Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 42 views

    Ichong V Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    mandy palad
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which prohibits non-Filipino citizens and corporations without full Filipino ownership from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to address the growing dominance of alien retailers in the economy, which threatened national stability and economic independence. While the law discriminates against aliens, this was not a violation of equal protection because aliens and citizens could be reasonably distinguished given aliens' lack of allegiance to the Philippines. The title of the law also did not violate the single subject rule or conflict with any international treaties.

    Copyright:

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

    Ichong V Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    mandy palad
    42 views6 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which prohibits non-Filipino citizens and corporations without full Filipino ownership from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to address the growing dominance of alien retailers in the economy, which threatened national stability and economic independence. While the law discriminates against aliens, this was not a violation of equal protection because aliens and citizens could be reasonably distinguished given aliens' lack of allegiance to the Philippines. The title of the law also did not violate the single subject rule or conflict with any international treaties.

    Original Description:

    for personal use

    Original Title

    Ichong v Hernandez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which prohibits non-Filipino citizens and corporations without full Filipino ownership from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to address the growing dominance of alien retailers in the economy, which threatened national stability and economic independence. While the law discriminates against aliens, this was not a violation of equal protection because aliens and citizens could be reasonably distinguished given aliens' lack of allegiance to the Philippines. The title of the law also did not violate the single subject rule or conflict with any international treaties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    42 views6 pages

    Ichong V Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    mandy palad
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180, which prohibits non-Filipino citizens and corporations without full Filipino ownership from engaging in retail trade. The Court found that the law was a valid exercise of police power to address the growing dominance of alien retailers in the economy, which threatened national stability and economic independence. While the law discriminates against aliens, this was not a violation of equal protection because aliens and citizens could be reasonably distinguished given aliens' lack of allegiance to the Philippines. The title of the law also did not violate the single subject rule or conflict with any international treaties.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    LAO ICHONG v.

    JAIME HERNANDEZ (Secretary if Finance), MARCELINO


    SARMIENTO (Manila City Treasurer)

    FACTS:
     Questions on due process, police power, and equal protection of laws
     The law affirms to protect citizen and the country from alien retailer
     RA 1180: AN ACT TO REGULATE THE RETAIL BUSINESS
    o Prohibits persons, not Filipino citizens, and associations/partnerships
    or corporations which are not wholly owned by Fil citizens, from
    engaging directly or indirectly in retail trade
    o An exception from the previous prohibition in favor of aliens are
    those actually engaged in said business on May 15 1954 (allowed to
    continue) unless their license are forfeited in accordance to law
    o An exception therefrom in favor of the citizens and juridical entities
    of the US
    o For the forfeiture of license (to engage in retail business) for violation
    of the laws on nationalization, labor and other laws relating to trade,
    commerce, and industry
    o Against an establishment or openings by aliens engaged in the retail
    business of additional stores or branches of retail
    o Requiring aliens engaged in retail to present registration with the
    proper authorities a verified statement concerning their business,
    giving among other matters (its nature, assets and liabilities)
    o And allowing the heirs of aliens now engaged in retail business who
    die, to continue such business for a period of six months for purpose
    of liquidation

    ISSUE:
     PETITIONER (Ichong) on behalf of other alien residents corporations and
    partnerships affected by RA 1180: ACTION TO OBTAIN A JUDICIAL
    DECLARATION THAT SAID ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and to enjoin the
    Secretary of Finance (Hernandez) and persons acting under him, specifically
    city (Sarmiento) and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions
    o It denies them (alien residents) equal protection of law and deprives
    them the liberty and property without due process
    o The act’s subject is not expressed in the title
    o It violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the
    PH
    o Its provisions are against the transmission by aliens of their business
    through hereditary succession,
    o And requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a corporation/entity to
    be entitled in engaging in the retail business violates Sections 1 and
    5, Article 13 and Section 8 of Article 14 of the Constitution

    HELD:
     SOLICITOR-GENERAL AND THE FISCAL OF MANILA ANSWERED THAT:
    o Act was passed in valid exercise of the State’s police power, an
    exercise which is authorized by the Constitution in the interest of
    economic survival
    o It has only one subject embraced in the title
    o No treaty or int’l obligation are violated
    o In relation to hereditary succession, only the form is affected but not
    the property value

     ON POLICE POWER: to which petitioner claims that its exercise in this case
    violates the constitutional requirements of due process and equal
    protection of laws

    o We cannot define the limits beforehand or scope of police power


    since the demands of society and nations are unpredictable
    o So, Constitution do not define its scope or extent,
    o What done is to set forth limitations to which the most important is
    the due process and equal protection clause
    o Police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest
    and welfare
     LIMITATIONS: Due Process and Equal Protection
    o Article 3, Section 1. (1) NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE,
    LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR ANY
    PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
    o These are not limited to citizens alone but are admittedly universal in
    application, regardless to any differences of race, color, or nationality
    (Yick Wo v. Hopkins)

     EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE


    o Is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, and hostile
    discrimination
    o Does not determine absolute equality among residents,
    o Simply a requirement that all persons shall be treated alike
    o It is not infringed by legislation

