Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    01 Ichong v. Hernandez (G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Christine Casidsid
    1. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which nationalized the retail trade business and prohibited aliens from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to protect national economic independence and security. 2. The law did not violate due process because it only applied prospectively and reasonably protected the existing businesses of aliens. 3. There was no denial of equal protection because the distinction between aliens and citizens was a reasonable basis for differential treatment given differences in allegiance and aims, like aliens prioritizing profit over national interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    01 Ichong v. Hernandez (G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Christine Casidsid
    3K views2 pages
    1. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which nationalized the retail trade business and prohibited aliens from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to protect national economic independence and security. 2. The law did not violate due process because it only applied prospectively and reasonably protected the existing businesses of aliens. 3. There was no denial of equal protection because the distinction between aliens and citizens was a reasonable basis for differential treatment given differences in allegiance and aims, like aliens prioritizing profit over national interests.

    Original Title

    01 Ichong v. Hernandez (G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which nationalized the retail trade business and prohibited aliens from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to protect national economic independence and security. 2. The law did not violate due process because it only applied prospectively and reasonably protected the existing businesses of aliens. 3. There was no denial of equal protection because the distinction between aliens and citizens was a reasonable basis for differential treatment given differences in allegiance and aims, like aliens prioritizing profit over national interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3K views2 pages

    01 Ichong v. Hernandez (G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Christine Casidsid
    1. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which nationalized the retail trade business and prohibited aliens from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to protect national economic independence and security. 2. The law did not violate due process because it only applied prospectively and reasonably protected the existing businesses of aliens. 3. There was no denial of equal protection because the distinction between aliens and citizens was a reasonable basis for differential treatment given differences in allegiance and aims, like aliens prioritizing profit over national interests.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | DIGESTS | 1D

    Ichong v. Hernandez
    G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957

    TOPIC : Police Power, Due Process, Equal Protection of the Laws


    Casidsid, Christine Deah A.
    FACTS:
    ● ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Injunction and Mandamus.
    ● Springing from a positive nationalistic impulse, the law purports to protect citizen and country
    from the alien retailer and to translate national aspirations for economic independence and
    national security, rooted in the drive and urge for national survival and welfare.
    ● RA1180 (“Retail Trade Nationalization Law”) nationalizes the retail trade business. It provides,
    among others, a prohibition against aliens, and associations, partnerships, or corporations the
    capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, to engage directly or
    indirectly in the retail trade.
    ● However, it allows aliens to continue to engage in their businesses that already existed by May
    15, 1954, until their death or voluntary retirement.
    ● It also allows the heirs of aliens now engaged in the retail business who die, to continue such
    business for a period of six months for purposes of liquidation.
    ● Following its passage, petitioners whose businesses were affected by RA 1180 sought its
    annulment.

    ISSUE:
    1. Is RA 1180 a valid exercise of police power?
    2. Does it violate due process?
    3. Does the law deny the equal protection of the laws?

    PETITIONER (LAO H. ICHONG): RESPONDENTS (JAIME HERNANDEZ,


    - It denies to alien residents the equal protection Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO
    of the laws and deprives of their liberty and SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila):
    property without due process of law x x x - The Act was passed in the valid exercise of the
    - The Act violates international and treaty police power of the State, which exercise is
    obligations of the Republic of the Philippines x x authorized in the Constitution in the interest of
    x national economic survival.
    SC RULING:
    1. Yes. 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.

    If political independence is a legitimate aspiration of the people, then economic independence is


    none of less legitimate. Freedom and liberty are not real and positive, if the people are subject to the
    economic control and domination of others, especially if not of their own race or country. The law in
    question is deemed absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative objective, i.e., to free
    the national economy from alien control and dominance.
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 | DIGESTS | 1D

    2. No. The law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the
    occupation and reasonably protects their privilege.

    The test of reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness or adequacy under all circumstances of
    the means adopted to carry out its purpose into effect. Judged by this test, the disputed legislation,
    which is not merely reasonable but actually necessary, must be considered not to have infringed the
    constitutional limitation of reasonableness.

    3. No. The mere fact of alienage is the root and cause of the distinction between the alien and the
    national as a trader. The alien resident owes allegiance to the country of his birth or his adopted
    country; his stay here is for personal convenience; he is attracted by the lure of gain and profit.

    The faster he makes his pile, the earlier can the alien go back to his beloved country and his beloved
    kin and countrymen. The experience of the country is that the alien retailer has shown such utter
    disregard for his customers and the people on whom he makes his profit, that it has been found
    necessary to adopt the legislation. He never really makes a genuine contribution to national income
    and wealth. Thus, difference in alien aims and purposes sufficient basis for distinction.
    ADDITIONAL NOTES:
    • The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the
    police power.
    • 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 does not demand absolute equality among
    residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and
    conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.

    You might also like