DUE PROCESS OF LAW

1. Ichong v. Hernandez
(G.R. No. L-7995, May 31,1957)

FACTS:
Republic Act No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate Retail Business” was passed by the Congress
which, in effect, nationalizes the retail trade business. The provisions of the Act prohibits against persons,
not citizens of the Philippines, and against 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
with the exception in favor of the United States citizens and juridical entities. Aliens actually engaged in
the retail business are required to present for registration with the proper authorities a verified statement
concerning their businesses, giving, among other matters, the nature of the business, their assets and
liabilities and their offices and principal offices of juridical entities.

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 brought this action to obtain a
judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all other
persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions.
Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the Act, contending that it denies to alien residents the equal
protection of the laws and deprives them of their liberty and property without due process of law. In
answer, the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend 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 Republic Act No. 1180 denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws
and deprives them of their liberty and property without due process of law

HELD:
No. The court held that the disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to
national economy posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business and free citizens and
country from such dominance and control; that 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.

Furthermore, the test of the validity of a law attacked as a violation of due process, is not its
reasonableness, but its unreasonableness, and the Court find the provisions are not unreasonable because
it affects private rights and privileges.

Finally, the Court said that aliens do not naturally possess the sympathetic consideration and
regard for customers with whom they come in daily contact, nor the patriotic desire to help bolster the
nation’s economy, except in so far as it enhances their profit, nor the loyalty and allegiance which the
national owes to the land.