[No.L7995.

May31,1957]
LAOH.ICHONG,inhisownbehalfandinbehalfofotheralienresidents,
corporations and partnerships adversely affected by Republic Act No.
1180, petitioner, vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and
MARCELINOSARMIENTO,CityTreasurerofManila,respondents.
1156

1156

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento

1.
1.
CONSTITUTIONALLAW;POLICEPOWER;NATUREANDSCOPE.Police
powerisfarreachinginscope,anditisalmostimpossibletolimititssweep.It
derivesitsexistencefromtheveryexistenceoftheStateitself,anddoesnot
needtobeexpressedordefinedinitsscope.Itissaidtobecoextensivewith
selfprotectionandsurvival,andassuchitisthemostpositiveandactiveofall
governmentalprocesses,themostessential,insistentandillimitable.Especially
isitsounderamoderndemocraticframeworkwherethedemandsofsociety
andofnationshavemultipliedtoalmostunimaginableproportions;thefield
andscopeofpolicepowerhasbecomealmostboundless,justasthefieldsof
publicinterestandpublicwelfarehavebecomealmostallembracingandhave
transcendedhumanforesight.
1. 2.
ID.;GUARANTEESINSECTIONI,ARTICLEIIIOFTHECONSTITUTION;
UNIVERSALITYOFAPPLICATION.Theconstitutionalguaranteesin
SectionI,ArticleIII,oftheConstitution,whichembodytheessenceof
individuallibertyandfreedomindemocracies,arenotlimitedtocitizensalone
butareadmittedlyuniversalintheirapplication,withoutregardtoany
differencesofrace,ofcolor,orofnationality(YiekWovs.Hopkins,30L.ed.,
220,226).
2. 3.
ID.;LAWDEPRIVATIONOFLIFE,LIBERTYORPROPERTY;TESTOR
STANDARD.Theconflictbetweenpolicepowerandtheguaranteesofdue
processandequalprotectionofthelawsismoreapparentthanreal.Properly
related,thepowerandtheguaranteesaresupposedtocoexist.Thebalancingis
theessence,ortheindispensablemeansforthe"attainmentoflegitimate
aspirationsofanydemocraticsociety.Therecanbenoabsolutepower,
whoeverexercisesit,forthatwouldbetyranny.Yettherecanneitherbe

absoluteliberty,forthatwouldmeanlicenseandanarchy.SotheStatecan
deprivepersonsoflife,libertyorproperty,providedthereisdueprocessof
law;andpersonsmaybeclassifiedintoclassesandgroups,providedeveryone
isgiventheequalprotectionofthelaw.Thetestorstandard,asalways,is
reason.Thepolicepowerlegislationmustbefirmlygroundedonpublic
interestandwelfare,andareasonablerelationmustexistbetweenpurposesand
means.Andifdisctinctionorclassificationhasbeenmade,theremustbea
reasonablebasisforsaiddistinction.
3. 4.
ID.;EQUALPROTECTIONOFTHELAWCLAUSE;WHENNOTDEEMED
INFRINGEDBYLEGISLATION.Theequalprotectionofthelawclauseis
againstunduefavorandindividualorclassprivilege,aswellashostile
discriminationortheoppressionofinequality.
1157

VOL.101,MAY81,
1957

1157

Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,
andSarmiento
1.
Itisnotintendedtoprohibitlegislation,whichislimitedeitherinthe
objecttowhichitisdirectedorbyterritorywithinwhichitistooperate.It
doesnotdemandabsoluteequalityamongresidents;itmerelyrequiresthatall
personsshallbetreatedalike,underlikecircumstancesandconditionsbothas
toprivilegesconferredandliabilitiesenforced.Theequalprotectionclauseis
notinfringedbylegislationwhichappliesonlytothosepersonsfallingwithina
specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and
reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall
withinsuchclassandthosewhodonot(2Cooley,ConstitutionalLimitations,
824825).
1. 5.
ID.;ID.;LEGISLATIVEPOWERTOMAKEDISTINCTIONAND
CLASSIFICATIONAMONGPERSONS;CITIZENSHIPASGROUNDFOR
CLASSIFICATION.Thepowerofthelegislaturetomakedistinctionsand
classificationsamongpersonsisnotcurtailedordeniedbytheequalprotection
ofthelawsclause.Thelegislativepoweradmitsofawidescopeofdiscretion,
andalawcanbeviolativeoftheconstitutionallimitationonlywhenthe

classificationiswithoutreasonablebasis.Citizenshipisalegalandvalid
groundforclassification.
2. 6.
ID.;ID.;NATIONALIZATIONOFRETAILTRADE;CLASSIFICATIONIN
REPUBLICACTNo.1180ACTUAL,REALANDREASONABLE.The
classificationinthelawofretailtradersintonationalsandaliensisactual,real
andreasonable.Allpersonsofoneclassaretreatedalike,anditcannotbesaid
thattheclassificationispatentlyunreasonableandunfounded.Hence,itisthe
dutyofthisCourttodeclarethatthelegislatureactedwithinitslegitimate
prerogativeanditcannotdeclarethattheacttranscendsthelimitsofequal
protectionestablishedbytheConstitution.
3. 7.
ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;TESTOFREASONABLENESS.Thelawinquestionis
deemedabsolutelynecessarytobringaboutthedesiredlegislativeobjective,
i.e.,tofreethenationaleconomyfromaliencontrolanddominance.Itisnot
necessarilyunreasonablebecauseitaffectsprivaterightsandprivileges(IIAm.
Jur.,pp.10801081).Thetestofreasonablenessofalawistheappropriateness
oradequacyunderallcircumstancesofthemeansadoptedtocarryoutits
purposeintoeffect.Judgedbythistest,thedisputedlegislation,whichisnot
merelyreasonablebutactuallynecessary,mustbeconsiderednottohave
infringedtheconstitutionallimitationofreasonableness.
4. 8.
ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;REPUBLICACTNo.1180TOLERANTAND
REASONABLE.Acursorystudyoftheprovisionsofthelaw
1158

1158

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento

1.
immediately reveals how tolerant and reasonable the Legislature has
been.Thelawismadeprospectiveandrecognizestherightandprivilegeof
thosealreadyengagedintheoccupationtocontinuethereinduringtherestof
their lives; and similar recognition of the right to continue is accorded
associationsofaliens.Therightorprivilegeisdeniedonlytopersonsupon
convictionofcertainoffenses.
1. 9.
ID.;ID.;ID.;ATTAINMENTOFLEGISLATIVEASPIRATIONSOFAPEOPLE
NOTBEYONDTHELIMITSOFLEGISLATIVEAUTHORITY.If

politicalindependenceisalegitimateaspirationofapeople,theneconomic
independenceisnoneoflesslegitimate.Freedomandlibertyarenotrealand
positive,ifthepeoplearesubjecttotheeconomiccontrolanddominationof
others,especiallyifnotoftheirownraceorcountry.Theremovaland
eradicationoftheshacklesofforeigneconomiccontrolanddominationisone
ofthenoblestmotivesthatanationallegislaturemaypursue.Itisimpossibleto
conceivethatlegislationthatseekstobringitaboutcaninfringethe
constitutionallimitationofdueprocess.Theattainmentofalegitimate
aspirationofapeoplecanneverbebeyondthelimitsoflegislativeauthority.
2. 10.
ID.;ID.;ID.;NATIONALISTICTENDENCYMANIFESTEDINTHE
CONSTITUTION.Nationalistictendencyismanifestedinvariousprovisions
oftheConstitution.Thenationalizationoftheretailtradeisonlyacontinuance
ofthenationalisticprotectivepolicylaiddownasaprimaryobjectiveofthe
Constitution,Itcannotthereforebesaidthatalawimbuedwiththesame
purposeandspiritunderlyingmanyoftheprovisionsoftheConstitutionis
unreasonable,invalidorunconstitutional.
3. 11.
ID.;LEGISLATIVEDEPARTMENT;EXERCISEOFLEGISLATIVE
DISCRETIONNOTSUBJECTTOJUDICIALREVIEW.Theexerciseof
legislativediscretionisnotsubjecttojudicialreview.TheCourtwillnot
inquireintothemotivesoftheLegislature,norpassupongeneralmattersof
legislativejudgment.TheLegislatureisprimarilythejudgeofthenecessityof
anenactmentorofanyofitsprovisions,andeverypresumptionisinfavorof
itsvalidity,andthoughtheCourtmayholdviewsinconsistentwiththewisdom
ofthelaw,itmaynotannulthelegislationifnotpalpablyinexcessofthe
legislativepower.
4. 12.
ID.;TITLESOFBILLS;PROHIBITIONAGAINSTDUPLICITY;PRESENCE
OFDUPLICITYNOTSHOWNINTlTLEORPROVISIONSOFREPUBLIC
ACTNo.1180.WhatSection21(1)ofArticleVIoftheConstitution
prohibitsisduplicity,thatis,ifitstitlecompletelyfailstoapprisethe
legislatorsorthepublicofthenature.
1159

