Case Title: Topic:

Ichong v Hernandez Equal Protection

Date: May 31, 1957

Ponente: LABRADOR, J.:

Nature of the Case:

Petitioner: LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected. by
Republic Act No. 1180

Respondent: JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila,

Doctrine:
The State can deprive persons of life, liberty and property, provided there is due process of law; and persons may be classified into classes and groups,
provided everyone is given the equal protection of the law. The test or standard, as always, is reason.

Requirements for equal protection: applies alike to all persons w/in such class, and 2) reasonable ground exists for making a distinction
between those who fall within such class and those who do not.
Relevant Provisions:

Facts:
FACTS:

1. Petitioner Lao Ichong, for and in his own behalf of other alien residents, partnerships and corporations adversely affected by RA
1180, brought this action to obtain judicial declaration of unconstitutionality and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and city and
municipal treasurers from enforcing its provisions. 


2. RA 1180, “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business”, nationalizes the retail trade business. Its main provisions include: 1) prohibitions
against aliens from engaging directly or indirectly in retail trade; 2) an exception is made for aliens (natural persons) actually
engaged in retail allowed to continue until forfeiture of license, death, or retirement; and for 10 years in case of juridical persons;
3) exception in favor of citizens and juridical entities of the US; 4) prohibition against aliens actually engaged from opening
additional branches, etc. 

3. Petitioner argues that the Act is violative of equal protection, and is merely the result of racialism and pure and unabashed
nationalism. 


Issue 1: WoN the Act is RULING: Petition DENIED. Act NOT unconstitutional.
violative of equal
protection of the laws— RATIO:
NO. 1. The equal protection clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, but is not intended to
- prohibit legislation. Police power and constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection are
supposed to co-exist; and the balancing is the indispensable means for the attainment of legitimate
aspirations of any democratic society. While constitutional guarantees make no distinction accdg to race,
color or nationality, equal protection does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires
that all persons be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions. Thus, the requirements for its
exercise are 1) it applies alike to all persons w/in such class, and 2) reasonable ground exists for making a
distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.

2. In this case, the Court held that there is a general public sentiment that the alien retailer holds a
controlling and dominant position in the nation’s economy (as proven by statistics)—controlling
food, clothing, and almost all articles of daily life. The dangers arising from alien control and
domination in retail is founded on their ability to endanger national interest, economy, and security in
its power to fix prices and supply. This factual milieu reflects the legislation’s purpose and target in
the enactment of the disputed nationalization law. The Court also held that such reasonable
distinction exists primarily in the fact that alien residents owe no such allegiance to the country and
the control and is naturally lacking in that spirit of regard, sympathy and consideration for his Filipino
consumers as would prevent him from taking advantage of their weaknesses and exploiting them.
Also, the alien makes no genuine contribution to national income and wealth, his stay being transient
and temporary, not investing in industries that would help the economy and increase national wealth.



3. Citizenship has been held to be a legal and valid ground for classification in the exercise of police power.
Aliens are under no special constitutional protection which forbids a classification otherwise justified
simply because the limitation of the class falls along the lines of nationality. This would require a
 higher degree of protection for aliens as a class than for similar classes of citizens. And when the
classification is actual, real and reasonable, and all persons of one class are treated alike, legislation is
generally upheld to be within legislative prerogative, since the wisdom of the law shall not be
adjudged by the Court. 


Dispositive Portion:
The petition is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner.