Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7995)
Facts:
Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by Republic Act No. 1180, petitioner, v. Jaime Hernandez, Secretary of Finance, and Marcelino Sarmiento, City Treasurer of Manila, respondents, G.R. No. L-7995. May 31, 1957, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner, an alien resident and representative of similarly situated alien residents, corporations and partnerships, sought a judicial declaration that Republic Act No. 1180 (the Retail Trade nationalization law) is unconstitutional and prayed for an injunction against enforcement by the Secretary of Finance and local collecting officers. The petition attacked RA 1180 as denying aliens equal protection and due process, as having a defective title, as violating international treaties and obligations, and as infringing specific constitutional patrimony and nationality provisions by forbidding hereditary transmission and requiring 100% Filipino capitalization for retail enterprises.
Respondents (through the Solicitor‑General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila) defended the statute as a valid exercise of the State’s police power aimed at national economic survival and security, as having an adequate title, as not conflicting with treaties or the United Nations instruments, and as not unduly impairing succession or property rights since the law was prospective and contained exceptions and forfeiture safeguards.
The Court’s opinion summarized RA 1180’s chief features: prohibition of non‑citizens and entities not wholly Filipino‑owned from engaging directly or indirectly in retail trade; grandfathering of aliens actually engaged on May 15, 1954 (life tenure for natural persons, ten years for juridical persons); special exception for United States nationals; mechanisms for forfeiture upon specified violations; prohibition on opening additional stores or branches by grandfathered aliens; mandatory registration of alien retailers; and a six‑month liquidation period for heirs of deceased alien retailers.
The Supreme Court reviewed evidentiary material and official statistics showing alien predominance in assets and gross sales in the retail sector and considered contemporaneous expressions of constitutional and legislative concern (including a Constitutional Convention resolution favoring nationalization of retail trade). The Court denied the petition and sustained RA 1180. The denial was announced with costs against petitioner; ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Republic Act No. 1180 violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution by excluding aliens and certain non‑Filipino‑owned entities from retail trade?
- Does the title of the Act violate Section 21(1), Article VI of the Constitution by failing to express the subject of the bill?
- Does the Act conflict with international obligations or treaties (including the United Nations instruments and the Treaty of Amity with China)?
- Do the Act’s provisions limiting hereditary succession and requiring wholly Filipino capitalization, insofar as they compel liquidation within the prescribed periods, viola...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)