G.R. No.

L-7995, May 31, 1957 indirectly in  the retail trade;  (2) an exception  from  the  above prohibition in
favor  of  aliens actually  engaged in said business on May 15,  1954, who
LAO H. ICHONG, IN HIS OWN BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF OTHER
ALIEN RESIDENTS, CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS are allowed to continue  to engage therein, unless their licenses are forfeited
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1180, PETITIONER, in accordance with the law, until their death or voluntary retirement in case of
VS. JAIME HERNANDEZ, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND MARCELINO natural persons, and  for ten years  after the approval of the Act or until the
SARMIENTO, CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, RESPONDENTS.
expiration of term  in case of juridical persons; (3) an exception therefrom  in
LABRADOR, J.: favor of citizens and juridical entities of the United States; (4) a  provision for
the forfeiture of  licenses  (to engage in the retail business) for violation of the
laws on nationalization,  economic control weights  and measures and labor
I.  The case and the issue, in general and other laws  relating to trade, commerce and  industry; (5)  a  prohibition 
against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the retail
This Court has before it the delicate task  of passing upon the  validity  and business of additional stores  or branches of retail business,  (6) a provision
constitutionality of a  legislative enactment,  fundamental  and  far-reaching  requiring aliens  actually engaged  in the retail business  to present  for 
in  significance. The enactment poses questions of due process, police  registration  with the  proper authorities  a verified  statement concerning
power and equal protection of the laws.  It also poses an important issue of their  businesses, giving, among other matters, the nature of the business,
fact, that is whether the conditions which the disputed law purports to  their assets and liabilities and their offices and principal  offices  of juridical
remedy really  or actually exist. Admittedly springing from a deep, militant, entities;  and (7) a provision allowing the heirs of  aliens now negated in the 
and positive nationalistic impulse, the law purports to protect citizen and retail  business  who  die,  to continue such business for a period of six
country from the  alien  retailer.   Through it,  and within the field of economy months for purposes of liquidation,
it regulates, Congress attempts to translate national aspirations for economic
independence and national  security, rooted in the drive and urge for national III. Grounds upon which petition is based—Answer thereto
survival and  welfare, into a concrete and tangible measures designed to free
the national retailer from the competing dominance of  the alien, so  that  the Petitioner, for  and in  his own behalf and on behalf  of other alien residents, 
country and the nation may  be  free from  a  supposed economic corporations and partnerships  adversely affected by the provisions of
dependence and bondage.  Do the facts and circumstances justify the Republic Act No. 1180, brought this  action to obtain  a judicial declaration
enactment? that said Act is unconstitutional, and to  enjoin  the  Secretary of  Finance 
and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and municipal
II. Pertinent 'provisions of Republic Act No. 1180 treasurers, from enforcing its provisions.  Petitioner attacks the 
constitutionality of the Act, contending that: (1) it denies to alien residents the
Republic Act No. 1180  is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business."  equal protection  of the laws and deprives them of their liberty  and  property
In effect  it nationalizes the retail trade business. The main provisions of the without due process of law;  (2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or
Act are: (1) a prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines,  and comprehended  in the title thereof;  (3) the Act  violates  international and
against associations,  partnerships, or  corporations the capital of which are treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines; (4) the provisions of the
not wholly owned  by citizens of  the Philippines, from  engaging  directly or  Act  against  the  transmission by aliens  of their retail  business  thru
hereditary succession, and those requiring  100%  Filipino  capitalization for  under a modern democratic framework where the demands of society and of
a corporation or entity to  entitle it to engage in  the retail business, violate nations have multiplied to  almost  unimaginable proportions; the field and
the spirit  of Sections  1 and 5,  Article XIII and Section  8 of Article XIV  of scope of police power has  become almost boundles3, just as the fields  of
the Constitution. In answer,  the Solicitor-General  and  the  Fiscal  of the City public interest and public  welfare have become almost all-embracing and
of Manila  contend  that:  (1)   the Act  was  passed in  the  valid exercise of have transcended human  foresight.  Otherwise stated,   as  we cannot
the  police  power  of the State, which  exercise  is  authorized  in the  foresee the  needs and demands of public interest and welfare in this
Constitution  in the interest of national economic survival;  (2)  the Act has constantly  changing and progressive world,  so we cannot delimit
only one subject embraced in the title;  (3)  no  treaty or international  beforehand the extent or scope of police power by  which  and through which
obligations  are  infringed;  (4)  as regards hereditary  succession, only the the State seeks to attain  or  achieve  public interest or welfare.   So it is that
form is affected but the value of the property is not impaired, and the Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of the police power  of the
institution of inheritance  is only of statutory  origin. State;  what  they  do is to  set forth the limitations thereof.  The most
important of these are the due process clause  and the  equal  protection
IV. Preliminary consideration of legal principles involved clause.
a. The police power.—There is no  question that the Act was approved in the b. Limitations on police  power.—The basic limitations of due process and
exercise of the  police power, but  petitioner claims that its  exercise in this equal protection are found in the following  provisions of  our Constitution:
instance is  attended  by a violation of the constitutional requirements of  due "SECTION 1.(1)  No person shall  be deprived of life, liberty or property 
process and equal protection of the laws.  But before proceeding to the without  due process  of law,  nor shall any  person be denied  the  equal 
consideration and  resolution of the ultimate issue- involved, it would be well protection  of  the  laws."  (Article  III,  Phil. Constitution)These constitutional
to bear in mind  certain basic and fundamental, albeit  preliminary, guarantees which embody the essence of individual liberty and freedom in 
considerations in the determination of the ever recurrent conflict between democracies, are not limited to citizens alone but  are admittedly  universal in
police power and the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the their application, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of
laws.  What is the scope of  police power, and how are the  due  process  nationality.   (Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, SO, L. ed. 220, 226.)
and equal protection  clauses related to it V  What is the province and  power c. The equal  protection  clause.—
of the legislature, and what is the function and duty  of the  courts?   These The equal protection of the law  clause is against undue favor  and individual 
consideration  must  be clearly  and correctly understood that their or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the  oppression of 
application to the facts of the case may be brought forth with clarity and the inequality.  It is not intended to prohibit legislation, which is limited either in
issue accordingly resolved. the object to which  it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate.  It
does not demand absolute equality among residents;  it merely   requires
It has been said that police power is so far-reaching in scope,  that  it  has  that  all  persons shall  be treated alike, under like circumstances and
become  almost impossible to limit its sweep.  As it derives  its  existence conditions both as  to  privileges conferred  and  liabilities  enforced. The
from the very existence of the State itself, it does not need to  be expressed  equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies  only  to
or defined in its scope; it is  said to be  co-extensive with self- protection and  those persons falling within  a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons 
survival, and as such it is  the most positive and active of all governmental within such class, and reasonable grounds exists for making" a distinction
processes, the most essential, insistent and illimitable.   Especially is it so between those  who fall  within  such class and those who  do  not. (2
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 824-825.) adopted to  implement the  public policy or to achieve public interest.  On the
d. The due process  clause.—The due process clause has to do with  the  other hand, courts, although zealous guardians of  individual liberty  and 
reasonableness of legislation enacted in pursuance of the police power. Is right,  have nevertheless evinced  a reluctance to interfere  with the exercise
there  public interest, a public purpose; is public welfare involved?  Is the  Act of the  legislative prerogative.   They have  done so early where there  has
reasonably  necessary  for the  accomplishment of the  legislature's purpose; been  a clear,  patent  or palpable arbitrary and  unreasonable abuse of  the
is it not unreasonable,  arbitrary  or oppressive? Is.  there  sufficient legislative prerogative.  Moreover,  courts are not supposed  to override
foundation  or reason in connection with  the matter  involved ; or has there legitimate policy, and courts never inquire into  the wisdom of the law.
