G.R. No. L-7995, 31 May 1957
En Banc, Labrador (J), 8 concur
FACTS: Driven by aspirations for economic independence and national security, the Congress enacted Act No. 1180 entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business." The main provisions of the Act, among others, are: (1) a prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations, among others, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade; and (2) a prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business. Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the said Act, brought an action to obtain a judicial declaration, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance, Jaime Hernandez, and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the Act, 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; and (3) the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to remedy really or actually exist; (2) Whether the law was enacted in interest of national economic survival and security; (3) Does the law deny the equal protection of the laws and the due process of law?; (4) Do the facts and circumstances justify the enactment?; (5) Whether there was a defect in the title of the law; (6) Whether there was a violation of international treaties and obligations.
HELD: 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 dominance and control. The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future. 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. The wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear 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. 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. Lastly, 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. Hence, the petition was denied, with costs against petitioner.
En Banc, Labrador (J), 8 concur
FACTS: Driven by aspirations for economic independence and national security, the Congress enacted Act No. 1180 entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business." The main provisions of the Act, among others, are: (1) a prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against associations, among others, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade; and (2) a prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business. Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the said Act, brought an action to obtain a judicial declaration, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance, Jaime Hernandez, and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the Act, 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; and (3) the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to remedy really or actually exist; (2) Whether the law was enacted in interest of national economic survival and security; (3) Does the law deny the equal protection of the laws and the due process of law?; (4) Do the facts and circumstances justify the enactment?; (5) Whether there was a defect in the title of the law; (6) Whether there was a violation of international treaties and obligations.
HELD: 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 dominance and control. The enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own personality and insures its security and future. 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. The wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out its objectives appear 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. 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. Lastly, 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. Hence, the petition was denied, with costs against petitioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment