Ichong vs Hernandez

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

Facts: Petitioner, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents corporations and
partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of Republic Act. No. 1180, “An Act to Regulate the
Retail Business,” filed to obtain a judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional 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.
Issue: Whether RA 1180 denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their
liberty and property without due process of law
Held: No. The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege,
as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislation,
which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which is to operate. It
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 equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling
within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exists
for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. (2 Cooley,
Constitutional Limitations, 824-825.)
The due process clause has to do with the reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the
police power. Is there public interest, a public purpose; is public welfare involved? Is the Act reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the legislature’s purpose; is it not unreasonable, arbitrary or
oppressive? Is there sufficient foundation or reason in connection with the matter involved; or has
there not been a capricious use of the legislative power? Can the aims conceived be achieved by the
means used, or is it not merely an unjustified interference with private interest? These are the
questions that we ask when the due process test is applied.
The conflict, therefore, between police power and the guarantees of due process and equal protection
of the laws is more apparent than real. Properly related, the power and the guarantees are supposed
to coexist. The balancing is the essence or, shall it be said, the indispensable means for the attainment
of legitimate aspirations of any democratic society. There can be no absolute power, whoever exercise
it, for that would be tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute liberty, for that would mean license and
anarchy. So 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. The police power legislation must be
firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between purposes
and means. And if distinction and classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for
said distinction.
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; that the wisdom and
efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear to 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
prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and discretion the Judicial department of the
Government may not interfere; that the provisions of the law are clearly 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 curtailed or surrendered by
any treaty or any other conventional agreement.

Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business
opportunities herein abound (then) – particularly in the retail business. 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. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the
said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which, according to
him, violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). He said that as a Chinese businessman
engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he
should be given equal opportunity.
ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles.
HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no
conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. 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”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which
applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such
class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class
and those who do not.”
For the sake of argument, 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. Hence,
Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.

GONZALES v. HECHANOVA

October 26, 2012

Then President Diosdado Macapagal entered into two executive agreements with Vietnam and Burma
for the importation of rice without complying with the requisite of securing a certification from the
Nat’l Economic Council showing that there is a shortage in cereals. Hence, Hechanova authorized the
importation of 67000 tons of rice from abroad to the detriment of our local planters. Gonzales, then
president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association assailed the executive agreements. Gonzales
averred that Hechanova is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction”, because RA 3452 prohibits
the importation of rice and corn by “the Rice and Corn Administration or any other government agency.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3452 prevails over the 2 executive agreements entered into by Macapagal.

HELD: Under the Constitution, the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by
Congress. The former may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of the latter,
except in the exercise of his veto power. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired
the status of laws, by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the
performance of the very act prohibited by said laws. In the event of conflict between a treaty and a
statute, the one which is latest in point of time shall prevail, is not applicable to the case at bar,
Hechanova not only admits, but, also, insists that the contracts adverted to are not treaties. No such
justification can be given as regards executive agreements not authorized by previous legislation,
without completely upsetting the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks and
balances which are fundamental in our constitutional set up.
As regards the question whether an executive or an international agreement may be invalidated by our
courts, suffice it to say that the Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled it in the affirmative,
by providing that the SC may not be deprived “of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments
and decrees of inferior courts in “All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law,
ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question”. In other words, our Constitution authorizes
the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs
counter to an act of Congress.

TANADA VS ANGARA
G.R. No. 118295 May 2, 1997

Wigberto E. Tanada et al, in representation of various taxpayers and as non-governmental

organizations, petitioners,
vs.
EDGARDO ANGARA, et al, respondents.

Facts:
This is a case petition by Sen. Wigberto Tanada, together with other lawmakers, taxpayers, and various
NGO’s to nullify the Philippine ratification of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.
Petitioners believe that this will be detrimental to the growth of our National Economy and against to
the “Filipino First” policy. The WTO opens access to foreign markets, especially its major trading
partners, through the reduction of tariffs on its exports, particularly agricultural and industrial products.
Thus, provides new opportunities for the service sector cost and uncertainty associated with exporting
and more investment in the country. These are the predicted benefits as reflected in the agreement
and as viewed by the signatory Senators, a “free market” espoused by WTO.

Petitioners also contends that it is in conflict with the provisions of our constitution, since the said
Agreement is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines because it meant that Congress
could not pass legislation that would be good for national interest and general welfare if such legislation
would not conform to the WTO Agreement.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the petition present a justiciable controversy.
2. Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and
the Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and three
(3) of that agreement’ cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the letter, spirit and
intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections 10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise
of legislative power by Congress.
4. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement impair the exercise of judicial power by this
Honorable Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
5. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the ratification by the President of the
Philippines of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’ implied rejection of the
treaty embodied in the Final Act.

Discussions:
 1987 Constitution states that Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
 Although the Constitution mandates to develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy controlled by Filipinos, does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,
goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the
international community.” The WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak and
developing economies, which comprise the vast majority of its members. Unlike in the UN where
major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security Council, in the WTO,
decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with each member’s vote equal in weight
to that of any other. Hence, poor countries can protect their common interests more effectively
through the WTO than through one-on-one negotiations with developed countries. Within the
 WTO, developing countries can form powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more
decisively than outside the Organization. Which is not merely a matter of practical alliances but
a negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus, the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement
recognize the need of developing countries like the Philippines to “share in the growth in
international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development.”
 In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of
incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which
are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. A state which has contracted valid
international obligations is bound to make in its legislations such modifications as may be
necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. Paragraph 1, Article 34 of the
General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedures. With regard to Infringement of
a design patent, WTO members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of
implementing the provisions of TRIPS within their own internal systems and processes.
 The alleged impairment of sovereignty in the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is
balanced by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land and the adherence of the Constitution to the policy of cooperation and amity
with all nations. The Senate, after deliberation and voting, voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave
its consent to the WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the land” is a legitimate
exercise of its sovereign duty and power.

Rulings:
1. In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravenes the
Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable controversy. Where an action of the
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the
right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. As explained by former Chief
Justice Roberto Concepcion, “the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question of whether or not
a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this
nature.”
2. While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the
world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only
against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair. In other words, the Constitution
did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods and
services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not
encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it
does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.
3. By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their
voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater
benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live
with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also
commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. As shown by the
foregoing treaties Philippines has entered, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without
violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines “adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy
of cooperation and amity with all nations.”
4. The provision in Article 34 of WTO agreement does not contain an unreasonable burden,
consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent
in our judicial system.
5. The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act
required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement.
Moreover, the Senate was well-aware of what it was concurring in as shown by the members’
deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of President Ramos dated August 11,
1994, the senators of the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was concurring in.