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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    330 ESQUIBIL Ichong v. Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    The petitioner questioned the constitutionality of an act that regulated the retail business and prevented non-citizens from controlling the economic life of the Philippines. The Supreme Court upheld the act, finding that it was a valid exercise of police power and did not deny aliens equal protection. The act was not unreasonable or in violation of due process. The Court will not overturn the legislature's judgment about the necessity of laws unless they are clearly excessive.

    Copyright:

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

    330 ESQUIBIL Ichong v. Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    28 views1 page
    The petitioner questioned the constitutionality of an act that regulated the retail business and prevented non-citizens from controlling the economic life of the Philippines. The Supreme Court upheld the act, finding that it was a valid exercise of police power and did not deny aliens equal protection. The act was not unreasonable or in violation of due process. The Court will not overturn the legislature's judgment about the necessity of laws unless they are clearly excessive.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner questioned the constitutionality of an act that regulated the retail business and prevented non-citizens from controlling the economic life of the Philippines. The Supreme Court upheld the act, finding that it was a valid exercise of police power and did not deny aliens equal protection. The act was not unreasonable or in violation of due process. The Court will not overturn the legislature's judgment about the necessity of laws unless they are clearly excessive.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    330 ESQUIBIL Ichong v. Hernandez

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    The petitioner questioned the constitutionality of an act that regulated the retail business and prevented non-citizens from controlling the economic life of the Philippines. The Supreme Court upheld the act, finding that it was a valid exercise of police power and did not deny aliens equal protection. The act was not unreasonable or in violation of due process. The Court will not overturn the legislature's judgment about the necessity of laws unless they are clearly excessive.

    Copyright:

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

    ICHONG v.

    HERNANDEZ o the Act violates international and treaty obligations 


    May 31, 1957 | Labrador, J. | Adherence to, or departure from, language of statute - o the provisions of the Act against the transmission by aliens of their
    literal interpretation - Dura Lex Sed Lex retail business thru hereditary succession 

    PETITIONER: LAO ICHONG


    RESPONDENTS: JAIME HERNANDEZ & MARCELINO SARMIENTO ISSUE/s: WoN the Act deprives the aliens of the equal protection of law because it
    is unreasonable.

    SUMMARY: Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of RA 1180. Petitioner RATIO: NO. It is not unreasonable and not violative of equal protection clause.
    contends, among others, that said act violates the equal protection because it is
    unreasonable. A cursory study of the provisions of the law immediately reveals how tolerant, how
    reasonable the Legislature has been. The law is made prospective and recognizes the
    Solicitor General contends that the act was a valid exercise of the police power right and privilege of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein
    and that not a single treaty was infringed by said act. during the rest of their lives; and similar recognition of the right to continue is
    SC: The law is a valid exercise of police power and it does not deny the aliens accorded associations of aliens. The right or privilege is denied to those only upon
    the equal protection of the laws. There are real and actual, positive and conviction of certain offenses. In the deliberations of the Court on this case, attention
    fundamental differences between an alien and a citizen, which fully justify the was called to the fact that the privilege should not have been denied to children and
    legislative classification adopted. heirs of aliens now engaged in the retail trade. Such provision would defeat the law
    Other arguments raised against the law, some of which are: that the law does itself, its aims and purposes. Besides, the exercise of legislative discretion is not
    not promote general welfare; that thousands of aliens would be thrown out subject to judicial review It is well settled that the Court will not inquire into
    of employment; that prices will increase because of the elimination of the motives of the Legislature, nor pass upon general matters of legislative
    competition; that there is no need for the legislation; that adequate judgment. The Legislature is primarily the judge of the necessity of an
    replacement is problematical; that there may be general breakdown; that enactment or of any of its provisions, and every presumption is in favor of its
    there would be repercussions from foreigners; etc. Many of these arguments validity, and though the Court may hold views inconsistent with the wisdom of
    are directed against the supposed wisdom of the law which lies solely within the the law, it may not annul the legislation if not palpably in excess of the
    legislative prerogative; they do not import invalidity. legislative power.
    DOCTRINES: The exercise of legislative discretion is not subject to judicial
    review. The Court will not inquire into the motives of the Legislature, nor pass Furthermore, the test of the validity of a law attacked as a violation of due process, is
    upon general matters of legislative judgment. The Legislature is primarily the not its reasonableness, but its unreasonableness, and we find the provisions are not
    judge of the necessity of an enactment or of any of its provisions, and every unreasonable.
    presumption is in favor of its validity, and though the Court may hold views
    inconsistent with the wisdom of the law, it may not annul the legislation if not These principles also answer various other arguments raised against the law,
    palpably in excess of the legislative power. some of which are: that the law does not promote general welfare; that
    thousands of aliens would be thrown out of employment; that prices will
    FACTS: increase because of the elimination of competition; that there is no need for the
    1. The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business). legislation; that adequate replacement is problematical; that there may be
    Its purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Phil. from general breakdown; that there would be repercussions from foreigners; etc.
    having a stranglehold upon the people’s economic life. Many of these arguments are directed against the supposed wisdom of the law
    2. Lao Ichong, in his own behalf and behalf of other alien residents, which lies solely within the legislative prerogative; they do not import invalidity.
    corporations and partnerships affected by the Act, filed an action to declare
    it unconstitutional for the ff: reasons:

    o it denies alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives
    them of their liberty and property without due process 
    o the subject of the Act is not expressed in the title 

    You might also like