %hether it i"poses an! restrictions on such ri hts. . . . &&& &&& &&&

. . . . A statute to be %ithin this po%er "ust also be reasonable in its operation upon the persons %ho" it affects, "ust not be for the anno!ance of a particular class, and "ust not be undul! oppressive. 0++ A". Hur. 9ec. 7-3., +/+1# +-;6#+-;4.1

In the case of La+ton 's. Steele, 7, D. ed. 7,4, 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 distin uished fro" those of a particular class, re$uire such interference2 and second, that the "eans are reasonabl! necessar! for the acco"plish"ent of the purpose, and not undul! oppressive upon individuals. . . . Prata 8nderta-ing Co. 's. State 0oard of !mbalming , +-6 ADR, 7,5, 754, fi&es this test of constitutionalit!/ In deter"inin %hether a iven act of the De islature, passed in the e&ercise of the police po%er to re ulate the operation of a business, is or is not constitutional, one of the first $uestions to be considered b! the court is %hether the po%er as e&ercised has a sufficient foundation in reason in connection %ith the "atter involved, or is an arbitrar!, oppressive, and capricious use of that po%er, %ithout substantial relation to the health, safet!, "orals, co"fort, and eneral %elfare of the public. b. Petitioner9s argument considered . A PetitionerGs "ain ar u"ent is that retail is a co""on, ordinar! occupation, one of those privile es lon a o reco ni'ed as essential to the orderl! pursuant of happiness b! free "en2 that it is a ainful and honest occupation and therefore be!ond the po%er of the le islature to prohibit and penali'ed. This ar u"ents overlooks fact and realit! and rests on an incorrect assu"ption and pre"ise, i.e., that in this countr! %here the occupation is en a ed in b! petitioner, it has been so en a ed b! hi", b! the alien in an honest creditable and uni"peachable "anner, %ithout har" or in)ur! to the citi'ens and %ithout ulti"ate dan er to their econo"ic peace, tran$uilit! and %elfare. But the De islature has found, as %e have also found and indicated, that the privile e has been so rossl! abused b! the alien, thru the ille iti"ate use of pernicious desi ns and practices, that he no% en)o!s a "onopolistic control of the occupation and threatens a deadl! stran lehold on the nationGs econo"! endan erin the national securit! in ti"es of crisis and e"er enc!. The real $uestion at issue, therefore, is not that posed b! petitioner, %hich overlooks and i nores the facts and circu"stances, but this, Is the e&clusion in the future of aliens fro" the retail trade unreasonable. Arbitrar! capricious, takin into account the ille iti"ate and pernicious for" and "anner in %hich the aliens have heretofore en a ed therein* As thus correctl! stated the ans%er is clear. The la% in $uestion is dee"ed absolutel! necessar! to brin about the desired le islative ob)ective, i.e., to free national econo"! fro" alien control and do"inance. It is not necessaril! unreasonable because it affects private ri hts and privile es 0++ A". Hur. pp. +-,-#+-,+.1 The test of reasonableness of a la% is the

appropriateness or ade$uac! under all circu"stances of the "eans adopted to carr! out its purpose into effect 0 :d.1 Hud ed b! this test, disputed le islation, %hich is not "erel! reasonable but actuall! necessar!, "ust be considered not to have infrin ed the constitutional 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 re ulate the retail business. Its purpose is to prevent persons %ho are not citi'ens of the Philippines fro" havin a stran le hold upon our econo"ic life. If the persons %ho control this vital arter! of our econo"ic life are the ones %ho o%e no alle iance to this Republic, %ho have no profound devotion to our free institutions, and %ho have no per"anent stake in our peopleGs %elfare, %e are not reall! the "asters of our destin!. All aspects of our life, even our national securit!, %ill be at the "erc! of other people. In seekin to acco"plish the fore oin purpose, %e do not propose to deprive persons %ho are not citi'ens of the Philippines of their "eans of livelihood. Bhile this bill seeks to take a%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 endan er our national securit! it respects e&istin ri hts. The approval of this bill is necessar! for our national survival. If