not been a capricious use of the legislative power?  Can the aims  conceived  V. Economic  problems  sought to be  remedied
be achieved by the means used,  or is it not merely an unjustified With the above  considerations in mind,  we  will now proceed to  delve
interference with private  interest?  These  are  the  questions that  we ask directly into  the  issue involved.  If the disputed legislation were merely a
when the due process test  is applied. regulation, as  its title indicates, there would be no question  that  it falls
within the legitimate  scope of  legislative power.  But it goes further and
The conflict,  therefore, between  police  power and the guarantees  of due prohibits  a group  of residents,  the aliens, from engaging therein.  The 
process  and  equal  protection  of the laws is  more apparent  than real.  problem becomes more complex because its subject is a common, trade or 
Properly  related, the power and the  guarantees are supposed to coexist.  occupation, as old  as society itself, which  from time immemorial  has always
The balancing is the essence or, shall it be said, the indispensable means been open to  residents, irrespective of race, color or citizenship.
for  the attainment  of legitimate  aspirations  of any democratic  society.   a. Importance of  retail trade in the  economy  of  the nation.—In a primitive
There can be no absolute power, whoever exercise it, for that would be economy where families produce all that they consume and consume all that
tyranny.  Yet there can neither be absolute liberty, for that would mean they produce, the dealer, of course, is unknown.  But  as group  life develops 
license and  anarchy.  So the State  can deprive persons of life, liberty  and  and families begin to live in communities producing more than what they 
property, provided there  is  due  process  of law; and persons may be consume  and needing  an  infinite  number of things they do not produce,
classified into classes and groups, provided everyone  is  given  the  equal  the dealer comes into  existence.
protection  of the law.  The test  or  standard,  as  always,  is  reason.  The
police power legislation must  be firmly grounded on public interest  and  As villages develop into big communities and specialization in production
welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist between  purposes and  begins, the dealer's importance is enhanced. Under modern conditions and
means.   And if distinction and classification has been  made, there must be standards of living, in which man's needs have  multiplied and  diversified to
a reasonable  basis for said  distinction. unlimited extents and proportions, the retailer comes  as essential as the
e. Legislative discretion not subject to judicial review.—Now,  in this matter of producer, because thru him the infinite variety of articles, goods  and
equitable balancing1, what is the proper place and role of the courts?  It must commodities  needed  for  daily life  are placed within the easy  reach of
not be  overlooked, in the first  place, that the legislature, which is the consumers.  Retail  dealers perform the functions  of capillaries  in the
constitutional repository of police power and exercises the prerogative  of  human body, thru which all the needed food and supplies  are ministered to
determining the policy of the State, is by force of circumstances primarily the members of the  communities comprising the nation.
judge of  necessity, adequacy or reasonableness and wisdom, of any law
promulgated in the exercise of the police  power, or of the measures  There cannot be any question about  the  importance of the retailer in the life
of the  community.   He ministers to the  resident's daily needs,  food in all  its
increasing forms,  and the various little  gadgets and  things  needed for Petitioner  denies that there is alien predominance and control in  the retail
home and  daily life.  He provides his customers around his store with the trade.   In one breath it  is said that the  fear  is  unfounded  and the threat is 
rice or corn, the fish, the salt, the vinegar, the spices  needed  for  the  daily imagined;  in another,  it is charged that the law is merely the result of
cooking.   He  has cloths to sell,  even the needle and  the  thread to sew  racialism and pure and unabashed  nationalism.  Alienage, it is said, is not an
them or darn  the clothes that wear out.  The retailer, therefore, from  the element of  control; also so  many unmanageable factors in the retail
lowly peddler,  the owner of a small  sari-sari store, to the operator of a business make control virtually impossible.  The first argument which brings
department store or a  supermarket  is so much a part of day-to-day up an issue of fact merits serious consideration.  The others are matters of
existence. opinion within the exclusive competence of the legislature and beyond our 
b. The alien retailer's, traits.—The alien retailer  must have started plying  prerogative to pass upon and  decide.
his  trade in this  country in the bigger centers  of population (Time there  was
when he was unknown in provincial  towns and villages).  Slowly  but  The best evidence  are the statistics on the  retail  trade, which put down the
gradually  he  invaded towns and villages; now he predominates in the cities figures in black and white.  Between the constitutional  convention year 
and big centers of population.  He even pioneers in far  away nooks where (1935), when the fear of alien domination and  control of  the retail trade
the beginnings of community life  appear,  ministering to the daily needs of already filled the minds  of our  leaders  with fears and misgivings, and the
the residents  and purchasing  their agricultural produce for sale in the year of the  enactment of the  nationalization of the retail  trade  act (1954),
towns.  It is an undeniable fact that in many communities  the alien has official statistics unmistakably point  out  to  the  ever-increasing  dominance
replaced  the native retailer.  He  has shown in  this  trade,  industry without and  control by the  alien of  the retail trade,  as witness the  following tables:
limit,  and the patience and forbearance  of a slave. Derogatory epithets are
Assets Gross Sales
hurled at him, but he laughs these off without murmur;  insults of ill-bred  and Year and Retailer's Nationality No. Pesos Per cent Distribution Pesos Per cent

insolent neighbors and  customers  are made in  his face,  but he  heeds -Establishme Distribution
nts
them not,  and he forgets, and forgives.  The community takes no note of 1941:
 
 
Filipino ............... 106,671 200,323,138 55.82 174,181,924 5174
  Chinese .............. 15,356 118,348,692 32.98 148,8.13,239 44.21
him, as he appears to be  harmless and extremely useful.   Others ................ 1,646 40,187,090 11.20 13,630,289 4.05
   
c.  Alleged  alien  control  and  dominance.—There is a general feeling on the 1947:  
  Filipino .............. 111,107 208,658,946 65.05 279,583,888 57.03
part of the public, which appears to be true to  fact, about  the controlling and   Chinese ................ 13,774 106,156,218 33.56 205,701,134 41.96
  Otters ................ 354 8,761,260 ..49 4,927,168 1.01
dominant position that the alien retailer holds in the nation's economy.   Food  
1948: (Census)
 

   
and  other  essentials, clothing, almost all articles of daily life  reach the    Filipino.............. 118,681 213,842,264 67.30 467,161,667 60.51
  Chinese.............. 12,087 93,155,459 29.38 294,894,227 38.20
residents  mostly through him.  In big cities and  centers  of population he    Others.................. 422 10,514,675 3.32 9,995,402 1.29
   
has  acquired not only predominance, but apparent control aver distribution 1949:  
   
of almost all kinds of  goods, such as  lumber, hardware,  textiles, groceries,  
 
Filipino ..............
