Case Title Ichong vs Hernandez

G.R. no. L-7995

Main Topic Equal Protection of the Laws
Other Related Topic Due Process, Police Power
Date: May 31, 1957

DOCTRINES
Equal Protection of the Laws - power of the legislature to make distinctions and classifications
among persons is not curtailed or denied by the equal protection of the laws clause. The
legislative power admits of a wide scope of discretion, and a law can be violative of the
constitutional limitation only when the classification is without reasonable basis.

FACTS:
 Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman, representing all of alien residents, corporation,
and partnerships, who are adversely affected by the enacted law. The enacted law
particularly forbids non – Filipino citizens to engage in retail business, with a few
exceptions (those created before the enactment of the law – which shall not be renewed
after a few years, and Americans)
 Jaime Hernandez was the Finance Secretary at the time.
 RA 1180 was enacted by the Congress – “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” - a
prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations,
partnerships, or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the
Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade
 Petitioners contend that the enacted law is violative of 1. Equal Protection and due
process; 2. Subject not expressed in the title; 3. Violates treaty; 4. Violative of hereditary
successions.
 Before the enactment of the law, retail industry in the Philippines were almost in danger
of being overtaken predominantly by Chinese, as seen in the provided statistics, and
were still increasing year after year.
 There is fear in the government that it is the alien who controls the retail industry; food,
clothing; and almost all articles necessary for daily life course through the hands of the
alien retailer. Not merely predominance in the city, but rather, control.
 Petitioner contend that there is no control by the alien retailer, and that the threat is
merely imagined. They assailed that the law was made due to radicalism and pure and
unabashed nationalism.

ISSUE:
WON RA 1180 is unconstitutional due to it being in violation of the Equal Protection of the Laws
HELD:
 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 is not intended to
prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory
within which is to operate. 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. The equal protection clause is not infringed
 by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies
alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exists for making a distinction
between those who fall within such class and those who do not.

 The Court ruled that alien’s allegiance is towards the country of birth or adoptive country.
The purpose of the alien is for profit, and his stay is for personal convenience. The alien is
lacking in loyalty, and the faster he makes his pile, the faster he can go back to his country
and brethren. The alien does not make any genuine contribution or investment for the
betterment of the country, and since the alien’s interest is merely temporary or transitory, it
would be ill-advised to continue entrusting the important function of retail business in his
hands. These differences are a valid classification for the state to prefer the nationals over
alien in the retail trade.

 Broadly speaking, the power of the legislature to make distinctions and classifications among
persons is not curtailed or denied by the equal protection of the laws clause. The legislative
power admits of a wide scope of discretion, and a law can be violative of the constitutional
limitation only when the classification is without reasonable basis.

 The law is declared valid, it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution
because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise
of the occupation regulated.

 Some members of the Court are of the opinion that the law could be made less harsh and
should have given more time for the liquidation of existing businesses; however, their duty is
only to determine if the protection guaranteed in the Constitution are followed. Harshness
should be question to the Legislature since it is outside the Court’s jurisdiction.