     The state can deprive person of life, liberty, and property, provided there
    is due process and that everyone if given equal protection of law
     To which the test is always reason

     RETAIL TRADE’ AND ITS IMPORTANCE


    o Foundation of community life
    o ALIEN RETAILERS: SLOWLY PREDOMINATES cities to which he even
    pioneers
    o In communities, aliens have replaced native retailers
    o Petitioner denies alien predominance
    o But statistics show that petitioner’s claim is false which was
    o PROVEN THROUGH STATISTICS between the 1935 Constitutional
    Convention Year and 1954 enactment of the Nationalization of the
    Retail Trade Act
    o The distribution of assets and gross sales’ percentage shows that
    ALIEN PARTICIPATION HAS STEADILY INCREASED THROUGH THE
    YEARS
    o It shows that Filipino retailers were largely engaged in minor retail
    enterprises only
    o Therefore, there are little native investments made
    o ALIEN DOMINANCE ON ECONOMY = RISKS POLITICAL
    INDEPENDENCE IN RELATION TO NATIONAL STABILITY
    o It also endangers national interest since alien retailers can act in
    unison and settle vital matters like fixing of prices and even goods to
    be made available
    o Therefor freedom of trade would be limited and free enterprise is
    suppressed
    o Witness to this phenomenon is Resolution No. 1 of the 5th National
    Convention of Filipino Businessmen, and a similar resolution of the
    2nd National Convention of Manufacturers and Producers
    o SC THEREFOR FIND ALIEN DOMINATION AND CONTROL TO BE A
    FACT and reality proven by statistics
    o Example. The government had to establish the National Rice and
    Corn Corporation to save the public from alien’s hoarding practices
    of essential food
    o Aliens do not owe allegiance to the State and the State cannot rely
    on them on times of crisis
    o LAW IS NOT A PRODUCT OF RACIAL PREJUDICE BUT AN EXPRESSION
    OF THE PEOPLE’S DETERMINATION TO FREE THE NATION OF
    WRONGLY AND UNJUST ECONOMIC SITUATION

     ON EQUAL PROTECTION: Does the law deny equal protection of laws?


    o Alien resident owes allegiance to his birth or adopted country
    o He is attracted by gain and profit
    o The gains and profits of an alien are not invested in industries that
    would help the country’s economy therefor he NEVER REALLY
    CONTRIBUTES TO NATIONAL WEALTH
    o With the given circumstances and characteristics of alien retail trade,
    it is the law-making power’s prerogative.
    o The LEGISLATURE ACTED WITHIN ITS LEGITIMATE PREROGATIVE
    o A law can be violative of constitutional limitation only when the
    classification is without reasonable basis
    o SC: PH Legislature did not violate the equal protection clause of Bill
    of Rights
    o SC: it is a valid exercise of police power
    o SC: It is reasonable, and requirements of due process are satisfied
    o Basis: ACTED TO PRESERVE GOVT FROM FOREIGN FRAUD (and
    safekeep national wealth)
    o Aliens do not naturally possess sympathetic consideration nor
    patriotic desire to help boost national economy nor allegiance
    o Approval of bill / The law which regulates retail business, and
    prevents people who are not citizen of the PH to endanger national
    economic life, while takes away a power that can be a disadvantage
    to persons who are not citizens of the PH, is necessary for national
    survival
    o Relation to the Constitution: Section 8, Article 14. No franchise,
    certificate or any form of authorization for the operation of public
    utility shall be granted except to PH citizens,
    o Nationalizes retail trade and THIS IS IN RESPECT OF THE
    CONSTITUTION’S NATIONALISTIC PROTECTIVE POLICY

     ON TITLE (SUBJECT) DEFECT: Title is misleading


    o Consti: SECTION 21, ARTICLE 6. No bill may be enacted in the law
    shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the
    title of the bill
    o What that provision prohibits is duplicity
    o General rule: Use general terms in the title of the bill
    o That the title does not need to be an index to the entire context of
    the law
    o It cannot be claimed that reasons for declaring the law invalid ever
    existed

     On Treaty Violations
    o Nations Charter (which is claimed to be violated) imposes no strict
    legal obligation regarding their subjects’ rights and freedom
    o Declaration of Human Rights is only a common standard of
    achievement for all people and nation
    o General Principle: TREATY IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATION
    BY A SUBSEQUENT LAW

     CONCLUSION
    o Disputed LAW IS ENACTED TO REMEDY REAL THREAT TO NATIONAL
    ECONOMY BY ALIEN DOMINANCE, and free citizens from alien
    control
    o Therefor it clearly falls within the scope of police power
    o It does not violate the equal protection clause because sufficient
    ground exist for the distinction of alien and citizen
    o It also does not violate the due process clause because the law is
    prospective in application and recognizes the privilege of aliens
    already engaged in the occupation
    o Provisions of the law is clearly embraced in the title and suffers no
    duplicity
    o No treaty has been entered into the subject therefor it cannot be
    claimed void for conflict on treaty obligations
    o PETITION DENIED, COSTS AGAINST PETITIONER

    You might also like