Ichong vs Hernandez Case Digest

LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents,
corporations and partnerships adversely affected. by Republic Act No. 1180,
petitioner, vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO
SARMIENTO, City reasurer of !anila, respondents.
G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957
FACTS Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business."
In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business. The ain pro!isions of the Act are"
#1$ a prohibition against persons, not citizens of the %hilippines, and against
associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of &hich are not &holl' o&ned
b' citizens of the %hilippines, fro engaging directl' or indirectl' in the retail trade(
#)$ an e*ception fro the abo!e prohibition in fa!or of aliens actuall' engaged in said
business on +a' 1,, 1-,., &ho are allo&ed to continue to engaged therein, unless
their licenses are forfeited in accordance &ith the la&, until their death or !oluntar'
retireent in case of natural persons, and for ten 'ears after the appro!al of the Act
or until the e*piration of ter in case of /uridical persons( #0$ an e*ception there fro
in fa!or of citizens and /uridical entities of the 1nited 2tates( #.$ a pro!ision for the
forfeiture of licenses for !iolation of the la&s on nationalization, control &eights and
easures and labor and other la&s relating to trade, coerce and industr'( #,$ a
prohibition against the establishent or opening b' aliens actuall' engaged in the
retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business, #3$ a pro!ision
re4uiring aliens actuall' engaged in the retail business to present for registration &ith
the proper authorities a !erified stateent concerning their businesses, gi!ing,
aong other atters, the nature of the business, their assets and liabilities and their
offices and principal offices of /udicial entities( and #5$ a pro!ision allo&ing the heirs
of aliens no& engaged in the retail business &ho die, to continue such business for a
period of si* onths for purposes of li4uidation.
%etitioner, for and in his o&n behalf and on behalf of other alien resident,s
corporations and partnerships ad!ersel' affected b' the pro!isions of Republic Act.
No. 1180, brought this action to obtain a /udicial declaration that said Act is
unconstitutional, and to en/oin the 2ecretar' of 6inance and all other persons acting
under hi, particularl' cit' and unicipal treasurers, fro enforcing its pro!isions.
%etitioner attac7s the constitutionalit' of the Act, contending that it denies to alien
residents the e4ual protection of the la&s and depri!es of their libert' and propert'
&ithout due process of la&.
ISS!E 8hether or not R.A. No. 1180 denies e4ual protection of la&s and due
process9
HELD The :ourt cited the follo&ing reason in upholding the constitutionalit' and
!alidit' of R.A. No. 1180 &hich does not !iolate the e4ual protection of la&s and due
process.
8e hold that the disputed la& &as enacted to reed' a real actual threat and
danger to national econo' posed b' alien doinance and control of the retail
business and free citizens and countr' fro doinance and control( that the
enactent clearl' falls &ithin the scope of the police po&er of the 2tate, thru &hich
and b' &hich it protects its o&n personalit' and insures its securit' and future.
The present doinance of the alien retailer, especiall' in the big centers of
population, therefore, becoes a potential source of danger on occasions of &ar or
other calait'. 8e do not ha!e here in this countr' isolated groups of harless
aliens retailing goods aong nationals( &hat &e ha!e are &ell organized and
po&erful groups that doinate the distribution of goods and coodities in the
counities and big centers of population. The' o&e no allegiance or lo'alt' to the
2tate, and the 2tate cannot rel' upon the in ties of crisis or eergenc'. 8hile the
national holds his life, his person and his propert' sub/ect to the needs of his countr',
the alien a' e!en becoe the potential ene' of the 2tate.
The la& does not !iolate the e4ual protection clause of the :onstitution because
sufficient grounds e*ist for the distinction bet&een alien and citizen in the e*ercise of
the occupation regulated. Aliens are under no special constitutional protection &hich
forbids a classification other&ise /ustified sipl' because the liitation of the class
falls along the lines of nationalit'. That &ould be re4uiring a higher degree of
protection for aliens as a class than for siilar classes than for siilar classes of
Aerican citizens. Broadl' spea7ing, the difference in status bet&een citizens and
aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the e*ercise of police
po&er.
D!E "ROCESS
The due process of la& clause is not !iolated because the la& is prospecti!e in
operation and recognizes the pri!ilege of aliens alread' engaged in the occupation
and reasonabl' protects their pri!ilege( that the &isdo and efficac' of the la& to
carr' out its ob/ecti!es appear to us to be plainl' e!ident ; as a atter of fact it
sees not onl' appropriate but actuall' necessar' ; and that in an' case such
atter falls &ithin the prerogati!e of the <egislature, &ith &hose po&er and
discretion the =udicial departent of the >o!ernent a' not interfere.
The guarant' of due process deands onl' that the la& shall not be unreasonable,
arbitrar' or capricious, and that the eans selected shall ha!e a real and substantial
relation to the sub/ect sought to be attained.
2o far as the re4uireent of due process is concerned and in the absence of other
constitutional restriction a state is free to adopt &hate!er econoic polic' a'
reasonabl' be deeed to proote public &elfare, and to enforce that polic' b'
legislation adapted to its purpose. The courts are &ithout authorit' either to declare
such polic', or, &hen it is declared b' the legislature, to o!erride it. If the la&s passed
are seen to ha!e a reasonable relation to a proper legislati!e purpose, and are
neither arbitrar' nor discriinator', the re4uireents of due process are satisfied,
and /udicial deterination to that effect renders a court functus officio. . . .
To /ustif' the state in thus interposing its authorit' in behalf of the public, it ust
appear, first, that the interests of the public generall', as distinguished fro those of
a particular class, re4uire such interference( and second, that the eans are
reasonabl' necessar' for the accoplishent of the purpose, and not undul'
oppressi!e upon indi!iduals. The real 4uestion at issue, therefore, is not that posed
b' petitioner, &hich o!erloo7s and ignores the facts and circustances, but this, Is
the e*clusion in the future of aliens fro the retail trade unreasonable9( Arbitrar'
capricious, ta7ing into account the illegitiate and pernicious for and anner in
&hich the aliens ha!e heretofore engaged therein9 As thus correctl' stated the
ans&er is clear. The la& in 4uestion is deeed absolutel' necessar' to bring about
the desired legislati!e ob/ecti!e, i.e., to free national econo' fro alien control and
doinance. It is not necessaril' unreasonable because it affects pri!ate rights and
pri!ileges #11 A. =ur. pp. 1080?1081.$ The test of reasonableness of a la& is the
appropriateness or ade4uac' under all circustances of the eans adopted to carr'
out its purpose into effect #Id.$ =udged b' this test, disputed legislation, &hich is not
erel' reasonable but actuall' necessar', ust be considered not to ha!e infringed
the constitutional liitation of reasonableness.