political independence is a le iti"ate aspiration of a people, then econo"ic independence is none the less le iti"ate. <reedo" and libert! are not real and positive if the people are sub)ect to the econo"ic control and do"ination of others, especiall! if not of their o%n race or countr!. The re"oval and eradication of the shackles of forei n econo"ic control and do"ination, is one of the noblest "otives that a national le islature "a! pursue. It is i"possible to conceive that le islation that seeks to brin it about can infrin e the constitutional li"itation of due process. The attain"ent of a le iti"ate aspiration of a people can never be be!ond the li"its of le islative authorit!. c. La+ e5pressly held by Constitutional Con'ention to be +ithin the sphere of legislati'e action. A The fra"ers of the Constitution could not have intended to i"pose the constitutional restrictions of due process on the attain"ent of such a noble "otive as freedo" fro" econo"ic control and do"ination, thru the e&ercise of the police po%er. The fathers of the Constitution "ust have iven to the le islature full authorit! and po%er to enact le islation that %ould pro"ote the supre"e happiness of the people, their freedo" and libert!. Cn the precise issue no% before us, the! e&pressl! "ade their

voice clear2 the! adopted a resolution e&pressin their belief that the le islation in $uestion is %ithin the scope of the le islative po%er. Thus the! declared the their Resolution/ That it is the sense of the Convention that the public interest re$uires the nationali'ation of retail trade2 but it abstain fro" approvin the a"end"ent introduced b! the (ele ate for Manila, Mr. Araneta, and others on this "atter because it is convinced that the National Asse"bl! is authori'ed to pro"ul ate a la% %hich li"its to <ilipino and A"erican citi'ens the privile e to en a e in the retail trade. 0++ Arue o, The <ra"in of the Philippine Constitution, $uoted on pa es :: and :; of the Me"orandu" for the Petitioner.1 It %ould do %ell to refer to the nationalistic tendenc! "anifested in various provisions of the Constitution. Thus in the prea"ble, a principle ob)ective is the conservation of the patri"on! of the nation and as corollar! the provision li"itin to citi'ens of the Philippines the e&ploitation, develop"ent and utili'ation of its natural resources. And in 9ection , of Article >I?, it is provided that .no franchise, certificate, or an! other for" of authori'ation for the operation of the public utilit! shall be ranted e&cept to citi'ens of the Philippines.. The nationali'ation of the retail trade is onl! a continuance of the nationalistic protective polic! laid do%n as a pri"ar! ob)ective of the Constitution. Can it be said that a la% i"bued %ith the sa"e purpose and spirit underl!in "an! of the provisions of the Constitution is unreasonable, invalid and unconstitutional* The seriousness of the De islatureGs concern for the pli ht of the nationals as "anifested in the approval of the radical "easures is, therefore, full! )ustified. It %ould have been recreant to its duties to%ards the countr! and its people %ould it vie% the sorr! pli ht of the nationals %ith the co"placenc! and refuse or ne lect to adopt a re"ed! co""ensurate %ith the de"ands of public interest and national survival. As the repositor! of the soverei n po%er of le islation, the De islature %as in dut! bound to face the proble" and "eet, throu h ade$uate "easures, the dan er and threat that alien do"ination of retail trade poses to national econo"!. d. Pro'isions of la+ not unreasonable. A A cursor! stud! of the provisions of the la% i""ediatel! reveals ho% tolerant, ho% reasonable the De islature has been. The la% is "ade prospective and reco ni'es the ri ht and privile e of those alread! en a ed in the occupation to continue therein durin the rest of their lives2 and si"ilar reco nition of the ri ht to continue is accorded associations of aliens. The ri ht or privile e is denied to those onl! upon conviction of certain offenses. In the deliberations of the Court on this case, attention %as called to the fact that the privile e should not have been denied to children and heirs of aliens no% en a ed in the retail trade. 9uch provision %ould defeat the la% itself, its ai"s and purposes. Beside, the e&ercise of