Chinese ..............
113,659 213,461,602
16,248 125,223,886
60.30
35.72
462,532,901
392,414,876
53.47
45.36
  Others ................ 486 12,066,365 3.39 10,078,364 1.17
drugs, sugar, flour,  garlic, and  scores of other goods and articles.  And     
1951:  
were it  not for some national corporations like the Naric, the Namarco, the     
  Filipino ................ 119,362 224,053,620 61.09 466,058,052 53.07
Facomas  and the Accfa,  his  control  over principal foods and products   Chinese .............. 17,429 134,325,303 36.60 404,481,384 46.06
  Others ............... 347 8,614,026 2.31 7,645,327 .87
would easily  become full and complete.    
AVERAGE
ASSETS AND GROSS SALES PER ESTABLISHMENT
              
Item Gross Sales
It is this domination and control, which  we believe  has been  sufficiently
Year and Retailer's Assets (Pesos)
Nationality (Pesos) shown to exist,  that  is the legislature's target in the  enactment of  the 
1941:
  Filipino .............................................................................. 1,878 1,638 disputed  nationalization law.  If they did not exist as a fact the sweeping
  Chinese................................................................................ 7,707 9,691
  Others..................................................................................
1947:
24,416 8,281 remedy of nationalization  would  never have   been  adopted.  The framers 
  Filipino................................................................................ 1,878 2,516
  Chinese ................................................................................ 7,707 14,934 of our Constitution  also  believed in the existence of this alien dominance
  Others ................................................................................. 24,749 13,919
1948: (Census) and control when they approved  a resolution categorically declaring  among
  Filipino................................................................................ 1,878 4,111
  Chinese ................................................................................ 7,707 24,398 other things, that "it is the sense of the Convention that the public interest
  Others.................................................................................. 24,916 23,686

 
1949:
Filipino................................................................................ 1,878 4,069
requires  the nationalization of the retail trade; * * *."   (II Aruego,  The
  Chinese ................................................................................ 7,707 24,152
  Others ................................................................................ 24,807 20,737 Framing of the  Philippine Constitution, 662— 663, quoted on page  67 of
1951:
  Filipino................................................................................. 1,877 3,905 Petitioner.)  That was twenty- two  years ago; and  the events since  then 
  Chinese ................................................................................ 7,707 33,207
  Others .............................................................................. 24,824 22,033 have not been either pleasant or comforting.  Dean  Sinco  of the University
         
(Estimated Assets and Gross Sales of Retail Establishments, By Year and Nationality of Owners, Benchmark: 1948 Census, issued of the Philippines College of  Law, commenting on the patrimony clause of 
by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, Department of Commerce and Industry; pp. 18-19 of Answer.)
the Preamble opines that the fathers of our Constitution  were merely
The above statistics  do not include corporations and partnerships, while  the translating the  general preoccupation  of Filipinos "of the dangers  from 
figures  on  Filipino establishments already  include  mere  market  vendors,  alien interests that  had already  brought under their control  the commercial
whose capital  is necessarily small. and other  economic activities of the  country" (Sinco, Phil. Political Law, 10th
ed., p. 114); and analyzing the concern of the members  of the constitutional
The above figures reveal that in  percentage  distribution  of assets and of convention for the economic  life  of the citizens,  in  connection with  the
gross sales,  alien participation has steadily increased during the years.  It  is nationalistic provisions  of  the  Constitution, he says:
true, of course, that  Filipinos have the edge in the number of retailers, but "But there has been a general feeling that alien dominance over the
aliens more than make up  for the  numerical gap through their assets and economic life of the country is not desirable and that if such  a situation
gross sales  which average between six and seven  times  those  of the  should remain, political independence alone is no  guarantee to national
very  many  Filipino  retailers. Numbers in  retailers, here, do  not imply stability and  strength.   Filipino private  capital is not big enough to  wrest
superiority; the alien  invests  more capital,  buys and sells six  to seven from alien hands the control  of the national economy. Moreover,  it is but of 
times more, and gains much more. The same official report, pointing out to  recent formation and hence, largely  inexperienced, timid  and hesitant. 
the  known predominance of  foreign elements  in the retail  trade,  remarks Under  such  conditions, the  government as the instrumentality of the
that the  Filipino  retailers were largely engaged in minor retailer enterprises. national  will, has to step in  and assume the initiative, if not the leadership, 
As  observed  by respondents,  the native  investment  is thinly spread,  and in the struggle  for the economic freedom  of the nation in somewhat the 
the Filipino  retailer is practically helpless in matters of capital, credit,  price" same way that it did in the crusade for political freedom.  Thus  *  * *  it (the
and  supply. Constitution)  envisages  an  organized movement for the protection of the
nation not only against the possibilities of armed invasion but also against its
d. Alien control and threat,  subject of apprehension in Constitutional economic subjugation by  alien  interests in the economic field."   (Phil.
