Ichong vs. Hernandez, GR No.

L-7995
Facts: Republic Act No. 1180 is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business
." In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business.
Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (1) it de
nies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their l
iberty and property without due process of law ; (2) the subject of the Act is n
ot expressed or comprehended in the title thereof; (3) the Act violates internat
ional and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines; (4) the provisi
ons of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their retail business thru
hereditary succession, and those requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for a co
rporation 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 Con
stitution.
In answer, the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend t
hat: (1) the Act was passed in the valid exercise of the police power of the Sta
te, which exercise is authorized in the Constitution in the interest of national
economic survival; (2) the Act has only one subject embraced in the title; (3)
no treaty or international obligations are infringed; (4) as regards hereditary
succession, only the form is affected but the value of the property is not impai
red, and the institution of inheritance is only of statutory origin.
Issue: Whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to remedy really o
r actually exist.
Held: Yes. We hold that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual thr
eat and danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the r
etail business and free citizens and country from dominance and control. Such en
actment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru wh
ich and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and fu
ture. Furthermore, the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the C
onstitution because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien a
nd citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated, nor the due process of l
aw clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the privil
ege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably protects their pr
ivilege. The wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear t
o us to be plainly evident
as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but
actually necessary
and that in any case such matter falls within the prerogativ
e of the Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of
the Government may not interfere. Moreover, the provisions of the law are clear
ly embraced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and has not misled
the legislators or the segment of the population affected; 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 c
urtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other conventional agreement.