VOL.101,MAY31,
1957

1159

Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,
andSarmiento
1.
scope and consequences of the law or its operation (I Sutherland,
StatutoryConstruction,Sec.1707,p.297).Acursoryconsiderationofthetitle
andtheprovisionsofthebillfailstoshowthepresenceofduplicity.Itistrue
thattheterm"regulate"doesnotandmaynotreadilyandatfirstglanceconvey
theideaof"nationalization"and"prohibition",whichtermsexpressthetwo
mainpurposesandobjectivesofthelaw.But"regulate"isabroadertermthan
eitherprohibitionornationalization.Bothofthesehavealwaysbeenincluded
withintheterm"regulation".
1. 13.
ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;USEOFGENERALTERMSINTITLEOFBILL.Thegeneral
ruleisfortheuseofgeneraltermsinthetitleofabill;thetitleneednotbean
indextotheentirecontentsofthelaw(ISutherland,StatutoryConstruction,
Sec.4803,p.345).TheaboverulewasfollowedwhenthetitleoftheActin
questionadoptedthemoregeneralterm"regulate"insteadof"nationalize"or
"prohibit".
2. 14.
ID.;ID.;ID.;ID.;PURPOSEOFCONSTITUTIONALDIRECTIVE
REGARDINGSUBJECTOFABILL.Onepurposeoftheconstitutional
directivethatthesubjectofabillshouldbeembracedinitstitleistoapprise
thelegislatorsofthepurposes,thenatureandscopeofitsprovisions,and
preventtheenactmentintolawofmatterswhichhavenotreceivedthenotice,
actionandstudyofthelegislatorsorofthepublic.Incaseatbaritcannotbe
claimedthatthelegislatorshavenotbeenapprisedofthenatureofthelaw,
especiallythenationalizationandprohibitionprovisions.Thelegislatorstook
activeinterestinthediscussionofthelaw,andagreatmanyofthepersons
affectedbytheprohibitioninthelawconductedacampaignagainstits
approval.Itcannotbeclaimed,therefore,thatthereasonsfordeclaringthelaw
invalideverexisted.
3. 15.
ID.;INTERNATIONALTREATIESANDOBLIGATIONSNOTVIOLATEDBY
REPUBLICACTNo.1180;TREATIESSUBJECTTOQUALIFICATION
ORAMENDMENTBYSUBSEQUENTLAW.Thelawdoesnotviolate
internationaltreatiesandobligations.TheUnitedNationsCharterimposesno
strictorlegalobligationsregardingtherightsandfreedomoftheirsubjects

(JansKelsen,TheLawoftheUnitedNations,1951ed.,pp.2932),andthe
DeclarationofHumanRightscontainsnothingmorethanamere
recommendation,oracommonstandardofachievementforallpeoplesandall
nations.TheTreatyofAmitybetweentheRepublicofthePhilippinesandthe
RepublicofChinaofApril18,1947guaranteesequalityoftreatmenttothe
Chinesenationals"uponthesametermsasthenationalsofanyother
1160

1160

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichong,etc.etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
1.
country". But the nationals of China are not discriminated against
becausenationalsofallothercountries,exceptthoseoftheUnitedStates,who
aregrantedspecialrightsbytheConstitution,areallprohibitedfromengaging
intheretailtrade.Butevensupposingthatthelawinfringesuponthesaid
treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a
subsequentlaw(U.S. vs. Thompson,258,Fed.257,260),andthesamemay
nevercurtailorrestrictthescopeofthepolicepoweroftheState(Palstonvs.
Pennsylvania58L.ed.,539).

ORIGINALACTIONintheSupremeCourt.InjunctionandMandamus.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Ozaeta, Lichauco & Picazo and Sycip, Quisumbing, Salazar &
Associatesforpetitioner.
SolicitorGeneralAmbrosioPadillaandSolicitorPacificoP.deCastro
forrespondentSecretaryofFinance.
City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant City Fiscal Eulogio S.
SerranoforrespondentCityTreasurer.
DionisioReyesasAmicusCuriae.
MarcialG.MendiolaasAmicusCuriae.
EmilianoR.NavarroasAmicusCuriae.
LABRADOR,J.:
I.Thecaseandtheissue,ingeneral
ThisCourthasbeforeitthedelicatetaskofpassinguponthevalidityand
constitutionalityofalegislativeenactment,fundamentalandfarreaching
in significance. The enactment poses questions of due process, police
powerandequalprotectionofthelaws.Italsoposesanimportantissueof
fact, that is whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to

remedy really or actually exist. Admittedly springing from a deep,

militant, and positive nationalistic impulse, the law purports to protect
citizenandcountryfromthealienretailer.Throughit,andwithinthefield
ofeconomyitregulates,Congressattempts
1161

VOL.101,MAY
1161
31,1957
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.
Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
totranslatenationalaspirationsforeconomicindependenceandnational
security,rootedinthedriveandurgefornationalsurvivalandwelfare,into
aconcreteandtangiblemeasuresdesignedtofreethenationalretailerfrom
thecompetingdominanceofthealien,sothatthecountryandthenation
maybefreefromasupposedeconomicdependenceandbondage.Dothe
factsandcircumstancesjustifytheenactment?
II.PertinentprovisionsofRepublicActNo.1180
Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail
Business." In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business. The main
provisionsoftheActare:(1)aprohibitionagainstpersons,notcitizensof
thePhilippines,andagainstassociations,partnerships,orcorporationsthe
capitalofwhicharenotwhollyownedbycitizensofthePhilippines,from
engagingdirectlyorindirectlyintheretailtrade;(2)anexceptionfromthe
aboveprohibitioninfavorofaliensactuallyengagedinsaidbusinesson
May15,1954,whoareallowedtocontinuetoengagetherein,unlesstheir
licenses are forfeited in accordance with the law, until their death or
voluntaryretirementincaseofnaturalpersons,andfortenyearsafterthe
approvalofthe Act oruntil theexpiration oftermin caseofjuridical
persons; (3) an exception therefrom in favor of citizens and juridical
entitiesoftheUnitedStates;(4)aprovisionfortheforfeitureoflicenses
(to engage in the retail business) for violation of the laws on
nationalization, economic control weights and measures and labor and
other laws relating to trade, commerce and industry; (5) a prohibition
against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the
retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business, (6) a
provisionrequiringaliensactuallyengagedintheretailbusinesstopresent
forregistrationwiththeproperauthoritiesaverifiedstatementconcerning

theirbusinesses,giving,amongothermatters,thenatureofthebusiness,
theirassets
1162

1162

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
andliabilitiesandtheirofficesandprincipalofficesofjuridicalentities;
and(7)aprovisionallowingtheheirsofaliensnowengagedintheretail
businesswhodie,tocontinuesuchbusinessforaperiodofsixmonthsfor
purposesofliquidation.
III.GroundsuponwhichpetitionisbasedAnswerthereto
Petitioner,forandinhisownbehalfandonbehalfofotheralienresidents,
corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of
RepublicActNo.1180,broughtthisactiontoobtainajudicialdeclaration
thatsaidActisunconstitutional,andtoenjointheSecretaryofFinanceand
all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal
treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacks the
constitutionalityoftheAct,contendingthat:(1)itdeniestoalienresidents
theequalprotectionofthelawsanddeprivesthemoftheirlibertyand
property without due process of law; (2) the subject of the Act is not
expressed or comprehended in the title thereof; (3) the Act violates
internationalandtreatyobligationsoftheRepublicofthePhilippines;(4)
theprovisionsoftheActagainstthetransmissionbyaliensoftheirretail
business thru hereditary succession, and those requiring 100% Filipino
capitalizationforacorporationorentitytoentitleittoengageintheretail
business,violatethespiritofSections1and5,ArticleXIIIandSection8
ofArticleXIVoftheConstitution.
Inanswer,theSolicitorGeneralandtheFiscaloftheCityofManila
contendthat:(1)theActwaspassedinthevalidexerciseofthepolice
poweroftheState,whichexerciseisauthorizedintheConstitutioninthe
interestofnationaleconomicsurvival;(2)theActhasonlyonesubject
embraced in the title; (3) no treaty or international obligations are
infringed;(4)asregardshereditarysuccession,onlytheformisaffected
but the value of the property is not impaired, and the institution of
inheritanceisonlyofstatutoryorigin.
1163

VOL.101,MAY
1163
31,1957
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.
Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
IV.Preliminaryconsiderationoflegalprinciplesinvolved
a.Thepolicepower.
ThereisnoquestionthattheActwasapprovedintheexerciseofthepolice
power,butpetitionerclaimsthatitsexerciseinthisinstanceisattendedby
aviolationof theconstitutionalrequirements ofdueprocess andequal
protection of the laws. But before proceeding to the consideration and
resolutionoftheultimateissueinvolved,itwouldbewelltobearinmind
certainbasicandfundamental,albeitpreliminary,considerationsinthe
determinationoftheeverrecurrentconflictbetweenpolicepowerandthe
guaranteesofdueprocessandequalprotectionofthelaws.Whatisthe
.scopeofpolicepower,andhowarethedueprocessandequalprotection
clausesrelatedtoit?Whatistheprovinceandpowerofthelegislature,and
whatisthefunctionanddutyofthecourts?Theseconsiderationmustbe
clearlyandcorrectlyunderstoodthattheirapplicationtothefactsofthe
casemaybebroughtforthwithclarityandtheissueaccordinglyresolved.
Ithasbeensaidthatpolicepowerissofarreachinginscope,thatithas
becomealmostimpossibletolimititssweep.Asitderivesitsexistence
fromtheveryexistenceoftheStateitself,itdoesnotneedtobeexpressed
ordefinedinitsscope;itissaidtobecoextensivewithselfprotectionand
survival,andassuchitisthemostpositiveandactiveofallgovernmental
processes,themostessential,insistentandillimitable.Especiallyisit so
underamoderndemocraticframeworkwherethedemandsofsocietyand
ofnationshavemultipliedtoalmostunimaginableproportions;thefield
andscopeofpolicepowerhasbecomealmostboundless,justasthefields
ofpublicinterestandpublicwelfarehavebecomealmostallembracing
and have transcended human foresight. Otherwise stated, as we cannot
foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare in this
constantly changing and progressive world, so we cannot delimit
beforehandtheextentorscope
1164

1164

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED

Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
ofpolicepowerbywhichandthroughwhichtheStateseekstoattainor
achievepublicinterestorwelfare.SoitisthatConstitutionsdonotdefine
thescopeorextentofthepolicepoweroftheState;whattheydoistosetf
orth the limitations thereof. The most important of these are the due
processclauseandtheequalprotectionclause.
b.Limitationsonpolicepower.
Thebasiclimitationsofdueprocessandequalprotectionarefoundinthe
followingprovisionsofourConstitution:
"SECTION1.(1)Nopersonshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyorpropertywithoutdue
processoflaw,norshallanypersonbedeniedtheequalprotectionofthelaws."
(ArticleIII,Phil.Constitution)

Theseconstitutionalguaranteeswhichembodytheessenceofindividual
libertyandfreedomindemocracies,arenotlimitedtocitizensalonebut
are admittedly universal in their application, without regard to any
differencesofrace,ofcolor,orofnationality.(YickWovs.Hopkins,30,
L.ed.220,226.)
c.Theequalprotectionclause.
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppressionofinequality.Itisnotintendedtoprohibitlegislation,whichis
limitedeitherintheobjecttowhichitisdirectedorbyterritorywithin
which it is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among
residents;itmerelyrequiresthatallpersonsshallbetreatedalike, under
like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by
legislationwhichappliesonlytothosepersonsfallingwithinaspecified
class,ifitappliesaliketoallpersonswithinsuchclass,andreasonable
groundsexistsformakingadistinctionbetweenthosewhofallwithinsuch
classandthosewhodonot.(2Cooley,ConstitutionalLimitations,824
825.)
1165

