Lao H.

Ichong vs Jaime Hernandez

G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957

FACTS:
Republic Act 1180 entitled, “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was enacted to
nationalize the retail trade business in the Philippines. The law prohibits persons not
citizens of the Philippines and/or associations, partnerships, or corporations, the capital of
which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or
indirectly in the retail trade and other prohibitions and regulations.
            Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the Act, contending that it denies to alien
residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their liberty and property
without due process of law.  Solicitor General (SolGen) contended that the Act was passed
in the valid exercise of the police power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the
Constitution in the interest of national economic survival.
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Act is unconstitutional as it deprives alien residents of the equal
protection of the laws.

HELD/RULING:
NO. The law is a valid exercise of police power and it does not deny the aliens the
equal protection of the laws. There are real and actual, positive and fundamental
differences between an alien and a citizen which fully justify the legislative classification
adopted. There is also no evidence that the law has ignored nor defined any constitutional
mandate; rather, it merely points out that the Constitution does not impose a policy on
Filipino monopoly.
The equal protection clause 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.
The laws were made for the interest of our State, falling within the scope of its police
power which protects its own interest and insures its security and future.

ISSUES:
 Is Republic Act No. 1180
unconstitutional?
 Was the law made in the
interest of national economic
survival and security?
 Does the law deny the equal
protection of the laws and the
due process of law?
 Does the law infringes on
several international treaty and
obligations?
RULING:
1. No, Republic Act No. 1180 is
not unconstitutional. The mere
fact of alienage is
the root and cause of the
distinction between the alien
and the national as a
trader. There is no evidence that
the law has flouted any
constitutional mandate.
It pointed out that the
Constitution does not impose a
policy of Filipino monopoly.
The purpose of the law is
simply to prohibit foreign
powers or interests from
steering our economic policies
and ensure that Filipinos are
given preference in
all areas of development. The
wisdom and efficacy of the law
to carry out its
objectives appear to be plainly
unmistakable – as a matter of
fact it seems not
only appropriate but actually
necessary – and that in any case
such matter falls
within the right of the
Legislative Department.

ISSUES:
 Is Republic Act No. 1180
unconstitutional?
 Was the law made in the
interest of national economic
survival and security?
 Does the law deny the equal
protection of the laws and the
due process of law?
 Does the law infringes on
several international treaty and
obligations?
RULING:
1. No, Republic Act No. 1180 is
not unconstitutional. The mere
fact of alienage is
the root and cause of the
distinction between the alien
and the national as a
trader. There is no evidence that
the law has flouted any
constitutional mandate.
It pointed out that the
Constitution does not impose a
policy of Filipino monopoly.
The purpose of the law is
simply to prohibit foreign
powers or interests from
steering our economic policies
and ensure that Filipinos are
given preference in
all areas of development. The
wisdom and efficacy of the law
to carry out its
objectives appear to be plainly
unmistakable – as a matter of
fact it seems not
only appropriate but actually
necessary – and that in any case
such matter falls
within the right of the
Legislative Department.