le islative discretion is not sub)ect to )udicial revie%. It is %ell settled that the Court %ill not in$uire into the "otives of the De islature, nor pass upon eneral "atters of le islative )ud "ent. The De islature is pri"aril! the )ud e of the necessit! of an enact"ent or of an! of its provisions, and ever! presu"ption is in favor of its validit!, and thou h the Court "a! hold vie%s inconsistent %ith the %isdo" of the la%, it "a! not annul the le islation if not palpabl! in e&cess of the le islative po%er. <urther"ore, the test of the validit! of a la% attacked as a violation of due process, is not its reasonableness, but its unreasonableness, and %e find the provisions are not unreasonable. These principles also ans%er various other ar u"ents raised a ainst the la%, so"e of %hich are/ that the la% does not pro"ote eneral %elfare2 that thousands of aliens %ould be thro%n out of e"plo!"ent2 that prices %ill increase because of the eli"ination of co"petition2 that there is no need for the le islation2 that ade$uate replace"ent is proble"atical2 that there "a! be eneral breakdo%n2 that there %ould be repercussions fro" forei ners2 etc. Man! of these ar u"ents are directed a ainst the supposed %isdo" of the la% %hich lies solel! %ithin the le islative prero ative2 the! do not i"port invalidit!. ?III. Alleged defect in the title of the la+ A subordinate round or reason for the alle ed invalidit! of the la% is the clai" that the title thereof is "isleadin or deceptive, as it conceals the real purpose of the bill %hich is to nationali'e the retail business and prohibit aliens fro" en a in therein. The constitutional provision %hich is clai"ed to be violated in 9ection 3+ 0+1 of Article ?I, %hich reads/ No bill %hich "a! be enacted in the la% shall e"brace "ore than one sub)ect %hich shall be e&pressed in the title of the bill. Bhat the above provision prohibits is duplicit!, that is, if its title co"pletel! fails to appraise the le islators or the public of the nature, scope and conse$uences of the la% or its operation 0I 9utherland, 9tatutor! Construction, 9ec. +;-;, p. 35;.1 A cursor! consideration of the title and the provisions of the bill fails to sho% the presence of duplicit!. It is true that the ter" .re ulate. does not and "a! not readil! and at first lance conve! the idea of .nationali'ation. and .prohibition., %hich ter"s e&press the t%o "ain purposes and ob)ectives of the la%. But .re ulate. is a broader ter" than either prohibition or nationali'ation. Both of these have al%a!s been included %ithin the ter" re ulation. 8nder the title of an act to .re ulate., the sale of into&icatin li$uors, the De islature "a! prohibit the sale of into&icatin li$uors. 09%eet vs. Cit! of Babash, 6+ Ind., ;2 $uoted in pa e 6+ of Ans%er.1 Bithin the "eanin of the Constitution re$uirin that the sub)ect of ever! act of the De islature shall be stated in the tale, the title to

re ulate the sale of into&icatin li$uors, etc.. sufficientl! e&presses the sub)ect of an act prohibiting the sale of such li$uors to "inors and to persons in the habit of ettin into&icated2 such "atters bein properl! included %ithin the sub)ect of re ulatin the sale. 0Billia"s vs. 9tate, 6, Ind. 7-:, 7-,, $uoted in p. 63 of Ans%er.1 The %ord .re ulate. is of broad i"port, and necessaril! implies some degree of restraint and prohibition of acts usuall! done in connection %ith the thin to be re ulated. Bhile %ord re ulate does not ordinaril! conve! "eanin of prohibit, there is no absolute reason %h! it should not have such "eanin %hen used in dele atin police po%er in connection %ith a thin the best or onl! efficacious re ulation 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 title need 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 eneral ter" .re ulate. instead of .nationali'e. or .prohibit.. <urther"ore, the la% also contains other rules for the re ulation of the retail trade %hich "a! not be included in the ter"s .nationali'ation. or .prohibition.2 so %ere the title chan ed fro" .re ulate. to .nationali'e. or .prohibit., there %ould have been "an! provisions not fallin %ithin the scope of the title %hich %ould have "ade the Act invalid. The use of the ter" .re ulate., therefore, is in accord %ith the principle overnin the draftin of statutes, under %hich a si"ple or eneral ter" should be adopted in the title, %hich %ould include all other provisions found in the bod! of the Act. Cne purpose of the constitutional directive that the sub)ect of a bill should be e"braced in its title is to apprise the le islators of the purposes, the nature and scope of its provisions, and prevent the enact"ent into la% of "atters %hich have received the notice, action and stud! of the le islators or of the public. In the case at bar it cannot be clai"ed that the le islators have been appraised of the nature of the la%, especiall! the nationali'ation and the prohibition provisions. The le islators took active interest in the discussion of the la%, and a reat "an! of the persons affected b! the prohibitions in the la% conducted a ca"pai n a ainst its approval. It cannot be clai"ed, therefore, that the reasons for declarin the la% invalid ever e&isted. The ob)ection "ust therefore, be overruled. I>. Alleged 'iolation of international treaties and obligations Another subordinate ar u"ent a ainst 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 Ri hts adopted b! the 8nited Nations @eneral Asse"bl!. Be find no "erit in the Nations Charter i"poses no strict or le al obli ations re ardin the ri hts and freedo" of their sub)ects 0Fans Ielsen, The Da% of the 8nited Nations, +54+ ed. pp. 35#731, and the

(eclaration of Fu"an Ri hts 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 Ri hts can be inferred the fact that "e"bers of the 8nited Nations Cr ani'ations, such as Nor%a! and (en"ark, prohibit forei ners fro" en a in in retail trade, and in "ost nations of the %orld la%s a ainst forei ners en a ed 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!.. But the nationals of China are not discri"inatin a ainst because nationals of all other countries, e&cept those of the 8nited 9tates, %ho are ranted special ri hts b! the Constitution, are all prohibited fro" en a in in the retail trade. But even supposin that the la% infrin es 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,, <ed. 34;, 3:-1, and the sa"e "a! never curtail or restrict the scope of the police po%er of the 9tate 0plaston vs. Penns!lvania, 4, D. ed. 475.1 >. Conclusion Resu"in %hat %e have set forth above %e hold that the disputed la% %as enacted to re"ed! a real actual threat and dan er to national econo"! posed b! alien do"inance and control of the retail business 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%n personalit! and insures its securit! and future2 that the la% does not violate the e$ual protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient rounds e&ist for the distinction bet%een alien and citi'en in the e&ercise of the occupation re ulated, nor the due process of la% clause, because the la% is prospective in operation and reco ni'es the privile e of aliens alread! en a ed in the occupation and reasonabl! protects their privile e2 that the %isdo" and efficac! of the la% to carr! out its ob)ectives appear to us to be plainl! evident A as a "atter of fact it see"s not onl! appropriate but actuall! necessar! A and that in an! case such "atter falls %ithin the prero ative of the De islature, %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" no duplicit! and has not "isled the le islators or the se "ent of the population affected2 and that it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict %ith treat! obli ations 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 a ree"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 been iven in the la% for the li$uidation of e&istin businesses %hen the ti"e co"es for the" to close. Cur le al dut!, ho%ever, is "erel! to deter"ine if the la% falls %ithin the scope of le islative authorit! and does not transcend the li"itations of due process and e$ual protection uaranteed in the Constitution. Re"edies a ainst the harshness of the la% should be addressed to the De islature2 the! are be!ond our po%er and )urisdiction. The petition is hereb! denied, %ith costs a ainst petitioner. Paras, C.;., 0engzon, $eyes, A., 0autista Angelo, Concepcion, $eyes, ;.0.L., !ndencia and eli5, ;;., concur. S")a'a&" O)inions PA/ILLA, J., concurrin and dissentin / I a ree to the proposition, principle or rule that courts "a! not in$uire into the %isdo" of an the Act passed b! the Con ress and dul! approved b! the President of the Republic. But the rule does not preclude courts fro" in$uirin and deter"inin %hether the Act offends a ainst a provision or provisions of the Constitution. I a" satisfied that the Act assailed as violative of the due process of la% and the e$ual protection of the la%s clauses of the Constitution does not infrin e 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 en a ed in the retail business. I a", ho%ever, unable to persuade "!self that it does not violate said clauses insofar as the Act applies to associations and partnerships referred to in the Act and to aliens, %ho are and have heretofore been en a ed in said business. Bhen the! did en a e in the retail business there %as no prohibition on or a ainst the" to en a e in it. The! assu"ed and believed in ood faith the! %ere entitled to en a ed in the business. The Act allo%s aliens to continue in business until their death 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 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 en a e 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 Con ress "a! i"pose reasonabl! upon the" b! subse$uent le islation. + But the prohibition to en a e in the retail business b! associations and partnerships, the capital of %hich is not %holl! o%ned b! citi'en of the Philippines, after ten !ears fro" the date of the approval of the Act, even

before the end of the ter" of their e&istence as a reed upon b! the associates and partners, and b! alien heirs to %ho" the retail business is trans"itted b! the death of an alien en a ed in the business, or b! his e&ecutor or ad"inistrator, a"ounts to a deprivation of their propert! %ithout due process of la%. To "! "ind, the ten#!ear period fro" the date of the approval of the Act or until the e&piration of the ter" of the e&istence of the association and partnership, %hichever event co"es first, and the si&#"onth period ranted to alien heirs of a deceased alien, his e&ecutor or ad"inistrator, to li$uidate the business, do not cure the defect of the la%, because the effect of the prohibition is to co"pel the" to sell or dispose of their business. The price obtainable at such forced sale of the business %ould be inade$uate to rei"burse and co"pensate the associates or partners of the associations or partnership, and the alien heirs of a deceased alien, en a ed in the retail business for the capital invested in it. The stock of "erchandise bou ht and sold at retail does not alone constitute the business. The ood%ill that the association, partnership and the alien had built up durin a lon period of effort, patience and perseverance for"s part of such business. The constitutional provisions that no person shall be deprived of his propert! %ithout due process of la%3 and that no person shall be denied the e$ual protection of the la%s7 %ould have no "eanin as applied to associations or partnership and alien heirs of an alien en a ed in the retail business if the! %ere to be co"pelled to sell or dispose of their business %ithin ten !ears fro" the date of the approval of the Act and before the end of the ter" of the e&istence of the associations and partnership as a reed upon b! the associations and partners and %ithin si& "onths after the death of their predecessor#in#interest. The authors of the Constitution %ere vi ilant, careful and 'ealous in the safe uard of the o%nership of private a ricultural lands %hich to ether %ith the lands of the public do"ain constitute the priceless patri"on! and "ainsta! of the nation2 !et, the! did not dee" it %ise and prudent to deprive aliens and their heirs of such lands.6 <or these reasons, I a" of the opinion that section + of the Act, insofar as it co"pels associations and partnership referred to therein to %ind up their retail business %ithin ten !ears fro" the date of the approval of the Act even before the e&pir! of the ter" of their e&istence as a reed upon b! the associates and partners and section 7 of the Act, insofar as it co"pels the aliens en a ed in the retail business in his lifeti"e his e&ecutor or ad"inistrator, to li$uidate the business, are invalid, for the! violate the due process of la% and the e$ual protection of the la%s clauses of the Constitution.