Discussion

FACTS:
-Petitioner, also in behalf of other alien residents corporations and
partnerships, brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that RA 1180
is unconstitutional. Petitioner contends, among others, that said act violate
the equal protection of laws and that it violates the treaty of the Philippines
with China. Solicitor General contends that the act was a valid exercise of the
police power and that not a single treaty was infringed by said act.
- Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take
advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) particularly in
the retail business. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen
enjoyed a monopoly in the local market in Pasay. Until in June 1954 when
Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the
purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail
business. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the
ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which,
according to him, violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda).
He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the
country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be
given equal opportunity.
Issues:

Decision:
For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be
in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it
represented an exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not
be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence,
Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the
Pasay city market.
-In Ichong v. Hernandez,16 we ruled that the provisions of a treaty are always
subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, or that it is
subject to the police power of the State. In Gonzales v. Hechanova,17

-We hold 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. Such 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. Furthermore, 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 us 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
theGovernment may not interfere. Moreover, 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; and that 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.
- reaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power