Case Digest: Ichong, et. al. vs. Hernandez, etc. and Sarmiento

FACTS:

R.A. No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” was passed that nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting against persons not citizens of the Philippines, as well as 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 of U.S. citizens and juridical entities.  Aliens are required to present registration to the proper authorities a verified statement concerning their businesses.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines; and
2. Whether the provisions of the Act violates the due process of law

RULING:

1. There is no merit in this contention.  The UN Charter imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects and the Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more than a mere recommendation, or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.  The Treaty of Amity between China and the Philippines guarantees equality of treatment to the Chinese nationals “upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country,” and is therefore not violated for all nationals except those of the United States, who are granted special rights by the Constitution are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.
2. A cursory study of the provisions of the law show that it is reasonable as it is made prospective and recognizes the right and privilege of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives.  Furthermore, the test of the validity of a law attacked as a violation of due process, is not in its reasonableness but its unreasonableness and the Court found that these provisions are not unreasonable.