Convention.— Political  Law by Sinco, 10th ed., p. 476.)Belief in  the existence of  alien
control  and predominance  is felt  in other  quarters.   Filipino  businessmen,
manufacturers  and producers  believe so; they fear the dangers coming influences  of  alien  domination. Grave  abuses have characterized the
from  alien  control, and  they express sentiments  of  economic exercise of  the retail trade  by aliens.  It  is a  fact  within judicial notice,
independence.  Witness thereto is Resolution No.  1,  approved on July  IS,  which  courts  of  justice may  not  properly  overlook or ignore in  the 
1958, of the Fifth National  Convention  of Filipino  Businessmen,  and. a interests  of truth and justice,  that there exists a general feeling  on the part
similar resolution, approved on March 20, 1954, of the Second National of the public that alien participation in the retail trade has  been attended by 
Convention  of Manufacturers  and Producers.  The man in the street also  a pernicious  and intolerable practices,  the  mention of a few of which would 
believes, and  fears, alien predominance  and control; so our newspapers,  suffice for our purposes; that at some time  or other they  have cornered  the 
which have editorially pointed out  not only to control but to alien market of  essential  commodities,  like  corn and  rice,   creating artificial
stranglehold.  We, therefore,  find  alien domination and   control to  be  a  scarcities to justify  and enhance profits to unreasonable proportions;  that 
fact,  a  reality proved by  official statistics, and  felt  by  all the  sections and they have hoarded essential foods to the  inconvenience and prejudice of the
groups that compose the Filipino  community. consuming public, so much so that the Government has had to establish  the
e.  Dangers of alien control  and dominance in retail.—But the  dangers National Rice  and  Corn  Corporation  to  save the public  from  their
arising  from  alien  participation  in the retail trade  does not seem to lie in  continuous hoarding practices  and tendencies; that they have violated  price
the  predominance alone; there is  a prevailing  feeling  that  such  control laws, especially on foods and essential commodities,  such that the
predominance may  truly endanger  the national  interest.  With ample legislature had to enact a law  (See.  9, Republic Act No.  1168),  authorizing 
capital,  unity of purpose and action  and  thorough organization,  alien  their  immediate  and  automatic deportation for price control convictions; that
retailers and merchants  can act  in such  complete  unison and concert on they  have secret combinations among themselves  to control prices,
such  vital  matters as the fixing of prices, the determination of  the amount of cheating the  operation of the law of supply and  demand; that they  have 
goods or articles to be made available in the market, and  even the choice of connived to  boycott  honest merchants and traders who would not cater or
the goods or  articles they would or would not patronize  or  distribute, that  yield to their  demands, in unlawful restraint of freedom of trade and
fears of dislocation  of  the  national economy and  of  the  complete enterprise. They are believed by the public to have evaded  tax laws,
subservience of  national retailers and of the  consuming public are not smuggled goods  and money  into  and out  of  the land, violated  import and
entirely unfounded.  Nationals,  producers and consumers alike, can  be export prohibitions, control  laws  and the like, in derision and contempt of 
placed completely  at  their mercy.   This is  easily illustrated.  Suppose an lawful  authority. It is also believed  that they have  engaged in corrupting
article of daily use  is  desired to be prescribed  by the aliens, because the  public  officials with fabulous bribes, indirectly causing the prevalence  of
producer or importer does not offer them sufficient profits, or because a new graft and corruption in the  Government. As a matter of fact appeals to
competing article offers bigger profits for its introduction.  All that aliens unscrupulous aliens have been made both  by the  Government and  by their
would do is to agree to refuse to sell the first article,  eliminating it from their own lawful diplomatic representatives,  action which  impliedly admits a
stocks, offering the new one as a substitute. Hence, the producers or prevailing feeling  about  the  existence of many of the above  practices.
importers of the prescribed article, or its consumers, find the article suddenly
out of circulation.  Freedom of  trade  is  thus  curtailed and  free enterprise  The  circumstances above set forth create well founded fears that worse
correspondingly suppressed. things  may come  in  the future.   The present  dominance  of the  alien 
retailer,  especially in the big'  centers  of  population, therefore, becomes a
We can even  go farther than  theoretical  illustrations to show the pernicious  potential source of danger  on  occasions  of  war  or other calamity.  We do
not have here in this country isolated groups of harmless aliens retailing  shown such  utter disregard for his  customers and the people on whom he
goods among nationals ; what we have are well  organized and powerful makes his profit, that  it  has been  found necessary to adopt the legislation,
groups that dominate the  distribution of  goods and commodities in the radical as it may seem.
communities and big centers of population. They owe no allegiance or loyalty
to the State,  and  the State cannot rely upon them in times of  crisis  or Another objection to the  alien retailer in this country is that he  never  really 
emergency. While  the  national holds his  life,  his  person  and  his property makes a genuine contribution to national  income and wealth.  He
subject  to the  needs of  his  country,  the alien may even  become  the undoubtedly contributes to general  distribution,  but  the gains  and  profits
potential  enemy of the  State. he makes are not invested  in  industries that  would help the country's
f. Law enacted in interest  of  national  economic  survival and security.—We economy  and increase  national  wealth.  The alien's interest in this country
are fully satisfied  upon a consideration of all  the facts and  circumstances  being merely transient and temporary,  it would indeed be ill-advised to
that  the disputed law is  not the product of racial hostility, prejudice or continue  entrusting the very important function of retail distribution to his
discrimination, but the expression  of the legitimate desire and determinetion hands.
of the people, thru  their authorized representatives, to free the nation from
the economic  situation that has •unfortunately  been saddled upon it  rightly  The practices  resorted  to by aliens in the  control of distribution, as  already
or wrongly, to its disadvantage.   The  law is clearly  in  the interest of the pointed out  above, their  secret manipulations of stocks of  commodities  and
public,  nay of  the national  security itself,  and indisputably falls within the prices, their utter  disregard  of  the welfare  of their customers and of the
scope of police  power, thru which and  by which  the State  insures  its ultimate  happiness  of  the people  of the  nation of which they are mere
existence and security and  the supreme  welfare  of its  citizens. guests, which  practices, manipulations and  disregard do not attend the 
exercise  of the trade  by the nationals,  show the  existence of real and
VI.  The Equal Protection Limitation actual,  positive  and fundamental  differences between  an alien and a
a. Objections to alien  participation in retail  trade.—The next question that national which fully  justify  the  legislative classification adopted in the retail 
now poses solution  is, Does the law  deny the  equal protection of the laws?  trade  measure.   These differences  are   certainly a valid  reason  for  the 
As pointed out  above,  the mere fact  of  alienage is  the  root  and cause  of State to prefer the national over the alien  in  the retail trade.
the  distinction  between the alien and  the national  as a trader.  The alien 
resident  owes  allegiance to the country of his birth or  his  adopted country; We would be doing violence to  fact and  reality were  we to hold  that no 
his stay  here  is  for  personal  convenience;  he  is  attracted by the lure of reason or ground for a legitimate distinction  can be  found between  one
gain  and profit.   His aim  or purpose of stay, we admit, is neither illegitimate  and  the other.