VOL.101,MAY
31,1957

1165

Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.
Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
d.Thedueprocessclause.
Thedueprocessclausehastodowiththereasonablenessoflegislation
enactedinpursuanceofthepolicepower.Istherepublicinterest,apublic
purpose;ispublicwelfareinvolved?IstheActreasonablynecessaryfor
the accomplishment ofthe legislature's purpose; is it not unreasonable,
arbitrary or oppressive? Is there sufficient foundation or reason in
connectionwiththematterinvolved;orhastherenotbeenacapricioususe
of the legislative power? Can the aims conceived be achieved by the
meansused,orisitnotmerelyanunjustifiedinterferencewithprivate
interest?Thesearethequestionsthatweaskwhenthedueprocesstestis
applied.
Theconflict,therefore,betweenpolicepowerandtheguaranteesofdue
process and equal protection of the laws is more apparent than real.
Properlyrelated;thepowerandtheguaranteesaresupposedtocoexist.
Thebalancingistheessenceor,shallitbesaid,theindispensablemeans
for the attainment of legitimate aspirations of any democratic society.
Therecanbenoabsolutepower,whoeverexerciseit,forthatwouldbe
tyranny.Yettherecanneitherbeabsoluteliberty,forthatwouldmean
licenseandanarchy.SotheStatecandeprivepersonsoflife,libertyand
property, provided there is due process of law; and persons may be
classifiedintoclassesandgroups,providedeveryoneisgiventheequal
protectionofthelaw.Thetestorstandard,asalways,isreason,Thepolice
powerlegislationmustbefirmlygroundedonpublicinterestandwelfare,
andareasonablerelationmustexistbetweenpurposesandmeans.Andif
distinctionandclassificationhasbeenmade,theremustbeareasonable
basisforsaiddistinction.
e.Legislativediscretionnotsubjecttojudicialreview.
Now,inthismatterofequitablebalancing,whatistheproperplaceand
roleofthecourts?Itmustnotbeoverlooked,inthefirstplace,thatthe
legislature,whichisthe
1166

1166

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento

constitutionalrepositoryofpolicepowerandexercisestheprerogativeof
determiningthepolicyoftheState,isbyforceofcircumstancesprimarily
thejudgeofnecessity,adequacyorreasonablenessandwisdom,ofany
lawpromulgatedintheexerciseofthepolicepower,orofthemeasures
adoptedtoimplementthepublicpolicyortoachievepublicinterest.On
theotherhand,courts,althoughzealousguardiansofindividuallibertyand
right,haveneverthelessevincedareluctancetointerferewiththeexercise
ofthelegislativeprerogative.Theyhavedonesoearlywheretherehas
beenaclear,patentorpalpablearbitraryandunreasonableabuseofthe
legislative prerogative. Moreover, courts are not supposed to override
legitimatepolicy,andcourtsneverinquireintothewisdomofthelaw.
V.Economicproblemssoughttoberemedied
With the above considerations in mind, we will now proceed to delve
directlyintotheissueinvolved.Ifthedisputedlegislationweremerelya
regulation,asitstitleindicates,therewouldbenoquestionthatitfalls
withinthelegitimatescopeoflegislativepower..Butitgoesfurtherand
prohibits a group of residents, the aliens, from engaging therein. The
problembecomesmorecomplexbecauseitssubjectisacommon,tradeor
occupation, as old as society itself, which from time immemorial has
alwaysbeenopentoresidents,irrespectiveofrace,colororcitizenship.
a.Importanceofretailtradeintheeconomyofthenation.
Inaprimitiveeconomywherefamiliesproduceallthattheyconsumeand
consumeallthattheyproduce,thedealer,ofcourse,isunknown.Butas
grouplifedevelopsandfamiliesbegintoliveincommunitiesproducing
morethanwhattheyconsumeandneedinganinfinitenumberofthings
theydonotproduce,thedealercomesintoexistence.
1167

VOL.101,MAY
1167
31,1957
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.
Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
Asvillagesdevelopintobigcommunitiesandspecializationinproduction
begins,thedealer'simportanceisenhanced.Undermodernconditionsand
standardsofliving,inwhichman'sneedshavemultipliedanddiversified
tounlimitedextentsandproportions,theretailercomesasessentialasthe
producer, because thru him the infinite variety of articles, goods and

commodities needed for daily life are placed within the easy reach of
consumers.Retaildealersperformthefunctionsofcapillariesinthehuman
body, thru which all the needed food and supplies are ministered to
membersofthecommunitiescomprisingthenation.
Therecannotbeanyquestionabouttheimportanceoftheretailerinthe
lifeofthecommunity.Heministerstotheresident'sdailyneeds,foodin
allitsincreasingforms,andthevariouslittlegadgetsandthingsneededfor
homeanddailylife.Heprovideshiscustomersaroundhisstorewiththe
riceorcorn,thefish,thesalt,thevinegar,the,spicesneededforthedaily
cooking.Hehasclothstosell,eventheneedleandthethreadtosewthem
ordarntheclothesthatwearout.Theretailer,therefore,fromthelowly
peddler, the owner of a small sarisari store, to the operator of a
department store or a supermarket is so much a part of daytoday
existence.
b.Thealienretailer'straits.
Thealienretailermusthavestartedplyinghistradeinthiscountryinthe
biggercentersofpopulation(Timetherewaswhenhewasunknownin
provincialtownsandvillages).Slowlybutgraduallyheinvadedtownsand
villages;nowhepredominatesinthecitiesandbigcentersofpopulation.
Heevenpioneersinfarawaynookswherethebeginningsofcommunity
lifeappear,ministeringtothedailyneedsoftheresidentsandpurchasing
theiragriculturalproduceforsaleinthetowns.Itisanundeniablefactthat
inmanycommunitiesthealienhasreplacedthenativeretailer.Hehas
shown in this trade, industry without limit, and the patience and
forbearanceofaslave.
1168

1168

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichong,etc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
Derogatory epithets are hurled at him, but he laughs these off without
murmur;insultsofillbredandinsolentneighborsandcustomersaremade
in his face, but he heeds them not, and he forgets and forgives. The
community takes no note of him, as he appears to be harmless and
extremelyuseful.
c.Allegedaliencontrolanddominance.
Thereisageneralfeelingonthepartofthepublic,whichappearstobe
truetofact,aboutthecontrollinganddominantpositionthatthealien

retailerholdsinthenation'seconomy.Foodandotheressentials,clothing,
almostallarticlesofdailylifereachtheresidentsmostlythroughhim.In
big cities and centers of population he has acquired not only
predominance,butapparentcontroloverdistributionofalmostallkindsof
goods,suchaslumber,hardware,textiles,groceries,drugs,sugar,flour,
garlic,andscoresofothergoodsandarticles.Andwereitnotforsome
nationalcorporationsliketheNaric,theNamarco,theFacomasandthe
Accfa,hiscontroloverprincipalfoodsandproductswouldeasilybecome
fullandcomplete.
Petitionerdeniesthatthereisalienpredominanceandcontrolinthe
retailtrade.Inonebreathitissaidthatthefearisunfoundedandthethreat
isimagined;inanother,itischargedthatthelawismerelytheresultof
racialismandpureandunabashednationalism.Alienage,itissaid,isnot
anelementofcontrol;alsosomanyunmanageablefactorsintheretail
business make control virtually impossible. The first argument which
brings up an issue of fact merits serious consideration. The others are
mattersofopinionwithintheexclusivecompetenceofthelegislatureand
beyondourprerogativetopassuponanddecide.
Thebestevidencearethestatisticsontheretailtrade,whichputdown
thefiguresinblackandwhite.Betweentheconstitutionalconventionyear
(1935),whenthefearofaliendominationandcontroloftheretailtrade
already
1169

VOL.101,MAY
1169
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
filledthemindsofourleaderswithfearsandmisgivings,andtheyearof
theenactmentofthenationalizationoftheretailtradeact(1954),official
statistics unmistakably point out to the everincreasing dominance and
controlbythealienoftheretailtrade,aswitnessthefollowingtables;

Assets
GrossSales

Yearand
No.
Retailer's Establishment
Nationalit
s
y
1941:

Filipino
106,671
Chinese

15,356

Others
1947:

Filipino

1,646

111,107

Chinese

13,774

Others
1948:
(Census)
Filipino
Chinese
Others
1949:

Filipino
Chinese
Others
1951:

Filipino
Chinese

354

Pesos

Percent
Distributio
n

200,323,
138
118,348,69
2
40,187,090

208,658,
946
106,156,21
8
8,761,260

113,631

55.82
32.98
11.20
65.05
33.56
0.49

213,342,
264
12,087 93,155,459

67.30

422 10,514,675

113,659 213,451,
602
16,248 125,223,33
6
486 12,056,365

119,352 224,053,
620
17,429 134,325,30
3

3.32

29.38

60.89
35.72
3.39
61.09
36.60

Pesos

Percent
Distributio
n

174,181,
924
148,813,23
9
13,630,239

279,583,
333
205,701,
134
4,927,168

5174

467,161,
667
294,894,
227
9,995,402

462,532,
901
392,414,
875
10,078,364

466,058,
052
404,481,
384

44.21
4.05

57.03
41.96
1.01

60.51
38.20
1.29

53.47
45.36
1.17

53.07
46.06

Others

347 8,614,025
2.31 7,645,327
0.87
AVERAGE
ASSETSANDGROSSSALESPERESTABLISHMENT
Yearand

Item
Gross
Retailer's
Assets
Sales
Nationalit
(Pesos)
y(Pesos)
1941:

Filipino

1,878
1,633
Chinese

7,707
9,691
Others

24,415
8,281
1170

1170

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento

1947:
Filipino
Chinese
Others
1948:(Census)
Filipino
Chinese
Others
1949:
Filipino
Chinese
Others
1951:
Filipino
Chinese
Others

1,8782,516
7,70714,934
....24,74913,919

1,8781,111
7,70724,398
24,91623,686

1,8784,069
7,70724,152
24,80720,737

1,8773,905
7,70733,207
24,82422,033

(EstimatedAssetsandGrossSalesofRetailEstablishments,ByYearandNationality
ofOwners,Benchmark:1948Census,issuedbytheBureauofCensusandStatistics,
DepartmentofCommerceandIndustry;pp.1819ofAnswer.)

