CASE DIGEST
ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ
G.R. No. L-7995 , May
31, 1957
EN BANC, PERLAS-BERNABE
Equal Protection Clause;
Police Power of the State cannot be curtailed or restricted by a Treaty;
Regulation of Retail Trade Business;
The Treaty of Amity between the Republic
of the Philippines and the Republic of China of April 18, 1947 guarantees
equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals “upon the same terms as the
nationals of any other country”. But the nationals of China are not
discriminated against because nationals of all other countries, except those of
the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are all
prohibited from engaging in the retail trade. But even supposing that the law
infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification
or amendment by a subsequent, and the same may never curtail or restrict the
scope of the police power of the State.
Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman. 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.
Petitioner Ichong, brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional. Ichong attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (1) it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and 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 international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines; (4) the provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession, and those requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a corporation or entity to entitle it to engage in the retail business, violate the spirit of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and Section 8 of Article XIV of the Constitution.
Whether or not Republic Act 1180 violates the equal protection of laws.
NO. 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. RA 1180 is a valid exercise of
police power. The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power
of the State. The law 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, nor 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.
Whether
or not law may invalidate or supersede
treaties or generally accepted principles.
YES. A law may
supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. 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.
A treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent, and
the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the
State. Hence, Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market
stalls in the Pasay city market.
No comments:
Post a Comment