nor immoral, but he is naturally lacking  in  that  spirit of loyalty  and b.  Difference in alien aims and purposes sufficient basis for distinction.—
enthusiasm for this  country where he temporarily stays and makes his  The above objectionable characteristics of the  exercise of the  retail  trade 
living,  or of  that spirit' of  regard,  sympathy and  consideration for his  by  the  aliens,  which are actual and real,  furnish  sufficient  grounds for
Filipino customers  as would prevent  him from taking  advantage  of their legislative classification  of  retail  traders into nationals and  aliens.   Some
weakness and  exploiting them.  The faster he makes his pile, the earlier can  may disagree with  the  wisdom  of the legislature's classification.  To this we
the alien go  back  to  his beloved  country and his beloved  kin and answer, that this is the prerogative of the law-making  power.  Since the
countrymen.  The  experience of the country is that the alien retailer has  Court  finds that the classification  is actual, real  and  reasonable,  and  all
persons  of  one class are  treated alike, and  as it cannot be said that the the  Philippine  Legislature  was  in issue, because  of  a  condition therein
classification is patently unreasonable and unfounded,  it is  in  duty bound  limiting  the ownership of vessels engaged in coastwise trade  to
to  declare that the legislature acted within  its legitimate prerogative and it corporations formed by citizens of the Philippine Islands or the United
cannot  declare  that the act  transcends  the limit of  equal protection  States,  thus denying the  right  to  aliens, it was  held  that the  Philippine
established  by  the  Constitution. Legislature did  not  violate the equal  protection clause of the Philippine Bill
of Rights.   The Legislature  in  enacting the  law  had  as ultimate purpose
Broadly speaking, the power of the legislature  to make distinctions  and the encouragement of Philippine shipbuilding and the safety for these 
classifications among persons  is not  curtailed or denied by the equal Islands from foreign interlopers.  We  held that this  was  a  valid exercise  of 
protection of the laws clause. The legislative power admits of a wide scope of the police  power,  and  all presumptions  are in  favor  of  its 
discretion, and a law can be  violative of the constitutional limitation only constitutionality.   In substance, we  held that the  limitation  of domestic
when the classification  is  without reasonable basis. In  addition  to the  ownership  of vessels engaged  in  coastwise trade  to  citizens of the 
authorities  we  have earlier cited, we can also refer to the case of Lindsley Philippines  does not violate  the equal  protection of the law and due
vs. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.  (1911),  55  L.  ed., 369,  which  clearly  and  process of  law  clauses of the Philippine Bill  of Rights.   In  rendering  said 
succinctly  defined the  application  of equal protection clause to a law sought decision  we quoted with approval the concurring opinion  of  Justice
to  be voided  as contrary thereto: Johnson in the  case of Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat., I,  as follows:
'* * *1. the equal protection  clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not  " 'Licensing acts, intact, in legislation, are universally  restraining acts;  as,
take  from  the state the  power  to classify in the adoption of police laws, but for  example, acts licensing1 gaming houses, retailers of spirituous liquors, 
admits of the exercise of the wide  scope of discretion m  that regard, and etc.   The act, in this instance, is  distinctly of that character, and forms part
avoids  what is done only when it is without any reasonable basis, and of an extensive system, the object of which is to encourage  American
therefore is purely  arbitrary. shipping, and  place them  on an equal footing with, the shipping of other
nations.  Almost  every commercial  'nation reserves to its own subjects a
2. A classification having  some reasonable basis does  not  offend against monopoly of its coasting trade;  and  a  countervailing privilege in favor  of
that clause merely because it is not made with mathematical nicety, or American snipping is contemplated,  in the whole legislation of the United
because in  practice it results in  some inequality.  3. When the classification States on this subject.  It  is not  to  give the vessel  an American character,
in  such a law is called in question, if  any  state of facts  reasonably  can be  that the license is granted; that effect has been correctly attributed to the act
conceived  that would sustain it, the existence of that state of  facts at  the  of her enrollment.  But it is to confer on her American  privileges, as
time the law was enacted must be assumed. 4.  One  who assails  the contradistinguished  from  foreign; and to preserve the Government from
classification in such  a law  must carry the  burden  of showing that it does fraud by foreigners; in surreptitiously intruding themselves  into the American
not  rest  upon any  reasonable  basis, but is essentially arbitrary.'"c. commercial marine,, as well as frauds upon the revenue  in the trade
Authorities  recognizing    citizenship   as    basis    for classification.—The  coastwise, that  this whole system  is projected.' "The  rule in general is as
question as   to  whether  or  not  citizenship   is  a legal and valid ground  follows:
for  classification has already  been affirmatively  decided in  this  jurisdiction  "Aliens are raider no  special  constitutional protection  which forbids n
as  well as  in various courts in the United States.  In the case of Smith Bell classification otherwise justified simply because the limitation of the  class 
&  Co.  vs. Natividad, 40 Phil,  136, where  the validity of  Act  No. 2761  of falls  along  the lines of nationality.  That would be requiring a higher degree
of protection for  aliens  as  a  class than for similar classes  of American Winkle,  297  V. 340 (Oregon, 1924), the court said  that aliens are judicially
citizens.  Broadly speaking, the difference  in status between citizens and known  to have different  interests, knowledge,  attitude, psychology and
aliens constitutes  a basis for reasonable  classification in  the exercise of loyalty, hence the prohibition of issuance of licenses to them for the business
police power,"  (2  Am. Jur. 468-469.)In Commonwealth vs. Hana, 81 N. E. of pawnbroker, pool, billiard, card room, dance hall,  is not  an infringement of
149, (Massachusetts, 1907), a statute on the licensing of hawkers and constitutional rights. In Templar vs. Michigan State Board of Examiners,  90
peddlers, which provided that  no one can  obtain  a license unless he  is, or N.W.  1058  (Michigan,  1902),  a law prohibiting the licensing  of  aliens as
has declared his intention, to become a citizen of the United States, was  barbers  was  held void, but  the  reason  for the  decision  was  the  court's
held valid, for the  following reason:   It  may  seem wise to the legislature to  finding that the exercise of the business  by the aliens does not in any  way 
limit the business of those who  are  supposed to have regard for' the  affect the morals,  the health, or even the convenience  of the community.   In
welfare, good order and happiness of  the  community,  and the court cannot Takahashi vs. Fish and Game Commission, 92 L. ed. 1479  (1947), a 
question  this judgment and conclusion.   In  Bloomfield vs. State, 99 N.E.  California statute banning the issuance of commercial fishing  licenses to 
309 (Ohio, 1912), a  statute which prevented certain persons, among them persons ineligible  to  citizenship  was held  void, because the law conflicts
aliens, from engaging in the traffic  of liquors,  was found not to be the result with  Federal power over  immigration, and  because there is no public
of race hatred, or in hospitality, or  a  deliberate purpose to  discriminate,  interest in the  mere claim  of  ownership' of the waters and the fish  in 
but  was  based on  the  belief  that  an  alien cannot  be  sufficiently  them,  so there  was no  adequate justification for the  discrimination.  It
acquainted with 'our institutions and  our life as to enable him to  appreciate further   added  that the law  was the outgrowth  of antagonism toward
the relation of  this particular business to our entire social fabric", and was persons of Japanese ancestry.   However, two Justices dissented  on the
not, therefore, invalid. In  Ohio ex  rel. Clarke vs. Deckebach, 274 U.S. 392, theory that  fishing rights have been  treated  traditionally as natural
71 L. ed. 1115  (1926), the U.  S. Supreme Court had under consideration an resources.   In  Fraser  vs.  McConway &  Tarley Co.,  82  Fed. 257
ordinance of the city  of  Cincinnati prohibiting the issuance of licenses  (Pennsylvania,  1897), a state law which imposed a tax on  every employer 
(pools and billiard rooms) to aliens.  It held that  plainly irrational  of foreign-born unnaturalized male persons over 21 years  of age, was
discrimination against aliens is prohibited, but it  does not follow that alien  declared void because the  court found that there was no reason for the 
race and allegiance may not bear in some instances such  a  relation to  a classification and the tax was an arbitrary deduction from the  daily  wage  of
legitimate object of legislation as to  be made the  basis  of  permitted  an  employee.