Theabovestatisticsdonotincludecorporationsandpartnerships,while
the figures on Filipino establishments already include mere market
vendors,whosecapitalisnecessarilysmall.
Theabovefiguresrevealthatinpercentagedistributionofassetsandof
grosssales,alienparticipationhassteadilyincreasedduringtheyears.Itis
true,ofcourse,thatFilipinoshavetheedgeinthenumberofretailers,but
aliensmorethanmakeupforthenumericalgapthroughtheirassetsand
grosssaleswhichaveragebetweensixandseventimesthoseofthevery
many Filipino retailers. Numbers in retailers, here, do not imply
superiority;thealieninvestsmorecapital,buysandsellssixtoseventimes
more,andgainsmuchmore.Thesameofficialreport,pointingouttothe
knownpredominanceofforeignelementsintheretailtrade,remarksthat
theFilipinoretailerswerelargelyengagedinminorretailerenterprises.As
observedbyrespondents,thenativeinvestmentis
1171

VOL.101,MAY
1171
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
thinlyspread,andtheFilipinoretailerispracticallyhelplessinmattersof
capital,credit,priceandsupply,
d. Alien control and threat, subject of apprehension in Constitutional
Convention.
Itisthisdominationandcontrol,whichwebelievehasbeensufficiently
shown to exist, that is the legislature's target in the enactment of the
disputednationalizationlaw.Iftheydidnotexistasafactthesweeping
remedyofnationalizationwouldneverhavebeenadopted.Theframersof
ourConstitutionalsobelievedintheexistenceofthisaliendominanceand
control whenthey approved aresolution categorically declaring among
otherthings,that"itisthesenseoftheConventionthatthepublicinterest
requiresthenationalizationoftheretailtrade;***."(IIAruego,The
Framing of the Philippine Constitution, 662663, quoted on page 67 of
Petitioner.)Thatwastwentytwoyearsago;andtheeventssincethenhave

notbeeneitherpleasantorcomforting.DeanSincooftheUniversityofthe
PhilippinesCollegeofLaw,commentingonthepatrimonyclauseofthe
Preamble opines that the fathers of our Constitution were merely
translating the general preoccupation of Filipinos "of the dangers from
alienintereststhathadalreadybroughtundertheircontrolthecommercial
andothereconomicactivitiesofthecountry"(Sinco,Phil.PoliticalLaw,
10th ed., p, 114); and analyzing the concern of the members of the
constitutional convention for the economic life of the citizens, in
connectionwiththenationalisticprovisionsoftheConstitution,hesays:
"Buttherehasbeenageneralfeelingthataliendominanceovertheeconomiclifeof
the country is not desirable and that if such a situation should remain, political
independencealoneisnoguaranteetonationalstabilityandstrength.Filipinoprivate
capital is not big enough to wrest from alien hands the control of the national
economy.Moreover,itisbutofrecentformationandhence,largelyinexperienced,
timidandhesitant.Undersuchconditions,thegovernmentastheinstrumentalityof
thenationalwill,hastostepinandassumetheinitiative,ifnottheleadership,inthe
struggleforthe
1172

1172

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento

economicfreedomofthenationinsomewhatthesamewaythatitdidinthecrusade
for political freedom. Thus * * * it (the Constitution) envisages an organized
movementfortheprotectionofthenationnotonlyagainstthepossibilitiesofarmed
invasionbutalsoagainstitseconomicsubjugationbyalieninterestsintheeconomic
field."(Phil.PoliticalLawbySinco,10thed.,p.476.)

Beliefintheexistenceofaliencontrolandpredominanceisfeltinother
quarters.Filipinobusinessmen,manufacturersandproducersbelieveso;
they fear the dangers coming from alien control, and they express
sentimentsofeconomicindependence.WitnesstheretoisResolutionNo.
1,approvedonJuly18,1953,oftheFifthNationalConventionofFilipino
Businessmen,andasimilarresolution,approvedonMarch20,1954,ofthe
SecondNationalConventionofManufacturersandProducers.Themanin
thestreetalsobelieves,andfears,alienpredominanceandcontrol;soour
newspapers,whichhaveeditoriallypointedoutnotonlytocontrolbutto
alienstranglehold.We,therefore,findaliendominationandcontroltobea

fact,arealityprovedbyofficialstatistics,andfeltbyallthesectionsand
groupsthatcomposetheFilipinocommunity.
e.Dangersofaliencontrolanddominanceinretail.
Butthedangersarisingfromalienparticipationintheretailtradedoesnot
seemtolieinthepredominancealone;thereisaprevailingfeelingthat
suchpredominancemaytrulyendangerthenationalinterest.Withample
capital, unity of purpose and action and thorough organization, alien
retailersandmerchantscanactinsuchcompleteunisonandconcerton
suchvitalmattersasthefixingofprices,thedeterminationoftheamount
of goods or articles to be made available in the market, and even the
choice of the goods or articles they would or would not patronize or
distribute, that fears of dislocation ofthe national economy and of the
completesubservienceofnationalretailersandoftheconsumingpublic
arenotentirelyunfounded.Nationals,producers
1173

VOL.101,MAY
1173
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
and consumers alike, can be placed completely at their mercy. This is
easilyillustrated.Supposeanarticleofdailyuseisdesiredtobeprescribed
by the aliens, because the producer or importer does not offer them
sufficientprofits,orbecauseanewcompetingarticleoffersbiggerprofits
foritsintroduction.Allthatalienswoulddoistoagreetorefusetosellthe
firstarticle,eliminatingitfromtheirstocks,offeringthenewoneasa
substitute.Hence,theproducersorimportersoftheprescribedarticle,or
its consumers, find the article suddenly out of circulation. Freedom of
tradeisthuscurtailedandfreeenterprisecorrespondinglysuppressed.
We can even go farther than theoretical illustrations to show the
pernicious influences of alien domination. Grave abuses have
characterizedtheexerciseoftheretailtradebyaliens.Itisafactwithin
judicialnotice,whichcourtsofjusticemaynotproperlyoverlookorignore
intheinterestsoftruthandjustice,thatthereexistsageneralfeelingonthe
part of the public that alien participation in the retail trade has been
attendedbyaperniciousandintolerablepractices,thementionofafewof
whichwouldsufficeforourpurposes;thatatsometimeorothertheyhave

corneredthemarketofessentialcommodities,likecornandrice,creating
artificial scarcities to justify and enhance profits to unreasonable
proportions;thattheyhavehoardedessentialfoodstotheinconvenience
andprejudiceoftheconsumingpublic,somuchsothattheGovernment
hashadtoestablishtheNationalRiceandCornCorporationtosavethe
publicfromtheircontinuoushoardingpracticesandtendencies;thatthey
have violated price control laws, especially on foods and essential
commodities,suchthatthelegislaturehadtoenactalaw(Sec.9,Republic
ActNo.1168),authorizingtheirimmediateandautomaticdeportationfor
price control convictions; that they have secret combinations among
themselvestocontrolprices,cheatingtheoperationofthelawofsupply
anddemand;
1174

1174

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
that they have connived to boycott honest merchants and traders who
wouldnotcateroryieldtotheirdemands,inunlawfulrestraintoffreedom
oftradeandenterprise.Theyarebelievedbythepublictohaveevadedtax
laws,smuggledgoodsandmoneyintoandoutoftheland,violatedimport
andexportprohibitions,controllawsandthelike,inderisionandcontempt
oflawfulauthority.Itisalsobelievedthattheyhaveengagedincorrupting
publicofficialswithfabulousbribes,indirectlycausingtheprevalenceof
graftandcorruptionintheGovernment.Asamatteroffactappealsto
unscrupulousalienshavebeenmadebothbytheGovernmentandbytheir
ownlawfuldiplomaticrepresentatives,actionwhichimpliedlyadmitsa
prevailingfeelingabouttheexistenceofmanyoftheabovepractices.
Thecircumstancesabovesetforthcreatewellfoundedfearsthatworse
thingsmaycomeinthefuture.Thepresentdominanceofthealienretailer,
especiallyinthebigcentersofpopulation,therefore,becomesapotential
sourceofdangeronoccasionsofwarorothercalamity.Wedonothave
here in this country isolated groups of harmless aliens retailing goods
amongnationals;whatwehavearewellorganizedandpowerfulgroups
that dominate the distribution of goods and commodities in the
communitiesandbigcentersofpopulation.Theyowenoallegianceor
loyaltytotheState,andtheStatecannotrelyuponthemintimesofcrisis
oremergency.Whilethenationalholdshislife,hispersonandhisproperty

subject to the needs of his country, the alien may even become the
potentialenemyoftheState.
f.Lawenactedininterestofnationaleconomicsurvivalandsecurity.
We are fully satisfied upon a consideration of all the facts and
circumstancesthatthedisputedlawisnottheproductofracialhostility,
prejudiceordiscrimination,buttheexpressionofthelegitimatedesireand
determina
1175

VOL.101,MAY
1175
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
tionofthepeople,thrutheirauthorizedrepresentatives,tofreethenation
fromtheeconomicsituationthathasunfortunatelybeensaddleduponit
rightlyorwrongly,toitsdisadvantage.Thelawisclearlyintheinterestof
thepublic,nayofthenationalsecurityitself,andindisputablyfallswithin
thescopeofpolicepower,thruwhichandbywhichtheStateinsuresits
existenceandsecurityandthesupremewelfareofitscitizens.
VI.TheEqualProtectionLimitation
a.Objectionstoalienparticipationinretailtrade.
Thenextquestionthatnowposessolutionis,Doesthelawdenytheequal
protectionofthelaws?Aspointedoutabove,themerefactofalienageis
therootandcauseofthedistinctionbetweenthealienandthenationalasa
trader.Thealienresidentowesallegiancetothecountryofhisbirthorhis
adoptedcountry;hisstayhereisforpersonalconvenience;heisattracted
bythelureofgainandprofit.Hisaimorpurposeofstay,weadmit,is
neitherillegitimatenorimmoral,butheisnaturallylackinginthatspiritof
loyaltyandenthusiasmforthiscountrywherehetemporarilystaysand
makeshisliving,orofthatspiritofregard,sympathyandconsiderationfor
hisFilipinocustomers aswouldprevent him from taking advantageof
their weakness and exploiting them. The faster he makes his pile, the
earliercanthealiengobacktohisbelovedcountryandhisbelovedkin
andcountrymen.Theexperienceofthecountryisthatthealienretailerhas
shownsuchutterdisregardforhiscustomersandthepeopleonwhomhe
makeshisprofit,thatithasbeenfoundnecessarytoadoptthelegislation,
radicalasitmayseem.

Anotherobjectiontothealienretailerinthiscountryisthathenever
reallymakesagenuinecontributiontonationalincomeandwealth.He
undoubtedlycontributestogeneraldistribution,butthegainsandprofits
hemakesarenotinvestedinindustriesthatwouldhelpthe
1176

1176

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
country'seconomyandincreasenationalwealth.Thealien'sinterestinthis
country being merely transient and temporary, it would indeed be ill
advised to continue entrusting the very important function of retail
distributiontohishands.
The practices resorted to by aliens in the control of distribution, as
already pointed out above, their secret manipulations of stocks of
commodities and prices, their utter disregard of the welfare of their
customersandoftheultimatehappinessofthepeopleofthenationof
whichtheyaremereguests,whichpractices,manipulationsanddisregard
donotattendtheexerciseofthetradebythenationals,showtheexistence
ofrealandactual,positiveandfundamentaldifferencesbetweenanalien
andanationalwhichfullyjustifythelegislativeclassificationadoptedin
theretailtrademeasure.Thesedifferencesarecertainlyavalidreasonfor
theStatetopreferthenationaloverthealienintheretailtrade.Wewould
bedoingviolencetofactandrealitywerewetoholdthatnoreasonor
groundforalegitimatedistinctioncanbefoundbetweenoneandtheother.
b.Differenceinalienaimsandpurposessufficientbasisfordistinction.
Theaboveobjectionablecharacteristicsoftheexerciseoftheretailtrade
by the aliens, which are actual and real, furnish sufficient grounds for
legislativeclassificationofretailtradersintonationalsandaliens.Some
maydisagreewiththewisdomofthelegislature'sclassification.Tothiswe
answer,thatthisistheprerogativeofthelawmakingpower.Sincethe
Courtfindsthattheclassificationisactual,realandreasonable,andall
personsofoneclassaretreatedalike,andasitcannotbesaidthatthe
classificationispatentlyunreasonableandunfounded,itisindutybound
todeclarethatthelegislatureactedwithinitslegitimateprerogativeandit
cannot declare that the act transcends the limit of equal protection
establishedbytheConstitution.
1177

VOL.101,MAY
1177
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
Broadlyspeaking,thepowerofthelegislaturetomakedistinctionsand
classifications among persons is not curtailed or denied by the equal
protectionofthelawsclause.Thelegislativepoweradmitsofawidescope
ofdiscretion,andalawcanbeviolativeoftheconstitutionallimitation
onlywhentheclassificationiswithoutreasonablebasis.Inadditiontothe
authoritieswehaveearliercited,wecanalsorefertothecaseofLindsley
vs. NaturalCarbonicGasCo.(1911),55L.ed.,369,whichclearlyand
succinctly defined the application of equal protection clause to a law
soughttobevoidedascontrarythereto:
"***.1.TheequalprotectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentdoesnottake
fromthestatethepowertoclassifyintheadoptionofpolicelaws,butadmitsofthe
exerciseofthewidescopeofdiscretioninthatregard,andavoidswhatisdoneonly
when it is without any reasonable basis, and therefore is purely arbitrary. 2. A
classification having some reasonable basis does not offend against that clause
merelybecauseitisnotmadewithmathematicalnicety,orbecauseinpracticeit
results in some inequality. 3. When the classification in such a law is called in
question,ifanystateoffactsreasonablycanbeconceivedthatwouldsustainit,the
existenceofthatstateoffactsatthetimethelawwasenactedmustbeassumed.4.
Onewhoassailstheclassificationinsuchalawmustcarrytheburdenofshowing
thatitdoesnotrestuponanyreasonablebasis,butisessentiallyarbitrary.'"

c.Authoritiesrecognizingcitizenshipasbasisforclassification.
Thequestionastowhetherornotcitizenshipisalegalandvalidground
forclassificationhasalreadybeenaffirmativelydecidedinthisjurisdiction
aswellasinvariouscourtsintheUnitedStates.InthecaseofSmithBell
&Co.vs.Natividad,40Phil.136,wherethevalidityofActNo.2761of
the Philippine Legislature was in issue, because of a condition therein
limiting the ownership of vessels engaged in coastwise trade to
corporationsformedbycitizensofthePhilippineIslandsortheUnited
States, thus denying the right to aliens, it was held that the Philippine
Legislaturedidnotviolatetheequalpro
1178

1178

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED

tectionclauseofthePhilippineBillofRights.TheLegislatureinenacting
the law had as ultimate purpose the encouragement of Philippine
shipbuildingandthesafetyfortheseIslandsfromforeigninterlopers.We
held that this was a valid exercise of the police power, and all
presumptionsareinfavorofitsconstitutionality.Insubstance,weheld
thatthelimitationofdomesticownershipofvesselsengagedincoastwise
tradetocitizensofthePhilippinesdoesnotviolatetheequalprotectionof
thelawanddueprocessoflawclausesofthePhilippineBillofRights.In
renderingsaiddecisionwequotedwithapprovaltheconcurringopinionof
JusticeJohnsoninthecaseofGibbonsvs.Ogden,9Wheat.,I,asfollows:
" 'Licensing acts, in fact, in legislation, are universally restraining acts; as, for
example,actslicensinggaminghouses,retailersofspirituousliquors,etc.Theact,in
thisinstance,isdistinctlyofthatcharacter,andformspartofanextensivesystem,the
object ofwhichistoencourageAmericanshipping,andplacethemonanequal
footingwiththeshippingofothernations.Almosteverycommercialnationreserves
toitsownsubjectsamonopolyofitscoastingtrade;andacountervailingprivilegein
favorofAmericanshippingiscontemplated,inthewholelegislationoftheUnited
Statesonthissubject.ItisnottogivethevesselanAmericancharacter,thatthe
license is granted; that effect has been correctly attributed to the act of her
enrollment.ButitistoconferonherAmericanprivileges,ascontradistinguished
from foreign; and to preserve the Government from fraud by foreigners; in
surreptitiouslyintrudingthemselvesintotheAmericancommercialmarine,aswellas
fraudsupontherevenueinthetradecoastwise,thatthiswholesystemisprojected.'"

Theruleingeneralisasfollows:
"Aliensareundernospecialconstitutionalprotectionwhichforbidsaclassification
otherwisejustifiedsimplybecausethelimitationoftheclassfallsalongthelinesof
nationality.Thatwouldberequiringahigherdegreeofprotectionforaliensasaclass
thanforsimilarclassesofAmericancitizens.Broadlyspeaking,thedifferencein
statusbetweencitizensandaliensconstitutesabasisforreasonableclassificationin
theexerciseofpolicepower."(2Am.Jur.468469.)
1179

VOL.101,MAY
1179
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento

InCommonwealthvs.Hana,81N.E.149(Massachusetts,1907),astatute
onthelicensingofhawkersandpeddlers,whichprovidedthatnoonecan
obtainalicenseunlessheis,orhasdeclaredhisintention,tobecomea
citizenoftheUnitedStates,washeldvalid,forthefollowingreason:It
mayseemwisetothelegislaturetolimitthebusinessofthosewhoare
supposedtohaveregardforthewelfare,goodorderandhappinessofthe
community,andthecourtcannotquestionthisjudgmentandconclusion.
In Bloomfield vs. State, 99 N.E. 309 (Ohio, 1912), a statute which
preventedcertainpersons,amongthemaliens,fromengaginginthetraffic
ofliquors,wasfoundnottobetheresultofracehatred,orinhospitality,or
adeliberatepurposetodiscriminate,butwasbasedonthebeliefthatan
aliencannotbesufficientlyacquaintedwith'ourinstitutionsandourlifeas
toenablehimtoappreciatetherelationofthisparticularbusinesstoour
entire social f abric", and was not, theref ore, invalid. In Ohio ex rel.
Clarke vs. Deckebach,274U.S.392,71L.ed.1115(1926),theU.S.
Supreme Court had under consideration an ordinance of the city of
Cincinnatiprohibitingtheissuanceoflicenses(poolsandbilliardrooms)
to aliens. It held that plainly irrational discrimination against aliens is
prohibited,butitdoesnotfollowthatalienraceandallegiancemaynot
bearinsomeinstancessucharelationtoalegitimateobjectoflegislation
astobemadethebasisofpermittedclassification,andthatitcouldnot
statethatthelegislationisclearlywrong;andthatlatitudemustbeallowed
forthelegislativeappraisementoflocalconditionsandforthelegislative
choiceofmethodsforcontrollinganapprehendedevil.ThecaseofState
vs.Carrol,124N.E.129(Ohio,1919)isaparallelcasetotheoneatbar.
InAsakura,vs.CityofSeattle,210P.30(Washington,1922),thebusiness
of pawnbroking was considered as having tendencies injuring public
interest,andlimitingittocitizensiswithinthescopeofpolicepower.A
similarstatutedenying
1180

