8. Ichong, et. al. vs. Hernandez, etc.

and Sarmiento
FACTS: R.A. No. 1180 entitled An Act to Regulate the Retail Business was passed that nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting against persons not citizens of the Philippines, as well as 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 with the exception of U.S. citizens and juridical entities. Aliens are required to present registration to the proper authorities a verified statement concerning their businesses. ISSUES: Whether the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines; and Whether the provisions of the Act violates the due process of law RULING: There is no merit in this contention. The UN Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations. The Treaty of Amity between China and the Philippines guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country, and is therefo re not violated for all nationals except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. A cursory study of the provisions of the law show that it is reasonable as it is made prospective and recognizes the right and privilege of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives. Furthermore, the test of the validity of a law attacked as a violation of due process, is not in its reasonableness but its unreasonableness and the Court found that these provisions are not unreasonable.

Facts: Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) particularly in the retail business. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a monopoly in the local market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which, according to him, violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced; and, that 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 exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.