classification,  and that it could not state  that the legislation is clearly wrong; d.  Authorities contra explained.—It  is  true that some  decisions of  the 
and that  latitude  must  be allowed for  the  legislative appraisement of local Federal court and  of  the  State  courts  in the  United States hold that the
conditions and for the legislative choice of methods for controlling an distinction  between aliens and citizens is  not a valid ground for
apprehended evil.   The case of State  vs. Carrol,  124 N. E. 129  (Ohio,  classification.   But in these decisions the laws declared  invalid  were found
1919)  is a parallel case to  the one at bar.   In Asakura, vs. City of Seattle,  to be either arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious,  or were the result or
210  P.  SO (Washington,  1922),  the  business of pawnbroking was  product of racial antagonism and  hostility,  and  there  was  no question  of
considered as having tendencies  injuring public interest, and limiting it to public interest  involved or pursued.   In  Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad, 70 L. ed.
citizens is within the scope  of police  power.  A  similar  statute  denying 1059 (1925), the United States Supreme  Court declared  invalid a  Philippine
aliens the right to engage in auctioneering was also sustained in Wright vs. law making unlawful the keeping of books of account in any language  other
May, L. R. A., 1915 P. 151 (Minnesota, 1914).   So also in Anton vs.  Van than  English, Spanish or  any other local dialect, but the main reasons for
the decisions are: (1) that if Chinese  were driven out  of business there under entirely different regimes and political systems, have not  the same
would be no other  system of  distribution, and  (2)  that the Chinese1  would inspiration for the public weal, nor are  they as  well disposed  toward the
fall  prey  to all  kinds of  fraud, because they  would be deprived  of  their  United States, as those who  by citizenship, are a part of the government
right to be advised of their business and to direct  its conduct.  The real itself.  Further enlargement, is unnecessary.  I  have  said enough so that
reason for the decision, therefore,  is the court's  belief that no public benefit obviously it cannot  be affirmed with absolute confidence that the  Legislature
would  be  derived from  the  operation of the law and  on the  other hand  it was without plausible reason for  making the classification, and therefore
would deprive Chinese of something indispensable for carrying on their appropriate discrimination  against aliens  as it relates  to  the subject of
business. In Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 30 L. ed. 220  (1885)  an ordinance legislation. * *  *."
conferring power on officials to  withhold  consent in the operation of  VII The Due Process of Law Limitation
laundries both  as to persons and place, was declared  invalid, but the  court a. Reasonability, the test of the limitation; determination by legislature
said that the power granted was  arbitrary, that there was no reason for  the decisive.—
discrimination which  attended the administration  and implementation of  the  We now  come to due process as a  limitation  on the exercise  of  the police 
law, and that  the  motive thereof was mere racial hostility.  In  State vs. power.   It has been  stated by the highest  authority in the United  States 
Montgomery, 47 A. 165 (Maine,  1900),  a  law prohibiting aliens  to engage that:
as hawkers   and peddlers was  declared  void,  because the discrimination "* * *.  And the guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands
bore  no  reasonable and  just relation to the act in respect to which the only that the  law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that
classification was  proposed. The case at bar  is radically different,  and  the the means  selected shall, have a real and substantial relation to the  subject
facts make  them so.   As we  already have said, aliens do, not naturally sought to be attained. *  * *."
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.   These "So far  as the requirement of  due process is concerned and in the absence
limitations  on  the  qualifications of aliens have been shown on  many of other constitutional restriction  a  state  is free to adopt whatever 
occasions  and  instances, especially in  times of  crisis and emergency.  We economic  policy  may  reasonably be deemed  to  promote public welfare,
can do no better than  borrow the language  of Anton vs. "Van Winkle,  297 and to enforce  that  policy by  legislation adapted to its purposed.  The
F.  340, 342, to  drive home the reality and significance of  the distinction courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is
between the  alien and the national, thus: declared by the legislature, to override it. If the laws passed are seen to have
"* * *.  It may be judicially  known, however, that aliens  coming into this a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purposed, and are neither
country are without the intimate knowledge of our laws, customs,  and arbitrary nor discriminatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied,
usages that  our own, people have. So it is likewise known that certain, and judicial determination to that effect renders a court functus officio. * * *."
classes  of aliens are of different psychology from our fellow countrymen.  (Nebbia vs New York, 78 L. ed. 940, 950, 957.)Another  authority  states  the 
Furthermore, it is natural  and reasonable to suppose that the foreign born,  principle  thus:
whose allegiance  is first to their own country, and whose ideals of "* * *. Too much significance cannot be given to the word 'reasonable' in
governmental environment and control have been engendered and formed considering the scope  of the police power in a constitutional sense,  for the
test  used to determine  the constitutionality of the means employed by the manner, without harm  or injury to the  citizens and without ultimate danger
legislature  is to inquire whether the restrictions it imposes on rights secured to  their economic peace, tranquility and welfare.   But the  Legislature has 
to individuals by the Bill of Eights are unreasonable, and not whether it found,  as we have also  found and indicated, that the 'privilege has been so
imposes any restrictions on such rights.  *  * *." grossly abused by the  alien, thru the illegitimate use of pernicious designs
and practices, that he now enjoys a monopolistic control of the occupation
*             *             *             *             *             *             * and threatens a  deadly  stranglehold on  the nation's  economy 
endangering the national  security in times of crisis and emergency.  