1180

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
alienstherighttoengageinauctioneeringwasalsosustainedinWrightvs.
May,L.R.A.,1915P.151(Minnesota,1914).SoalsoinAntonvs.Van
Winkle,297F.340(Oregon,1924),thecourtsaidthataliensarejudicially
known to have different interests, knowledge, attitude, psychology and

loyalty, hence the prohibition of issuance of licenses to them for the

businessofpawnbroker,pool,billiard,cardroom,dancehall,isnotan
infringementofconstitutionalrights.InTemplarvs.MichiganStateBoard
of Examiners, 90 N.W. 1058 (Michigan, 1902), a law prohibiting the
licensingofaliensasbarberswasheldvoid,butthereasonforthedecision
wasthecourt'sfindingthattheexerciseofthebusinessbythealiensdoes
notinanywayaffectthemorals,thehealth,oreventheconvenienceofthe
community.InTakahashivs.FishandGameCommission,92L.ed.1479
(1947),aCaliforniastatutebanningtheissuanceofcommercialfishing
licensestopersonsineligibletocitizenshipwasheldvoid,becausethelaw
conflictswithFederalpoweroverimmigration,andbecausethereisno
publicinterestinthemereclaimofownershipofthewatersandthefishin
them, so there was no adequate justification for the discrimination. It
further added that the law was the outgrowth of antagonism toward
persons of Japanese ancestry. However, two Justices dissented on the
theory that fishing rights have been treated traditionally as natural
resources. In Fraser vs. McConway & Tarley Co., 82 Fed. 257
(Pennsylvania,1897),astatelawwhichimposedataxoneveryemployer
of foreignborn unnaturalized male persons over 21 years of age, was
declaredvoidbecausethecourtfoundthattherewasnoreasonforthe
classification.andthetaxwasanarbitrarydeductionfromthedailywage
ofanemployee.
d.Authoritiescontraexplained.
ItistruethatsomedecisionsoftheFederalcourtandoftheStatecourtsin
theUnitedStatesholdthatthedistinctionbetweenaliensandcitizensis
notavalid
1181

VOL.101,MAY
1181
81,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
groundforclassification.Butinthesedecisionsthelawsdeclaredinvalid
werefoundtobeeitherarbitrary,unreasonableorcapricious,orwerethe
result or product of racial antagonism and hostility, and there was no
question of public interest involved or pursued. In Yu Cong Eng vs.
Trinidad,70L.ed.1059(1925),theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdeclared

invalidaPhilippinelawmakingunlawfulthekeepingofbooksofaccount
inanylanguageotherthanEnglish,Spanishoranyotherlocaldialect,but
themainreasonsforthedecisionsare:(1)thatifChineseweredrivenout
ofbusinesstherewouldbenoothersystemofdistribution,and(2)thatthe
Chinese would fall prey to all kinds of fraud, because they would be
deprivedoftheirrighttobeadvisedoftheirbusinessandtodirectits
conduct.Therealreasonforthedecision,therefore,isthecourt'sbelief
thatnopublicbenefitwouldbederivedfromtheoperationofthelawand
ontheotherhanditwoulddepriveChineseofsomethingindispensablefor
carryingontheirbusiness.InYickWovs.Hopkins,30L.ed.220(1885)
an ordinance conferring power on officials to withhold consent in the
operationoflaundriesbothastopersonsandplace,wasdeclaredinvalid,
butthecourtsaidthatthepowergrantedwasarbitrary,thattherewasno
reason for the discrimination which attended the administration and
implementationofthelaw,andthatthemotivethereofwasmereracial
hostility. In State vs. Montgomery, 47 A. 165 (Maine, 1900), a law
prohibitingalienstoengageashawkersandpeddlerswasdeclaredvoid,
becausethediscriminationborenoreasonableandjustrelationtotheactin
respecttowhichtheclassificationwasproposed.
Thecaseatbarisradicallydifferent,andthefactsmakethemso.Aswe
already have said, aliens do not naturally possess the sympathetic
consideration and regard for customers with whom they come in daily
contact, nor the patriotic desire to help bolster the nation's economy,
exceptinsofarasitenhancestheirprofit,
1182

1182

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc..etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
northeloyaltyandallegiancewhichthenationalowestotheland.These
limitations on the qualifications of aliens have been shown on many
occasionsandinstances,especiallyintimesofcrisisandemergency.We
candonobetterthanborrowthelanguageofAntonvs.VanWinkle,297
F.340,342,todrivehometherealityandsignificanceofthedistinction
betweenthealienandthenational,thus:
"***.Itmaybejudiciallyknown,however,thatalienscomingintothiscountryare
withouttheintimateknowledgeofourlaws,customs,andusagesthatourownpeople
have.Soitislikewiseknownthatcertainclassesofaliensareofdifferentpsychology

fromourfellowcountrymen.Furthermore,itisnaturalandreasonabletosupposethat
theforeignborn,whoseallegianceisfirsttotheirowncountry,andwhoseidealsof
governmental environment and control have been engendered and formed under
entirelydifferentregimesandpoliticalsystems,havenotthesameinspirationforthe
publicweal,noraretheyaswelldisposedtowardtheUnitedStates,asthosewhoby
citizenship,areapartofthegovernmentitself.Furtherenlargement,isunnecessary.I
havesaidenoughsothatobviouslyitcannotbeaffirmedwithabsoluteconfidence
thattheLegislaturewaswithoutplausiblereasonformakingtheclassification,and
therefore appropriate discrimination against aliens as it relates to the subject of
legislation.***."

VIITheDueProcessofLawLimitation
a. Reasonability,thetestofthelimitation;determinationbylegislature
decisive.
Wenowcometodueprocessasalimitationontheexerciseofthepolice
power.IthasbeenstatedbythehighestauthorityintheUnitedStatesthat:
"***Andtheguarantyofdueprocess,ashasoftenbeenheld,demandsonlythatthe
lawshallnotbeunreasonable,arbitraryorcapricious,andthatthemeansselected
shallhavearealandsubstantialrelationtothesubjectsoughttobeattained.***."
*******
"Sofarastherequirementofdueprocessisconcernedandintheabsenceofother
constitutional restriction a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may
reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by
legislationadapted
1183

VOL.101,MAY 1183
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
toitspurpose.Thecourtsarewithoutauthorityeithertodeclaresuchpolicy,or,when
itisdeclaredbythelegislature,tooverrideit.Ifthelawspassedareseentohavea
reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose, and are neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied, and judicial
determinationtothateffectrendersacourtfunctusofficio.***."(Nebbiavs.New
York,78L.ed.940,950,957.)
Anotherauthoritystatestheprinciplethus:

"* * *. Too much significance cannot be given to the word 'reasonable' in

consideringthescopeofthepolicepowerinaconstitutionalsense,forthetestusedto
determinetheconstitutionalityofthemeansemployedbythelegislatureistoinquire
whethertherestrictionsitimposesonrightssecuredtoindividualsbytheBillof
Rightsareunreasonable,andnotwhetheritimposesanyrestrictionsonsuchrights.*
**."
*******
"***.Astatutetobewithinthispowermustalsobereasonableinitsoperation
uponthepersonswhomitaffects,mustnotbefortheannoyanceofaparticularclass,
andmustnotbeundulyoppressive."(11Am.Jur.Sec.302,pp.10741075.)

InthecaseofLawtonvs.Steele,38L.ed.385,388,itwasalsoheld:
"***.Tojustifythestateinthusinterposingitsauthorityinbehalfofthepublic,it
mustappear,first,thattheinterestsofthepublicgenerally,asdistinguishedfrom
thoseofaparticularclass,requiresuchinterference;andsecond,thatthemeansare
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly
oppressiveuponindividuals.***."

PrataUndertakingCo.vs.StateBoardofEmbalming,104ALR,389,395,
fixesthistestofconstitutionality:
"IndeterminingwhetheragivenactoftheLegislature,passedintheexerciseofthe
policepowertoregulatetheoperationofabusiness,isorisnotconstitutional,oneof
thefirstquestionstobeconsideredbythecourtiswhetherthepowerasexercisedhas
asufficientfoundationinreasoninconnectionwiththematterinvolved,orisan
arbitrary,oppressive,andcapricioususeofthatpower,withoutsubstantialrelationto
thehealth,safety,morals,comfort,andgeneralwelfareofthepublic."
1184

1184

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
lchongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
b.Petitioner'sargumentconsidered.
Petitioner'smainargumentisthatretailisacommon,ordinaryoccupation,
one of those privileges long ago recognized as essential to the orderly
pursuitofhappinessbyfreemen;thatitisagainfulandhonestoccupation
andthereforebeyondthepowerofthelegislaturetoprohibitandpenalize.
This argument overlooks fact and reality and rests on an incorrect
assumptionandpremise,i.e.,thatinthiscountrywheretheoccupationis
engagedinbypetitioner,ithasbeensoengagedbyhim,bythealien,inan
honestcreditableandunimpeachablemanner,withoutharmorinjuryto

the citizens and without ultimate danger to their economic peace,

tranquilityandwelfare.ButtheLegislaturehasfound,aswehavealso
foundandindicated,thattheprivilegehasbeensogrosslyabusedbythe
alien,thrutheillegitimateuseofperniciousdesignsandpractices,thathe
now enjoys a monopolistic control of the occupation and threatens a
deadly stranglehold on the nation's economy endangering the national
securityintimesofcrisisandemergency.
Therealquestionatissue,therefore,isnotthatposedbypetitioner,
whichoverlooksandignoresthefactsandcircumstances,butthis,Isthe
exclusion in the future of aliens from the retail trade unreasonable,
arbitraryandcapricious,takingintoaccounttheillegitimateandpernicious
formandmannerinwhichthealienshaveheretoforeengagedtherein?As
thuscorrectlystatedtheanswerisclear.Thelawinquestionisdeemed
absolutelynecessarytobringaboutthedesiredlegislativeobjective,i.e.,to
free national economy from alien control and do minance. It is not
necessarilyunreasonablebecauseitaffectsprivaterightsandprivileges
(11Am.Jur.pp.10801081.)Thetestofreasonablenessofalawisthe
appropriatenessoradequacyunderallcircumstancesofthemeansadopted
to carry out its purpose into effect (Id.) Judged by this test, disputed
legislation,whichis
1185

VOL.101,MAY
1185
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
notmerelyreasonablebutactuallynecessary,mustbeconsiderednotto
haveinfringedtheconstitutionallimitationofreasonableness.
Thenecessityofthelawinquestionisexplainedintheexplanatory
notethataccompaniedthebill,whichlaterwasenactedintolaw:
"Thisbillproposestoregulatetheretailbusiness.Itspurposeistopreventpersons
who are not citizens of the Philippines from having a strangle hold upon our
economiclife.Ifthepersonswhocontrolthisvitalarteryofoureconomiclifearethe
oneswhoowenoallegiancetothisRepublic,whohavenoprofounddevotiontoour
freeinstitutions,andwhohavenopermanentstakeinourpeople'swelfare,wearenot
really the masters of our own destiny. All aspects of our life, even our national
security,willbeatthemercyofotherpeople.

