Ichong V.

Hernandez
Friday, 26 July 2019 11:32 AM

FACTS:
- An Act to Regulate the Retail Business (Republic Act 1180) was passed.
- The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as
corporations owned by foreigners from engaging in retail trade in our country.
- Lao Ichong, in his behalf, adversely affected filed an action to invalidate the
Retail Trade Nationalization Law, on the grounds that
○ The subject of the Act is not expressed in the title
○ It denied to alien residents the equal protection of the laws
○ It deprived of their liberty and property without due process of law
○ It violated several treaties

ISSUE:
(1) Is RA 1180 violative of the equal protection clause? (2) Is the Retail Trade
Nationalization Law unconstitutional?

RULING:
1. No. The equal protection of the law clause does not demand absolute
equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated
alike, under like circumstances and have the same privileges and liabilities.
○ Sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and citizen in
the exercise of the occupation regulated
○ The equal protection of the law clause is not intended to prohibit
legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or
by territory within which it operates.
2. No. The law in question was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and
danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the
retail business and free citizens and country from dominance and control
○ The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the
State (protects welfare of people)

Additional:
3. It also shows that the provisions of the law are clearly embraced in the title,
and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected
4. Does not violate the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective

in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the

occupation and reasonably protects their privilege.
1. And that it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty
 and has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population affected
4. Does not violate the due process of law clause, because the law is prospective

in operation and recognizes the privilege of aliens already engaged in the

occupation and reasonably protects their privilege.
1. And that it cannot be said to be void for supposed conflict with treaty
obligations because no treaty has actually been entered into on the subject
and the police power may not be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any
other conventional agreement.