RATIO/DOCTRINE

[1] The taking of private property for any use, which is not required by the necessities or convenience of the inhabitants of the state,
is an unreasonable exercise of the right of eminent domain, and beyond the power of the legislature to delegate. (Benne tt vs.
Marion, 106 Iowa, 628, 633; W ilson vs. Pittsburg, etc. Co., 222 Pa. St., 541, 545; Greasy, etc. Co. vs. Ely, etc. Co., 132 Ky., 692,
697.) To justify the exercise of this extreme power (eminent domain) where the legislature has left it to depend upo n the necessity
that may be found to exist, in order to accomplish the purpose of the incorporation, ... the party claiming the right to the exercise of
the power should be required to show at least a reasonable degree of necessity for its exercise (New Cent ral Coal Co. vs. George's
etc. Co. [37 Md., 537, 564]).

[2] The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with the right to exercise it in a particular case.
The power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal corporations and other entities within the State, general authority to exercise
the right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but that general authority of municipalities or entities must not be
confused with the right to exercise it in particular
instances. The moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the
conditions companying the authority.

[3] The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation, and before it can exercise the right some law must
exist conferring the power upon it. When the courts come to determine the question, they must only find (a) that a law or authority
exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the
law. In the present case there are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila: First, the land must be
private; and, second, the purpose must be
public. If the court, upon trial, finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails, certainly it cannot be
contended that the right is being exercised in accordance with law.

[4] The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State, or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in
derogation of private rights, and the rule in that case is that the authority must be strictly construed. No species of property is held
by individuals with greater tenacity, and none is guarded by the constitution and laws more sedulously, than the right to the freehold
of inhabitants. When the legislature interferes with that right, and, for greater public purposes, appropriates the land of an individual
without his consent, the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtly interpretation. (Bensely vs. Mountainlake W ater
Co., 13 Cal., 306 and cases cited [73 Am. Dec., 576].

FACTS:

Republic Act No. 1180 known as, “An Act to Regulate Retail Business” was passed by the Congress. The said RA 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 inthe retail
trade with the exception of U.S. citizens and juridical entities. Aliens are required topresent registration to the proper authorities
a verified statement concerning their businesses.

Now, petitioner Lao Ichong, was a Chinese businessman in the markets of Pasay City who seeksto declare the nullification of RA
1180 for it violates the international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines. The said Act is unconstitutional, and to
enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, fromenforcing its
provisions. He contends that RA 1180 denies to alien residents the equal protectionof the laws and deprives of their liberty and
property without due process of law.

ISSUES:
Whether or not Republic Act No. 1180 is a valid exercise of police power.

HELD/RULING: YES.
There is no question that the Act was approved in the exercise of the police power, but petitionerclaims that its exercise in this
instance is attended by a violation of the constitutional requirements of dueprocess and equal protection of the laws.
Police Power -
It has been said the police power is so far -reaching in scope, and it is almost impossible to limit its sweep. Itderives its existence
from the very existence of the State itself, and doesnot need to be expressed or defined in its scope. It is said to be co-extensive
with self-protection and survival, and as such it is the mostpositive and active of all governmental processes, the most
essential,insistent and illimitable.Especially is it so under a modern democratic framework wherethe demands of society and of
nations have multiplied to almostunimaginable proportions; the field and scope of police power hasbecome almost boundless, just
as the fields of public interest and publicwelfare have become almost all-embracing and have transcended humanforesight.
-x x x x x x x-

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 beforehand the extent or scope of police power by which and through which the State seeks
to attain or achieve interest or welfare. The Constitution do not define the scope or extent of the police power of the State. The State
sets forth the limitations. The most important limitations are the due process clause and the equal protection clause.

Due process clause

Art. III, 1987 Constitution. Section 1(1).

–
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without dueprocess of law, nor any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws.

Equal protection clause

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 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.
-x x x x x x x-
The Court resumed holding that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat anddanger to national economy posed
by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizensand country from dominance and control. The enactment
clearly falls within the scope of the police powerof the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its
security and future.The law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution because sufficient grounds existfor the
distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the dueprocess of law clause, because the law
is prospective in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliensalready engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their
privilege.
-x x x x x x x-