"Inseekingtoaccomplishtheforegoingpurpose,wedonotproposetodeprive
personswhoarenotcitizensofthePhilippinesoftheirmeansoflivelihood.While
thisbillseekstotakeawayfromthehandsofpersonswhoarenotcitizensofthe
Philippinesapowerthatcanbewieldedtoparalyzeallaspectsofournationallifeand
endangerournationalsecurityitrespectsexistingrights.
"Theapprovalofthisbillis'necessaryforournationalsurvival."

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

economicindependenceisnonethelesslegitimate.Freedomandliberty
arenotrealandpositiveifthepeoplearesubjecttotheeconomiccontrol
anddominationofothers,especiallyifnotoftheirownraceorcountry.
Theremovalanderadicationoftheshacklesofforeigneconomiccontrol
anddomination,isoneofthenoblestmotivesthatanationallegislature
maypursue.Itisimpossibletoconceivethatlegislationthatseekstobring
it about can infringe the constitutional limitation of due process. The
attainmentofalegitimateaspirationofapeoplecanneverbebeyondthe
limitsoflegislativeauthority.
c.LawexpresslyheldbyConstitutionalConventiontobewithinthesphere
oflegislativeaction.
TheframersoftheConstitutioncouldnothaveintendedtoimposethe
constitutionalrestrictionsofdue
1186

1186

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
process on the attainment of such a noble motive as freedom from
economiccontrolanddomination,thrutheexerciseofthepolicepower.
The fathers of the Constitution must have given to the legislature full
authorityandpowertoenactlegislationthatwouldpromotethesupreme
happinessofthepeople,theirfreedomandliberty.Onthepreciseissue
now before us, they expressly made their voice clear; they adopted a
resolutionexpressingtheirbeliefthatthelegislationinquestioniswithin
thescopeofthelegislativepower.ThustheydeclaredintheirResolution:
" That it is the sense of the Convention that the public interest requires the
nationalization of retail trade; but it abstains from approving the amendment
introduced by the Delegate for Manila, Mr. Araneta, and others on this matter
becauseitisconvincedthattheNationalAssemblyisauthorizedtopromulgatealaw
whichlimitstoFilipinoandAmericancitizenstheprivilegetoengageintheretail

trade.'"(IIAruego,TheFramingofthePhilippineConstitution,662663,quotedon
pages66and67oftheMemorandumforthePetitioner.)

Itwoulddowelltorefertothenationalistictendencymanifestedinvarious
provisionsoftheConstitution.Thusinthepreamble,aprincipalobjective
istheconservationofthepatrimonyofthenationandascorollarythereto
the provision limiting to citizens of the Philippines the exploitation,
developmentandutilizationofitsnaturalresources.AndinSection8of
ArticleXIV,itisprovidedthat"nofranchise,certificate,oranyotherform
ofauthorizationfortheoperationofapublicutilityshallbegrantedexcept
tocitizensofthePhilippines."Thenationalizationoftheretailtradeisonly
acontinuanceofthenationalisticprotectivepolicylaiddownasaprimary
objectiveoftheConstitution.Canitbesaidthatalawimbuedwiththe
same purpose and spirit underlying many of the provisions of the
Constitutionisunreasonable,invalidandunconstitutional?
The seriousness of the Legislature's concern for the plight of the
nationalsasmanifestedintheapproval
1187

VOL.101,MAY
1187
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
oftheradicalmeasureis,therefore,fullyjustified.Itwouldhavebeen
recreanttoitsdutiestowardsthecountryanditspeoplewoulditviewthe
sorryplightofthenationalswithcomplacencyandrefuseorneglectto
adoptaremedycommensuratewiththedemandsofpublicinterestand
nationalsurvival.Astherepositoryofthesovereignpoweroflegislation,
theLegislaturewasindutyboundtofacetheproblemandmeet,through
adequatemeasures,thedangerandthreatthataliendominationofretail
tradeposestonationaleconomy.
d.Provisionsoflawnotunreasonable.
A cursory studyof theprovisions ofthe law immediately reveals how
tolerant, how reasonable the Legislature has been. The law is made
prospective and recognizes the right and privilege of those already
engagedintheoccupationtocontinuethereinduringtherestoftheirlives;
andsimilarrecognitionoftherighttocontinueisaccordedassociationsof
aliens.Therightorprivilegeisdeniedtothoseonlyuponconvictionof

certainoffenses.InthedeliberationsoftheCourtonthiscase,attention
wascalledtothefactthattheprivilegeshouldnothavebeendeniedto
childrenandheirsofaliensnowengagedintheretailtrade.Suchprovision
woulddefeatthelawitself,itsaimsandpurposes.Besides,theexerciseof
legislativediscretionisnotsubjecttojudicialreview.Itiswellsettledthat
theCourtwillnotinquireintothemotivesoftheLegislature,norpass
upongeneralmattersoflegislativejudgment.TheLegislatureisprimarily
thejudgeofthenecessityofanenactmentorofanyofitsprovisions,and
everypresumptionisinfavorofitsvalidity,andthoughtheCourtmay
holdviewsinconsistentwiththewisdomofthelaw,itmaynotannulthe
legislationifnotpalpablyinexcessofthelegislativepower.Furthermore,
thetestofthevalidityofalawattackedasaviolationofdueprocess,isnot
itsreasonableness,butitsunreasonableness,andwefind
1188

1188

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
heprovisionsarenotunreasonable.Theseprinciplesalsoanswervarious
otherargumentsraisedagainstthelaw,someofwhichare:thatthelaw
does not promote general welfare; that thousands of aliens would be
thrown out of employment; that prices will increase because of the
eliminationofcompetition;thatthereisnoneedforthelegislation;that
adequate replacement is problematical; that there may be general
breakdown;thattherewouldberepercussionsfromforeigners;etc.Many
oftheseargumentsaredirectedagainstthesupposedwisdomofthelaw
whichlies solely within thelegislativeprerogative;they donotimport
invalidity.
VIII.Allegeddefectinthetitleofthelaw
Asubordinategroundorreasonfortheallegedinvalidityofthelawisthe
claimthatthetitlethereofismisleadingordeceptive,asitconcealsthereal
purposeofthebill,whichistonationalizetheretailbusinessandprohibit
aliens from engaging therein. The constitutional provision which is
claimedtobeviolatedinSection21(1)ofArticleVI,whichreads:
"Nobillwhichmaybeenactedintolawshallembracemorethanonesubjectwhich
shallbeexpressedinthetitleofthebill."

What the above provision prohibits is duplicity, that is, if its title
completelyfailstoapprisethelegislatorsorthepublicofthenature,scope

and consequences of the law or its operation (I Sutherland, Statutory

Construction,Sec.1707,p.297.)Acursoryconsiderationofthetitleand
theprovisionsofthebillfailstoshowthepresenceofduplicity.Itistrue
thattheterm"regulate"doesnotandmaynotreadilyandatfirstglance
convey the idea of "nationalization" and "prohibition", which terms
expressthetwomainpurposesandobjectivesofthelaw.But"regulate"is
abroadertermthaneitherprohibitionornationalization.Bothofthese
havealwaysbeenincludedwithinthetermregulation.
1189

VOL.101,MAY
1189
31,1957
lchongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
"Underthetitleofanactto'regulate',thesaleofintoxicatingliquors,theLegislature
mayprohibitthesaleofintoxicatingliquors."(Sweetvs.CityofWabash,41Ind.,7;
quotedinpage41ofAnswer.)
"WithinthemeaningoftheConstitutionrequiringthatthesubjectofeveryactof
theLegislatureshallbestatedinthetitle,thetitleToregulatethesaleofintoxicating
liquors,etc."sufficientlyexpressesthesubjectofanactprohibitingthesaleofsuch
liquorstominorsandtopersonsinthehabitofgettingintoxicated;suchmatters
beingproperlyincludedwithinthesubjectofregulatingthesale."(Williamsvs.State,
48Ind.306,308,quotedinp.42ofAnswer.)
"Theword'regulate'isofbroadimport,andnecessarily impliessomedegreeof
restraint and prohibition of acts usually done inconnection withthe thingto be
regulated.Whilewordregulate'doesnotordinarilyconveymeaningofprohibit,there
isnoabsolutereasonwhyitshouldnothavesuchmeaningwhenusedindelegating
policepowerinconnectionwithathingthebestoronlyefficaciousregulationof
whichinvolvessuppression."(Statevs.Morton,162So.718,182La.887,quotedin
p.42ofAnswer.)

Thegeneralruleisfortheuseofgeneraltermsinthetitleofabill;ithas
alsobeensaidthatthetitleneednotbeanindextotheentirecontentsof
the law (I Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Sec. 4803, p. 345.) The
aboverulewasfollowedwhenthetitleoftheActinquestionadoptedthe
more general term "regulate" instead of "nationalize" or "prohibit".
Furthermore,thelawalsocontainsotherrulesfortheregulationofthe
retailtrade,whichmaynotbeincludedintheterms"nationalization"or

"prohibition";sowerethetitlechangedfrom"regulate"to"nationalize"or
"prohibit",therewouldhavebeenmanyprovisionsnotfallingwithinthe
scopeofthetitlewhichwouldhavemadetheActinvalid.Theuseofthe
term"regulate",therefore,isinaccordwiththeprinciplegoverningthe
drafting of statutes, under which a simple or general term should be
adoptedinthetitle,whichwouldincludeallotherprovisionsfoundinthe
bodyoftheAct.
Onepurposeoftheconstitutionaldirectivethatthesubjectofabill
shouldbeembracedinitstitleistoapprisethelegislatorsofthepurposes,
thenatureandscopeofitsprovisions,andpreventtheenactmentintolaw
ofmatters
1190

1190

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
whichhavenotreceivedthenotice,actionandstudyofthelegislatorsorof
thepublic.Inthecaseatbaritcannotbeclaimedthatthelegislatorshave
notbeenapprisedofthenatureofthelaw,especiallythenationalization
and prohibition provisions. The legislators took active interest in the
discussionofthelaw,andagreatmanyofthepersonsaffectedbythe
prohibitioninthelawconductedacampaignagainstitsapproval.Itcannot
beclaimed,therefore,thatthereasonsfordeclaringthelawinvalidever
existed.Theobjectionmusttherefore,beoverruled.
IX.Allegedviolationofinternationaltreatiesandobligations
Another subordinate argument against the validity of the law is the
supposedviolationtherebyoftheCharteroftheUnitedNationsandofthe
Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly.Wefindnomeritintheabovecontention.TheUnitedNations
Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and
freedomoftheirsubjects(HansKelsen,TheLawoftheUnitedNations,
1951ed.pp.2932),andtheDeclarationofHumanRightscontainsnothing
morethanamererecommendation,oracommonstandardofachievement
forallpeoplesandallnations (Id. p.39.)Thatsuchistheimportofthe
UnitedNationsCharteraidoftheDeclarationofHumanRightscanbe
inferredfromthefactthatmembersoftheUnitedNationsOrganization,
suchasNorwayandDenmark,prohibitforeignersfromengaginginretail

trade,andinmostnationsoftheworldlawsagainstforeignersengagedin
domestictradeareadopted.
TheTreatyofAmitybetweentheRepublicofthePhilippinesandthe
RepublicofChinaofApril18,1947isalsoclaimedtobeviolatedbythe
lawinquestion.Allthatthetreatyguaranteesisequalityoftreatmentto
theChinesenationals"uponthesametermsasthenationalsofanyother
country."ButthenationalsofChinaarenotdis
1191

VOL.101,MAY
1191
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
criminatedagainstbecausenationalsofallothercountries,exceptthoseof
theUnitedStates,whoaregrantedspecialrightsbytheConstitution,are
allprohibitedfromengagingintheretailtrade.Butevensupposingthat
the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to
qualificationoramendmentbyasubsequentlaw(U.S.vs.Thompson,258,
Fed.257,260),andthesamemaynevercurtailorrestrictthescopeofthe
policepoweroftheState(Palstonvs.Pennsylvania,58L.ed.539.)
X.Conclusion
Resumingwhatwehavesetforthaboveweholdthatthedisputedlawwas
enactedtoremedyarealactualthreatanddangertonationaleconomy
posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free
citizensandcountryfromsuchdominanceandcontrol;thattheenactment
clearlyfallswithinthescopeofthepolicepoweroftheState,thruwhich
andbywhichitprotectsitsownpersonalityandinsuresitssecurityand
future; that the law does not violate the equal protection clause ofthe
Constitutionbecausesufficientgroundsexistforthedistinctionbetween
alienandcitizenintheexerciseoftheoccupationregulated,northedue
process oflaw clause, because the law is prospective in operation and
recognizestheprivilegeofaliensalreadyengagedintheoccupationand
reasonablyprotectstheirprivilege;thatthewisdomandefficacyofthelaw
tocarryoutitsobjectivesappeartoustobeplainlyevidentasamatterof
factitseemsnotonlyappropriatebutactuallynecessaryandthatinany
casesuchmatterfallswithintheprerogativeoftheLegislature,withwhose
poweranddiscretiontheJudicialdepartmentoftheGovernmentmaynot

interfere;thattheprovisionsofthelawareclearlyembracedinthetitle,
andthissuffersfromnoduplicityandhasnotmisledthelegislatorsorthe
segmentofthepopulationaffected;andthatitcannotbesaidtobevoidfor
supposedconflictwithtreatyobligationsbecausenotreatyhasactually
beenen
1192

1192

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc.,andSarmiento
teredintoonthesubjectandthepolicepowermaynotbecurtailedor
surrenderedbyanytreatyoranyotherconventionalagreement.
SomemembersoftheCourtareoftheopinionthattheradicaleffectsof
thelawcouldhavebeenmadelessharshinitsimpactonthealiens.Thusit
is stated that more time should have been given in the law for the
liquidationofexistingbusinesseswhenthetimecomesforthemtoclose.
Ourlegalduty,however,ismerelytodetermineifthelawfallswithinthe
scopeoflegislativeauthorityanddoesnottranscendthelimitationsofdue
process and equal protection guaranteed in the Constitution. Remedies
againsttheharshnessofthelawshouldbeaddressedtotheLegislature;
theyarebeyondourpowerandjurisdiction.
Thepetitionisherebydenied,withcostsagainstpetitioner.
Pars, C. J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcin,
Reyes,J.B.L.,Endencia,andFelix,JJ.,concur.
PADILLA,J.,concurringanddissenting:
Iagreetotheproposition,principleorrulethatcourtsmaynotinquireinto
thewisdomofanActpassedbytheCongressanddulyapprovedbythe
President of the Republic. But the rule does not preclude courts from
inquiringanddeterminingwhethertheActoffendsagainstaprovisionor
provisions of the Constitution. I am satisfied that the Act assailed as
violativeofthedueprocessoflawandtheequalprotectionofthelaws
clauses of the Constitution does not infringe upon them, insofar as it
affectsassociations,partnershipsorcorporations,thecapitalofwhichis
notwhollyownedbycitizensofthePhilippines,andaliens,whoarenot
andhavenotbeenengagedintheretailbusiness.Iam,however,unableto
persuademyselfthatitdoesnotviolatesaidclausesinsofarastheAct

appliestoassociationsandpartnershipsreferredtointheActandtoaliens,
whoareandhave
1193

VOL.101,MAY
1193
31,1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
heretoforebeenengagedinsaidbusiness.Whentheydidengageinthe
retailbusinesstherewasnoprohibitiononoragainstthemtoengageinit.
Theyassumedandbelievedingoodfaiththeywereentitledtoengagein
thebusiness.TheActallowsalienstocontinueinbusinessuntiltheirdeath
orvoluntaryretirementfromthebusinessorforfeitureoftheirlicense;and
corporations, associations or partnerships, the capital of which is not
whollyownedbycitizensofthePhilippinestocontinueinthebusinessfor
aperiodoftenyearsfromthedateoftheapprovaloftheAct(19June
1954)oruntiltheexpiryofthetermoftheexistenceoftheassociationor
partnershiporcorporation,whichevereventcomesfirst.Theprohibition
oncorporations,thecapitalofwhichisnotwhollyownedbycitizensof
thePhilippines,toengageintheretailbusinessforaperiodofmorethan
tenyearsfromthedateoftheapprovaloftheActorbeyondthetermof
theircorporateexistence,whichevereventcomesfirst,isvalidandlawful,
becausethecontinuanceoftheexistenceofsuchcorporationsissubjectto
whatevertheCongressmayimposereasonablyuponthembysubsequent
legislation.1 But the prohibition to engage in the retail business by
associationsandpartnerships,thecapitalofwhichisnotwhollyownedby
citizensofthePhilippines,aftertenyearsfromthedateoftheapprovalof
theAct,evenbeforetheendofthetermoftheirexistenceasagreedupon
by the associates and partners, and by alien heirs to whom the retail
businessistransmittedbythedeathofanalienengagedinthebusiness,or
byhisexecutororadministrator,amountstoadeprivationoftheirproperty
withoutdueprocessoflaw.Tomymind,thetenyearperiodfromthedate
of the approval of the Act or until the expiration of the term of the
existenceoftheassociationandpartnership,whichevereventcomesfirst,
andthesixmonthperiodgrantedtoalienheirsofadeceasedalien,
________________

1Section76,ActNo.1459.

1194

1194

PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,etc,,andSarmiento
hisexecutororadministrator,toliquidatethebusiness,donotcurethe
defectofthelaw,becausetheeffectoftheprohibitionistocompelthemto
sellordisposeoftheirbusiness.Thepriceobtainableatsuchforcedsaleof
the business would be inadequate to reimburse and compensate the
associatesorpartnersoftheassociationorpartnership,andthealienheirs
ofadeceasedalien,engagedintheretailbusinessforthecapitalinvested
init.Thestockofmerchandiseboughtandsoldatretaildoesnotalone
constitutethebusiness.Thegoodwillthattheassociation,partnershipand
the alien had built up during a long period of effort, patience and
perseveranceformspartofsuchbusiness.Theconstitutionalprovisions
thatnopersonshallbedeprivedofhispropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw
1 andthatnopersonshallbedeniedtheequalprotectionofthelaws 2
wouldhavenomeaningasappliedtoassociationsorpartnershipsandalien
heirsofanalienengagedintheretailbusinessiftheyweretobecompelled
tosellordisposeoftheirbusinesswithintenyearsfromthedateofthe
approvaloftheActandbeforetheendofthetermoftheexistenceofthe
associationsandpartnershipsasagreeduponbytheassociatesandpartners
andwithinsixmonthsafterthedeathoftheirpredecessorininterest.
TheauthorsoftheConstitutionwerevigilant,carefulandzealousin
thesafeguardoftheownershipofprivateagriculturallandswhichtogether
withthelandsofthepublicdomainconstitutethepricelesspatrimonyand
mainstay of the nation; yet, they did not deem it wise and prudent to
deprivealiensandtheirheirsofsuchlands,3
Forthesereasons,Iamoftheopinionthatsection1oftheAct,insofar
asitcompelsassociationsandpartnershipsreferredtothereintowindup
theirretailbusinesswithintenyearsfromthedateoftheapprovalofthe
Act
________________
1Section1(1),ArticleIII,oftheConstitution.
2Ibid.
3Section5,ArticleXIII,oftheConstitution.

1195

VOL.101,MAY
1195
81.1957
Ichongetc.,etal.vs.Hernandez,
etc.,andSarmiento
evenbeforetheexpiryofthetermoftheirexistenceasagreeduponbythe
associatesandpartnersandsection3oftheAct,insofarasitcompelsthe
alienheirsofadeceasedalienengagedintheretailbusinessinhislifetime,
hisexecutororadministrator,toliquidatethebusiness,areinvalid,forthey
violatethedueprocessoflawandtheequalprotectionofthelawsclauses
oftheConstitution.
Petitiondenied.