"* * *. A statute to be "within this power must also  be reasonable in its 
operation upon the persons  whom it  affects, must not be for the annoyance The real question at issue, therefore, is  not that posed by petitioner,  which 
of  a particular class, and  must not be  unduly oppressive."  (11 Am. Jur. overlooks  and  ignores  the  facts and circumstances,  but this,  Is the 
Sec. 302, pp.  1074-1075.)In  the  case of  Lawton vs. Steele, 38 L. ed.  385, exclusion in the future of aliens  from the retail trade  unreasonable,  arbitrary
388, it was  also  held: and capricious, taking into account the  illegitimate and  pernicious form and
"*  * *. To justify the state in  thus  interposing1 its authority in behalf of the manner in which the aliens have heretofore  engaged therein?  As thus 
public, it must  appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as correctly  stated the answer is clear.  The law in question is deemed
distinguished  from those of a particular class, require such  interference; and absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative objective, i.e., to
second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the  accomplishment of free national  economy from alien  control and dominance.  It is not 
the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon  individuals.* * *."Prata necessarily unreasonable  because  it affects private rights and. privileges 
Undertaking Co.  vs. State Board of  Embalming, 104  ALR,  389,  395,  fixes (11  Am. Jur. pp. 1080-1081.)  The test of reasonableness of a law is the
this  lest  of constitutionality: appropriateness or adequacy under  all circumstances of the means adopted
"In  determining" whether a given act of the Legislature, passed in the to carry out its purpose  into effect (Id.)   Judged  by this test, disputed
exercise of  the police  power to  regulate the operation  of a business, is or legislation, which  is not  merely reasonable but actually necessary,  must be
is not constitutional, one of  the first questions to be considered by the  court  considered not to  have infringed the constitutional limitation of
is whether the power as exercised has a sufficient foundation in reason in reasonableness.
connection with the matter involved, or  is  an arbitrary,  oppressive,  and
capricious use of that power, without  substantial relation  to the health,  The  necessity  of the  law  in question  is  explained  in the  explanatory 
safety, morals,  comfort, and general  "welfare of the public."b. Petitioner's note  that accompanied  the  bill,  which later was  enacted  into  law:
argument  considered.—Petitioner's main argument is that retail is a "This  bill  proposes to  regulate  the  retail business.  Its purpose is to
common, ordinary occupation, one of those  privileges long ago recognized prevent persons who are not citizens of  the Philippines from having a
as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men; that it is a strangle hold upon our economic life.  If the persons who control this vital
gainful and  honest occupation and therefore beyond the  power  of the  artery of our  economic life are the ones who owe no allegiance to this
legislature  to prohibit and  penalize.   This  argument  overlooks  fact and Republic, who have no profound devotion to our free institutions, and who
reality and rests on  an  incorrect assumption and premise, i.e.,  that  in this have  no permanent  stake  in our people's welfare,  we are  not  really  the
country  where  the occupation is engaged  in  by petitioner, it has been  so  masters  of our own destiny. All aspects of our life, even our national
engaged by him, by the alien, in an honest creditable and unimpeachable security, will be at the mercy of other people.
 promulgate a  law which  limits to Filipino and  American  citizens  the
"In seeking to accomplish the foregoing purpose, we do not propose to privilege  to  engage  in the retail trade.' "  (II Aruego, The Framing of the
deprive persons who are not citizens of the Philippines of their means of Philippine Constitution, 662-663, quoted on pages 66 and 67 of the 
livelihood.   While this bill seeks to  take  away from the hands of persons Memorandum for the Petitioner.)It would do  well  to  refer to the nationalistic
who are not  citizens  of the Philippines  a power that can  bo wielded to tendency manifested in various provisions of the Constitution.  Thus in the
paralyze all aspects of  our national life and endanger our national  security it preamble, a  principal objective is the  conservation of the patrimony of the 
respects existing rights. nation and as corollary thereto the provision  limiting  to citizens of the
Philippines the exploitation,  development and  utilization   of  its  natural
"The approval of this bill is ¦necessary for our national survival."If  political  resources.   And in  Section  8  of Article XIV, it is provided that  "no
independence is  a  legitimate  aspiration  of a  people,  then  economic franchise, certificate,  or any  other  form of authorization for the operation of
independence  is none the less legitimate.   Freedom  and liberty  are not a public utility  shall be  granted except  to citizens  of the Philippines."  The.
real and positive if the  people  are  subject  to  the  economic control and nationalization of  the retail trade is  only  a continuance of  the  nationalistic
domination  of  others,  especially if not of their own race or country.  . The protective  policy  laid  down  as  a primary objective  of the Constitution. 
removal and eradication of the shackles of foreign  economic  control  and  Can  it be  said that  a  law  imbued  with the  same purpose  and  spirit
domination,,  is  one  of the noblest motives  that a national legislature may underlying  many of the  provisions  of the  Constitution is unreasonable,
pursue. It is impossible  to conceive   that legislation that  seeks to bring it invalid  and unconstitutional?
about can infringe the  constitutional limitation of due  process..  The 
attainment  of a.  legitimate  aspiration of a people can never  be beyond the The seriousness  of the  Legislature's concern for  the plight of  the '
limits of  legislative  authority. nationals  as manifested in the  approval of the radical measure is,  therefore,
c. Law  expressly held  by Constitutional .Convention  to be within the fully justified.  It would have been recreant to  its duties towards the country
sphere  of  legislative action.—The framers  of  the Constitution could not and  its  people  would  it  view the  sorry  plight of  the nationals with
have intended  to  impose  the constitutional restrictions of due process  on  complacency and refuse or neglect to adopt a remedy commensurate with
the attainment of  such  a noble  motive as freedom from economic control  the demands of public interest and national survival.  As the  repository of 
and domination,  thru the exercise of  the police  power.   The fathers  of the . the sovereign power of  legislation, the  Legislature  was  in duty bound  to
Constitution must have given to the legislature full authority and power to  face the problem and meet, through adequate measures, the danger and
enact legislation that  would  promote the supreme happiness of the people, threat that alien domination  of  retail trade poses to national economy.
their freedom and liberty. On the precise issue now before us, they  d.  Provisions of  law  not unreasonable.—.A cursory study of the provisions
expressly made their voice clear;  they adopted a  resolution  expressing of the law immediately reveals how tolerant, how reasonable the Legislature
their belief that the legislation  in question is  within the scope  of the  has been.  The law  is  made prospective  and  recognizes the right and
legislative  power.  Thus  they  declared' in their Resolution: privilege of  those already  engaged in  the  occupation to continue therein
" 'That it is the sense of the Convention that the public interest requires the during the rest of their lives; and similar  recognition of the right to  continue 
nationalization of retail trade; but  it abstains from approving the amendment is  accorded  associations  of  alians.  The right  or privilege  is denied to 
introduced by the Delegate for Manila, Mr. Araneta, and others on this matter those only  upon conviction of certain offenses. In the deliberations of  the
because it is convinced that the National Assembly is  authorized to Court on  this  case, attention was called to the fact that the privilege should
not have been  denied  to children and  heirs of aliens now engaged in the and may not readily and at first glance convey the idea of "nationalization"
retail trade.  Such provision would  defeat the law itself, its  aims and and "prohibition", which terms express the two main  purposes  and 
purposes.  Besides,  the exercise of legislative discretion  is not  subject  to  objectives  of  the law. But "regulate" is a broader term  than  either
judicial  review. It is well settled that  the  Court will  not  inquire  into the prohibition  or nationalization.   Both of these  have always been included
motives  of the Legislature,  nor  pass  upon  general matters of legislative  within the term regulation.
judgment.   The Legislature is  primarily  the judge of  the  necessity of an  "Under the. title of an act to 'regulate', the sale of  intoxicating liquors, the
enactment or of  any of its provisions,  and every presumption is in favor  of  Legislature may prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors." (Sweet vs. City of
its  validity,  and  though the  Court may hold views inconsistent with the  Wabash, 41 Ind., 7; quoted in page AX of Answer.)
