Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    Ichong VS - Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Tasneem C Balindong
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case, Ichong vs. Hernandez, which ruled that Republic Act 1180, known as "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business", was constitutional. The petitioner, a Chinese merchant, argued that the act violated equal protection, due process, and treaty laws. However, the Supreme Court found that the title of the act was sufficient and did not violate the constitutional requirement that a bill's title reflect its subject matter, even though "regulate" was more general than the terms "nationalize" and "prohibit" used in the act. The court determined that duplicity was not present and that "regulate" was broad enough to include the main purposes of prohibition and nationalization

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ichong VS - Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Tasneem C Balindong
    83 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case, Ichong vs. Hernandez, which ruled that Republic Act 1180, known as "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business", was constitutional. The petitioner, a Chinese merchant, argued that the act violated equal protection, due process, and treaty laws. However, the Supreme Court found that the title of the act was sufficient and did not violate the constitutional requirement that a bill's title reflect its subject matter, even though "regulate" was more general than the terms "nationalize" and "prohibit" used in the act. The court determined that duplicity was not present and that "regulate" was broad enough to include the main purposes of prohibition and nationalization

    Original Title

    ICHONG VS.HERNANDEZ.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case, Ichong vs. Hernandez, which ruled that Republic Act 1180, known as "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business", was constitutional. The petitioner, a Chinese merchant, argued that the act violated equal protection, due process, and treaty laws. However, the Supreme Court found that the title of the act was sufficient and did not violate the constitutional requirement that a bill's title reflect its subject matter, even though "regulate" was more general than the terms "nationalize" and "prohibit" used in the act. The court determined that duplicity was not present and that "regulate" was broad enough to include the main purposes of prohibition and nationalization

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views2 pages

    Ichong VS - Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Tasneem C Balindong
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case, Ichong vs. Hernandez, which ruled that Republic Act 1180, known as "An Act to Regulate the Retail Business", was constitutional. The petitioner, a Chinese merchant, argued that the act violated equal protection, due process, and treaty laws. However, the Supreme Court found that the title of the act was sufficient and did not violate the constitutional requirement that a bill's title reflect its subject matter, even though "regulate" was more general than the terms "nationalize" and "prohibit" used in the act. The court determined that duplicity was not present and that "regulate" was broad enough to include the main purposes of prohibition and nationalization

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    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,
    vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance
    ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ
    G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957

    Facts:
     Petitioner is a Chinese merchant who questions the constitutionality of RA 1180 “An Act
    to Regulate the Retail Business” on the following grounds:
    a) It is a violation of the Equal Protection of the Law Clause, denies them of their liberty,
    property and due process of law
    2) It is a violation of the constitutional requirement that a bill’s title must reflect
    the subject matter of the same because “regulate” does not really mean
    “nationalize” and “prohibit” 3) the Act violates International treaties and Laws
    Issue/s: Ruling:

    1. W/N RA 1180 is constitutional RA 1180 is constitutional. In the


    abovementioned case, what has been pointed
    out is the constitutional requirement that “A
    bill shall embrace only one subject as
    expressed in its title.” This is to prohibit
    duplicity in legislation because the title must
    be able to apprise legislators and the public
    about the nature, scope, and consequences
    of that particular law. Constitution precludes
    the encroaching of one department to the
    responsibilities of the other departments. The
    legislature is primarily the judge of necessity,
    adequacy, wisdom, reasonableness, and
    expediency of the law, and the courts have
    no jurisdiction to question this.
    Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:

    The constitutional provision which is claimed to be violated in Section 21 (1) of Article VI,
    which reads:
    No bill which may be enacted in the law shall embrace more than one subject which
    shall be expressed in the title of the bill.

     TITLES OF BILLS; PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICITY; PRESENCE OF DUPLICITY


    NOT SHOWN IN TITLE OR PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1180. — What
    Section 21(1) of Article VI of the Constitution prohibits is duplicity, that is, if its title
    completely fails to apprise the legislators or the public of the nature, scope and
    consequences of the law or its operation (I Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Sec.
    1707, p. 297). A cursory consideration of the title and the provisions of the bill fails to
    show the presence of duplicity. It is true that the term "regulate" does not and may not
    readily and at first glance convey the idea of "nationalization" and "prohibition", which
    terms express the two main purposes and objectives of the law. But "regulate" is a
    broader term than either prohibition or nationalization. Both of these have always been
    included within the term "regulation".
     USE OF GENERAL TERMS IN TITLE OF BILL. — The general rule is for the use of
    general terms in the title of a bill; the title need not be an index to the entire contents of
    the law (I Sutherland, Statutory Construction, Sec. 4803, p. 345). The above rule was
    followed when the title of the Act in question adopted the more general term "regulate"
    instead of "nationalize" or "prohibit".

    You might also like