wisdom of the law, it may not annul the legislation if not palpably in excess of
the legislative  power.   Furthermore,  the test  of the  validity of a  law "Within the meaning of the Constitution requiring that the subject of every act
attacked  as a violation  of due  process, is not its  reasonableness,  but  its,  of the Legislature shall he stated in the title, the title 'To  regulate  the  sale of
unreasonableness,  and  we  find the  provisions  are  not  unreasonable.  intoxicating  liquors, etc." sufficiently expresses the subject of an act
These  principles also answer  various other arguments raised against the prohibiting the sale of such  liquors to minors  and to persons  in  the habit of 
law, some of which are:  that  the  law does not  promote general welfare; getting intoxicated;  such matters being  properly included within the subject
that thousands of aliens would be thrown out  of employment; that  prices will of regulating the sale."   (Williams vs.  State, 48  Ind.  306, 308, quoted in p.
increase because of the elimination of competition; that there is no need for 42  of Answer.)
the legislation; that adequate replacement is problematical; that there may
be  general breakdown; that there  would be  repercussions  from  "The word  'regulate' is of broad import, and necessarily implies some
foreigners;  etc.  Many  of these arguments are  directed against the degree  of  restraint and prohibition of acts  usually done  in connection with 
supposed  wisdom of the law which lies solely within the legislative the  thing to be regulated.  While word regulate' does not ordinarily convey
prerogative; they  do  not import invalidity. meaning of prohibit, there is  no absolute reason why it should not have such
VIII. Alleged defect in  the title of the lawA subordinate ground or reason for meaning when used in delegating police power in connection with a thing the
the alleged invalidity of the law is the claim that the title thereof  is misleading best or only  efficacious regulation of which involves suppression."  (State 
or  deceptive, as it  conceals the real purpose of  the bill, which is to  vs. Morton, 162 So. 718, 182 La. 887,  quoted in p. 42 of Answer.)The
nationalize the retail  business  and  prohibit aliens from engaging therein.   general rule is for the  use of general terms, in the title of a bill; it has  also
The constitutional provision which is claimed to be violated in Section 21 (1)  been said  that the title need not be an index to the entire contents of  the 
of Article VI, which reads: law (I Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Sec. 4803, p. 345.)   The above
"No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject rule was followed when the title of the Act in question adopted the  more
which shall be expressed in the title of  the bill."What the above provision general term  "regulate" instead of  "nationalize" or "prohibit".   Furthermore, 
prohibits is duplicity, that is, if its title completely fails to apprise the the law also contains other rules for the regulation of the retail trade, which
legislators  or the public of the nature, scope and consequences of  the  law may not be included in the terms  "nationalization" or "prohibition"; so were
or its operation (I Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Sec. 1707, p. 297.)   A the title changed from "regulate" to  "nationalize" or "prohibit", there would
cursory consideration of  the  title and the  provisions of the bill  fails to  have been  many provisions not falling within the scope of the title which
show  the presence of duplicity.  It is true that the term "regulate" does not would have made the  Act  invalid.   The use of  the term  "regulate",
therefore, is in accord with the principle governing the drafting of statutes,  Republic of China of April 18, 1947 is also claimed, to be violated by the law
under which a simple or  general term should be adopted in the title, which in question.  All that the treaty guarantees  is equality of treatment to the
would include all other provisions found  in the body of the Act. Chinese nationals  "upon the same  terms as the nationals of any other 
country."  But the nationals of China  are not discriminated against because
One purpose of the constitutional directive that the subject of a bill should be nationals of all other countries, except those of the United States, who are
embraced in its title is to  apprise the legislators of the purposes,  the nature granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in
and scope of its provisions, and prevent the enactment into law of  matters the retail trade.   But even supposing that the law infringes upon the said
which have not received the notice, action and study of the legislators or of treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by  a 
the public.  In the case at bar it cannot be claimed  that the legislators have subsequent law (U. S. vs. Thompson, 258, Fed. 257, 260), and the same
not been apprised of the nature  of the law, especially the nationalization and may never curtail  or restrict the scope of the  police  power of the State
prohibition  provisions.  The legislators took active interest in the discussion (Palston vs. Pennsylvania, 58 L. ed. 539.)
of the law, and a great many of the persons affected by the prohibition in the
law conducted a campaign against its approval.   It cannot be claimed, X. Conclusion
therefore, that the reasons  for declaring the law invalid ever existed.  The
objection must therefore, be overruled. Resuming what we have set forth above we hold that the disputed  law was
enacted to remedy a real  actual threat and danger to  national economy
IX. Alleged violation of international treaties and obligations posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business  and free citizens
and country from such dominance and control; that the enactment clearly
Another subordinate argument against the validity  of the law is the supposed falls within the scope  of the police power of the  State, thru which and by 
violation thereby of the Charter of the United Nations and of  the Declaration which  it  protects its own personality and insures its security and future; that
of Human Eights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. We find the law does not violate  the equal protection  clause  of  the Constitution
no merit in  the  above  contention.  The  United Nations Charter imposes no because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction  between alien and citizen 
strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their  subjects in the exercise  of  the occupation regulated,  nor the  due  process of law 
(Hans Kelsen, The Law of the United Nations, 1951 ed. pp. 29- 32), and the clause, because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the 
Declaration of Human Rights contains nothing more  than a mere  privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and reasonably
recommendation, or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and protects their privilege;  that the  wisdom and efficacy of the law to carry out
all nations (Id.  p. 39.) That  such is the import of  the United Nations Charter its objectives appear to us to be plainly evident—as a matter of fact it seems
aid of the Declaration of Human Rights can be inferred from the fact that not only appropriate but actually necessary—and that in any case such
members of the United Nations Organization, such  as Norway and  matter falls within the prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and
Denmark, prohibit  foreigners from engaging in retail  trade,  and in most discretion the Judicial  department of the  Government may not interfere;
nations of the world laws  against  foreigners engaged in domestic  trade are that  the provisions of the law  are clearly embraced in the title, and  this
adopted. 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
The Treaty of Amity between the Republic of the Philippines and  the 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.

Some members of the  Court  are of  the opinion that the  radical effects  of 
the law could  have been made  less harsh in  its impact on the aliens.   Thus
it is stated that more time should  have been given in the law for the
liquidation of existing  businesses when the time comes for them to dose. 
Our legal duty, however, is merely to determine if the law falls within the
scope of legislative authority  and  does not transcend  the limitations  of due
process and equal  protection  guaranteed  in the Constitution. Remedies 
against  the  harshness  of the law  should  be addressed  to the Legislature;
they are beyond our  power and jurisdiction.

The petition is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner.