amended, in order to unravel the legislative intent.

The grant
GR No. L-30061 (February 27, 1974) made by Act No. 1360 of the reclaimed land to the City of
People vs. Jabinal Manila is a grant of a “public” nature. Such grants have
always been strictly construed against the grantee because it is
FACTS: a gratuitous donation of public money or resources,
Jabinal was found guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession of which resulted in an unfair advantage to the grantee. In the
Firearm and Ammunition. The accused admitted that on case at bar, the area reclaimed would be filled at the expense
September 5, 1964, he was in possession of the revolver and of the Insular Government and without cost to the City of
the ammunition described in the complaint, without the Manila. Hence, the letter of the statute should be narrowed to
requisite license or permit. He, however, claimed to be entitled exclude matters which, if included, would defeat the policy of
to exoneration because, although he had no license or permit, legislation.
he had an appointment as Secret Agent from the Provincial
Governor of Batangas and an appointment as Confidential 5. Tamayo v. Gsell
Agent from the PC Provincial Commander, and the said
appointments expressly carried with them the authority to FACTS:
possess and carry the firearm in question. This is an action for damages against the Defendant for
personal injuries suffered by Braulio Tamayo, 11-year old son
The accused contended before the court a quo that in view of of the Plaintiff. The injury was attributed to the boy’s
his above-mentioned appointments as Secret Agent and inexperience in the work which he had been assigned for the
Confidential Agent, with authority to possess the firearm first time and without prior instruction.
subject matter of the prosecution, he was entitled to acquittal
on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. ISSUE: W/N the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages under
Macarandang(1959) and People vs. Lucero(1958) and not on the Employer’s Liability Act.
the basis of the latest reversal and abandonment in People vs.
Mapa (1967). HELD:
Yes. The Legislature intended that the measure of damages in
ISSUE: personal injury cases brought under the Employer’s Liability
Whether or not appellant should be acquitted on the basis of Act to be the same as that in the country from which the Act
the court’s rulings in Macarandang and Lucero, or should his was taken, being of American origin.
conviction stand in view of the complete reversal of the
MAcarandang and Lucero doctrine in Mapa. 6. Molina vs. Rafferty
Facts:
RULING:
Decisions of this Court, under Article 8 of the New Civil Code 1. The present case was a rehearing granted to the appellee for
states that “Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws a trail court decision on Feb 1, 1918. The petition was granted
or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system … .” and oral argument of the motion was permitted.
The settled rule supported by numerous authorities is a 2. Jacinto Molina was the owner of various fish ponds in
restatement of legal maxim “legis interpretatio legis vim Bulacan. He was required to pay the merchant’s tax required
obtinet” — the interpretation placed upon the written law by a by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
competent court has the force of law. 3. Molina protested that he was an agriculturist and not a
merchant and therefore exempt from the taxes imposed by the
Appellant was appointed as Secret Agent and Confidential Internal Revenue Law upon the gross sales of merchants.
Agent and authorized to possess a firearm pursuant to the 4. Point of contention- Plaintiff contends that the fish
prevailing doctrine enunciated in Macarandang and Lucero produced by him are to be regarded as an “agricultural
under which no criminal liability would attach to his product” within the meaning of the term used in paragraph (c)
possession of said firearm in spite of the absence of a license of Section 41 of Act No. 2339 (Now section 1460 of the
and permit therefor, appellant must be absolved. Certainly, Administrative Code of 1917), enforced when the disputed tax
appellant may not be punished for an act which at the time it was levied and that he is exempt from the percentage tax on
was done was held not to be punishable. merchants’ sales established by section 40 of Act No. 2339.
The appellant was acquitted. 5. Paragraph (c) of Act No. 2339 sec. 41 reads:
In computing the tax above imposed transactions in the
4. Manila Lodge No. 176 v. Court of Appeals following commodities shall be excluded:
Case No. 165 (c) Agricultural products when sold by the producer or owner
G.R. No.L-41001 and G.R. No.L-41012 (September 30, of the land where grown, whether in their original state or not
1976) 6. In the Trial Court, the Honorable Jose Abreu in a carefully
Chapter VI, Page 264, Footnote No. 63 prepared decision ordered defendant to refund the P71.81 paid
FACTS: by plaintiff as internal-revenue taxes and penalties under
The Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1306 which protest, with legal interest thereon from November 26, 1915,
authorized the City of Manila to reclaim a portion of Manila the date of such payment under protest.
Bay. The reclaimed area was to form part of the Luneta
extension. The act provided that the reclaimed area shall be the III. Issue:
property of the City of Manila, and the city is authorized to set 1. WON fish produced as were those upon which the tax in
aside a tract of the reclaimed land for a hotel site and to lease question was levied are an agricultural product
or to sell the same. Later, the City of Manila conveyed a
portion of the reclaimed area to Petitioner. Then Petitioner IV Decision:
sold the land, together with Decision set aside. Judgment of lower court affirmed.
all the improvements, to the Tarlac Development Corporation
(TDC). IV. Ruling:
1. Purpose of legislative in establishing the exemption –
ISSUE: exempting agricultural products from the tax the farming
W/N the subject property was patrimonial property of the City industry would be favored and the development of the
of Manila. resources of the country encouraged.
HELD: 2. As a consequence, it is fairly to be inferred from the statute
The petitions were denied for lack of merit. The court found it that the object and purpose of the Legislature was to levy the
necessary to analyze all the provisions of Act No. 1360, as tax in question (merchant’s tax) upon all persons engaged in
making a profit upon goods produced by others but to exempt of interpreting the Act as a blanket prohibition against keeping
from the tax all persons directly producing goods from the books in Chinese, it may be interpreted as a directory measure
land. Products were grouped under “agricultural products”. that records pertaining to taxes must be written or annotated in
3. It is also the public interest to encourage the artificial English, Spanish, or a local dialect, or have a duplicate in any
propagation of food. However, if the artificial production of of these languages. This liberal interpretation is reasonableand
fish is held not to be included within the exemption of the it upholds constitutionality.
statute this conclusion must be based upon the inadequacy of
the language used by the Legislature to express its purpose, 8. Arsenio Lacson vs Mariano Roque
rather than the assumption that it was actually intended to Petitioner: Arsenio Lacson
exclude producers of artificially grown fish from the benefits Respondents: MARIANO ROQUE, as Acting Executive
conferred upon producers of other substances brought into the Secretary, BARTOLOME GATMAITAN, as Vice-Mayor of
store of national wealth by the arts of husbandry and animal Manila and DIONISIO OJEDA, as Acting Chief of Police of
industry. Manila
4. Court held that the ponds where the fish were grown is G.R. No. L-6225 January 10, 1953
agricultural land within the definitions set by the Acts of
Congress, the Philippine Commission, and the Mapa vs. Facts:
Insular Gov’t case. The then mayor of Manila, Arsenio Lacson, broadcasted some
5. With regard to the question that that the fish artificially allegedly defamatory and libelous utterances against a certain
grown and fed in a confined area are agricultural products and judge (Judge Montesa). Montesa then filed a libel case against
therefore exempt, the Court looked deeper. It said that a man Lacson. A special prosecutor was assigned to the case. The
might cultivate the surface of a tract of land patented to him special prosecutor recommended the suspension of Lacson to
under the mining law, but the products of such soil would not the President. The President, through acting Executive
for that reason be any the less "agricultural products." Secretary Mariano Roque, issued a suspension order against
Conversely, the admission that the land upon which these Lacson.
fishponds are constructed is not to be classified as mineral or
forest land, does not lead of necessity to the conclusion that ISSUE: Whether or not the Mayor may be suspended by the
everything produced upon them is for that reason alone to be president from his post.
deemed an "agricultural product" within the meaning of the
statute under consideration. HELD: No. There is neither statutory nor constitutional
3. Courts and lexicographers are in accord in holding that the provision granting the President sweeping authority to remove
term agricultural products is not limited in its meaning to municipal officials. It is true that the President “shall . . .
vegetable growth but includes everything which serves to exercise general supervision over all local governments,” but
satisfy human needs which is grown upon the land, whether it supervision does not contemplate control.
pertains to the vegetable kingdom or to the animal kingdom.
4. Purpose of agriculture – obtain from the land the products to The contention that the President has inherent power to
which it is best adapted and through it will yield the greatest remove or suspend municipal officers is not well taken.
return upon the expenditure of a given amount of labor and Removal and suspension of public officers are always
capital. This is similar to the process of enclosing an area for controlled by the particular law applicable and its proper
fish production and one of the diets of the products are marine construction subject to constitutional limitations
plants rooted at the bottom of the pond.
5. Another distinction was made between fishermen and the The power of the President to remove officials from office as
people artificially growing fish in ponds so as to delineate the provided for in section 64 (b) of the Revised Administrative
scope of the occupation tax. Fishermen were made liable to Code must be done “conformably to law;” and only for
the occupation tax. The ones growing fish in ponds were not disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines he “may at any
included. time remove a person from any position of trust or authority
5. As the present case related to US vs Laxa, the court held under the Government of the Philippines.” Again, this power
that Laxa wasn’t controlling due to evidence that the fish of removal must be exercised conformably to law, in this case,
subsisted solely upon free floating algae in Laxa while in the allege libelous act of Lacson cannot be considered as
Molina, the fish subsisted through plants which grow from disloyalty.
roots which attach themselves to the bottom of the pond,
thereby making Molina’s fish in the real sense a product of the
land! 9. Pastor Endencia vs Saturnino David
Petitioners: PASTOR M. ENDENCIA and FERNANDO
7. Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad JUGO
Case No. 317 Respondents: SATURNINO DAVID, as Collector of Internal
G.R. No. L-20479 (February 6, 1925) Revenue
Chapter VI, Page 267, Footnote No. 78 G.R. No. L-6355-56 August 31, 1953

FACTS: Facts:
Act 2972 prohibited record books of Merchants from being Saturnino David, the then Collector of Internal Revenue,
written in a language other than English, Spanish, or a local ordered the taxing of Justice Pastor Endencia’s and Justice
dialect. Yu Cong Eng, a Chinese merchant, was penalized for Fernando Jugo’s (and other judges’) salary pursuant to Sec. 13
keeping books written in Chinese. He and other Chinese of Republic Act No. 590 which provides that
merchants challenged the constitutionality of the law.
No salary wherever received by any public officer of the
ISSUE: Republic of the Philippines shall be considered as exempt
Is Act 2972 constitutional? from the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared not
to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by the
HELD: Constitution or by law.
It is constitutional. The purpose of the Act is to prevent fraud
in book keeping and evasion of taxes for the protection of the The judges however argued that under the case of Perfecto vs
public good. This decision is consistent with the ruling in Meer, judges are exempt from taxation – this is also in
Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, where laundrymen were observance of the doctrine of separation of powers, i.e., the
prohibited from issuing receipts written in Chinese. Class executive, to which the Internal Revenue reports, is separate
legislation is thus allowed if it is for the public good. Instead from the judiciary; that under the Constitution, the judiciary is
independent and the salaries of judges may not be diminished Held:
by the other branches of government; that taxing their salaries
is already a diminution of their benefits/salaries (see Section 9, We rule for the petitioner, following the general rule in the
Art. VIII, Constitution). interpretation of tax statutes that such statutes are construed
most strongly against the government and in favor of the
The Solicitor General, arguing in behalf of the CIR, states that taxpayer. Moreover, simple logic, fairness and reason cannot
the decision in Perfecto vs Meer was rendered ineffective countenance an exaction or a penalty for an act faithfully done
when Congress enacted Republic Act No. 590. incompliance with the law. Since petitioner is allowed by law
to pay his real estate tax in four equal installments due and
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 13 of RA 590 is constitutional. payable on four specified dates and having paid the first three
(3) instalments faithfully and religiously, it is manifest
HELD: No. The said provision is a violation of the separation injustice, sheer arbitrariness and abuse of power to penalize
of powers. Only courts have the power to interpret laws. him for doing so when he fails to pay the fourth and last
Congress makes laws but courts interpret them. In Sec. 13, installment.
R.A. 590, Congress is already encroaching upon the functions
of the courts when it inserted the phrase: “payment of which Reasoning.
[tax] is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his Padilla v. City of Pasay not applicable to the case as the said
compensation fixed by the Constitution or by law.” case was decide before RA 5447took effect in January 1, 1969.
Petitioner was being assessed real property tax for 1969 so RA
Here, Congress is already saying that imposing taxes upon 5447 appliesto the petitioner already. RA 5447 amends city
judges is not a diminution of their salary. This is a clear charters by providing that real property tax is due andpayable
example of interpretation or ascertainment of the meaning of in 4 equal installments. Thus, each installment is due and
the phrase “which shall not be diminished during their payable on or before a specifiedstatutory limit. Default in 1
continuance in office,” found in Section 9, Article VIII of the installment, the penalty for delinquency should be computed
Constitution, referring to the salaries of judicial officers. This starting the dayafter the due date when the tax payer should
act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the have paid
Legislature is an invasion of the well-defined and established
province and jurisdiction of the Judiciary. 11. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC vs.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION
“The rule is recognized elsewhere that the legislature cannot
pass any declaratory act, or act declaratory of what the law Facts:
was before its passage, so as to give it any binding weight with On October 15,1958, the Social Security Commission issued
the courts. A legislative definition of a word as used in a Circular No. 22 requiring all Employers in computing
statute is not conclusive of its meaning as used elsewhere; premiums to include in the Employee's remuneration all
otherwise, the legislature would be usurping a judicial bonuses and overtime pay, as well as the cash value of other
function in defining a term. media of remuneration. Upon receipt of a copy thereof,
petitioner Victorias Milling Company, Inc., through counsel,
The interpretation and application of the Constitution and of wrote the Social Security Commission in effect protesting
statutes is within the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the against the circular as contradictory to a previous Circular No.
judicial department, and that in enacting a law, the Legislature 7 dated October 7, 1957 expressly excluding overtime pay and
may not legally provide therein that it be interpreted in such a bonus in the computation of the employers' and employees'
way that it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition, respective monthly premium contributions. Counsel further
thereby tying the hands of the courts in their task of later questioned the validity of the circular for lack of authority on
interpreting said statute, especially when the interpretation the part of the Social Security Commission to promulgate it
sought and provided in said statute runs counter to a previous without the approval of the President and for lack of
interpretation already given in a case by the highest court of publication in the Official Gazette. Overruling the objections,
the land. the Social Security Commission ruled that Circular No. 22 is
not a rule or regulation that needed the approval of the
10. QUIMPO vs. MENDOZA President and publication in the Official Gazette to be
Petitioner: ANGEL R. QUIMPO, effective, but a mere administrative interpretation of the
Respondents: LEONCIO MENDOZA and JUDGE statute, a mere statement of general policy or opinion as to
BERNARDO TEVES how the law should be construed. Petitioner comes to Court on
G.R. No. L-33052 August 31, 1981 appeal.

Facts: Quimpo is the owner of a parcel of land in City of Issue: Whether or not Circular No. 22 is a rule or regulation as
Cagayan De Oro (CDO) City valued at 20,000 P in 1969. The contemplated in Section 4(a) of Republic Act 1161
realty tax for this property is 400.00 pesos annually payable in empowering the Social Security Commission.
4 equal instalments. He paid on time for the first 3 installments
amounting to 300.00 but he defaulted with the last payment Held:
and it was only on the 27th of August the next year that he There can be no doubt that there is a distinction between an
settled the last instalment. He tried paying to the City administrative rule or regulation and an administrative
Treasurer of CDO for 124.00 inclusive of the penalty however interpretation of a law whose enforcement is entrusted to an
the Treasurer declined payment saying that he ought to pay administrative body. When an administrative agency
196.00 (100 pesos for the unpaid tax and 96 pesos promulgates rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with
representing the penalty). As such, Quimpo filed action for the force and effect of a valid law, while when it renders an
mandamus with damages against the City Treasurer and opinion or gives a statement of policy, it merely interprets a
consigned 124.00 pesos before the Court of First Instance. He pre-existing law. Rules and regulations when promulgated in
asserts that he suffered mental anguish caused by the Treasurer pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the
thereby praying for 12,000 Peso worth of Moral, Actual and administrative agency by law, partake of the nature of a
Exemplary damages. statute, and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal
sanction provided therein. The details and the manner of
Issue: carrying out the law are often times left to the administrative
WON the basis for computing the tax penalty should be the agency entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, it has
tax payable for the said year or only theinstallment unpaid been said that rules and regulations are the product of a
delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions
that have the effect of law. Therefore, Circular No. 22 purports Philippine Islands. At this time the appellant was a few days
merely to advise employers-members of the System of what, under 21 years and 3 months of age.
in the light of the amendment of the law, they should include
in determining the monthly compensation of their employees Issue: Whether or not Tranquilino Roa was a citizen of the
upon which the social security contributions should be based, Philippine Islands by birth?
and that such circular did not require presidential approval and
publication in the Official Gazette for its effectivity. The Ruling: The nationality of the appellant having followed that
Resolution appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs of his mother, he was therefore a citizen of the Philippine
against appellant. So ordered. Islands on July 1, 1902, and never having expatriated himself,
he still remains a citizen of this country. The United States
follow the principle of Jus Soli or citizenship by place of birth.

12. Resins vs. Auditor General Basis:

Petitioner: RESINS, INCORPORATED Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of
Respondents: AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES the United States reads: All persons born or naturalized in the
and THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
G.R. No. L-17888 October 29, 1968 citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
reside Section 4 of the Philippine Bill provides:
“ That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to
Facts: reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day
Petitioner Resins Inc, as in Casco v. Gimenez, seeks a refund of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in
from respondent Central Bank on the claim that it was exempt said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall
from the margin fee under RA 2609 for the importation of urea be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and
and formaldehyde, as separate units, used for the production of as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except
synthetic glue, of which it was a manufacturer. such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the
Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty
Since the specific language of the Act speak of “urea of peace between the United States and Spain signed at Paris
formaldehyde” and petitioner admittedly did import urea and December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight.”
formaldehyde separately, it can be exempted if the law was
construed to read “urea and formaldehyde.” The cession of the Philippine Islands definitely transferred the
allegiance of the native inhabitants from Spain to the United
Issue: WON Resin’s contention is with merit States (articles 3 and 9 of Treaty of Paris). Filipinos remaining
in this country who were not natives of the Peninsula could
Held: not, according to the terms of the treaty, elect to retain their
No. “Urea formaldehyde” is clearly a finished product, which allegiance to Spain. By the cession their allegiance became
is patently distinct from “urea” and “formaldehyde” as due to the United States and they became entitled to its
separate articles. Resins contend that the approved Congress protection. The nationality of the Islands American instead of
bill contained the conjunction “and” and that Congress Spanish. The appellant was, as we have stated, born in the
intended to exempt urea and formaldehyde separately, citing Philippine Islands in 1889. His father was a domiciled alien
statements made on the floor of the Senate. Said individual and his mother a native of this country. His father died in
statements do not necessarily reflect the view of the Senate, China about the year 1900 while he was still a minor. His
much less of the House of Representatives. It is also well mother sent him to China for the sole purpose of studying and
settled that the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts. If on reaching his majority he returned to the country of his birth
there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill, the and sought admission. From the date of his birth to the time he
remedy is by amendment or curative language not by judicial returned to this country he had never in a legal sense changed
decree. his domicile. A minor cannot change his own domicile. As
minors have the domicile. As minors have the domicile of
Additionally, refund partakes of a nature of an exemption, it their father he may change their domicile by changing his
cannot be allowed unless granted in the most explicit and own, and after his death the mother, while she remains a
categorical language. The Court has held that exemption from widow, may likewise by changing her domicile change the
taxation is not favored and never presumed, so that if granted domicile of the minor. The domicile of the children in either
it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer (strictissimi case as follows the domicile of their parent. (Lamar vs. Miccu,
juris). Petition denied. 112 U.S., 452.) After the death of the father the widowed
mother became the natural guardian of the appellant. The
13. UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS. AUDITOR mother before she married was a Spanish subject and entitled
GENERAL to all the rights, privileges and immunities pertaining thereto.
Upon the death of her husband, which occurred after the
19. ROA vs INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Philippine Islands were ceded to the United States, she, under
Petitioner: TRANQUILINO ROA, , the rule prevailing in the United States, ipso facto reacquired
Respondent: INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, the nationality of the Philippine Islands, being that of her
native country. When she reacquired the nationality of the
Facts: country of her birth the appellant was a minor and neither he
Tranquilino Roa, was born in the town of Luculan, Mindanao, nor his mother had ever left this country
Philippine Islands, on July 6, 1889. His father was Basilio Roa
Uy Tiong Co, a native of China, and his mother was Basilia 20. People of the Philippines v. Ferrer
Rodriguez, a native of this country. His parents were legally Case No. 208
married in the Philippine Islands at the time of his birth. The G.R. No. L-32613-14 (December 27, 1972)
father of the appellant went to China about the year 1895, and Chapter I, Page 13, Footnote No.50
died there about 1900. Subsequent to the death of his father, in
May, 1901, the appellant was sent to China by his mother for FACTS:
the sole purpose of studying (and always with the intention of Private Respondents were respectively charged with a
returning) and returned to the Philippine Islands on the violation of Republic Act No. 1700, otherwise known as the
steamship Kaifong, arriving at the port of Cebu October 1, Anti-Subversion Act. RA 1700 outlaws the Communist Party
1910, from Amoy, China, and sought admission to the of the Philippines (CPP) and other “subversive associations”
and punishes any person who “knowingly, willfully and by
overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a Section 8 of Article XIV of the Constitution. In answer, the
member” of the CPP or any other organization “subversive” in Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila contend
nature. Tayag filed a motion challenging the validity of the that: (1) the Act was passed in the valid exercise of the police
statute due to its constitutional violations. The lower court power of the State, which exercise is authorized in the
declared the statute void on the grounds that it was a bill of Constitution in the interest of national economic survival; (2)
attainder and that it is vague and overbroad. The cases were the Act has only one subject embraced in the title; (3) no treaty
dismissed, to which the Government appealed. or international obligations are infringed; (4) as regards
hereditary succession, only the form is affected but the value
ISSUE: of the property is not impaired, and the institution of
W/N the title of the act satisfies the constitutional provision on inheritance is only of statutory origin.
bill titles.
Issue: Whether the conditions which the disputed law purports
HELD: to remedy really or actually exist.
Yes. The title of the bill need not be a catalogue or an index of
its contents, and need not recite the details of the Act. It is a Held: Yes. We hold that the disputed law was enacted to
valid title if it indicates in clear terms the nature, scope and remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy
consequences of the proposed law and its operation. A narrow posed by alien dominance and control of the retail business
and technical construction is to be avoided, and the statute will and free citizens and country from dominance and control.
be read fairly and reasonably in order not to thwart the Such enactment clearly falls within the scope of the police
legislative intent. The Anti-Subversion act power of the State, thru which and by which it protects its own
fully satisfies these requirements. personality and insures its security and future. Furthermore,
the law does not violate the equal protection clause of the
21. Ichong vs. Hernandez Constitution because sufficient grounds exist for the
Petitioner: LAO H. ICHON. distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the
Respondents: JAIME HERNANDEZ and MARCELINO occupation regulated, nor the due process of law clause,
SARMIENTO. because the law is prospective in operation and recognizes the
privilege of aliens already engaged in the occupation and
Facts: Ichong vs. Hernandez, GR No. L-7995Facts: Republic reasonably protects their privilege. The wisdom and efficacy
Act No. 1180 is entitled "An Act to Regulate the Retail of the law to carry out its objectives appear to us to be plainly
Business." In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business. evident as a matter of fact it seems not only appropriate but
Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act, contending actually necessary and that in any case such matter falls within
that: (1) it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the the prerogative of the Legislature, with whose power and
laws and deprives of their liberty and property without due discretion the Judicial department of the Government may not
process of law ; (2) the subject of the Act is not expressed or interfere. Moreover, the provisions of the law are clearly
comprehended in the title thereof; (3) the Act violates embraced in the title, and this suffers from no duplicity and
international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the has not misled the legislators or the segment of the population
Philippines; (4) the provisions of the Act against the affected; and that it cannot be said to be void for supposed
transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary conflict with treaty obligations because no treaty has actually
succession, and those requiring 100% Filipino capitalization been entered into on the subject and the police power may not
for a corporation or entity to entitle it to engage in the retail be curtailed or surrendered by any treaty or any other
business, violate the spirit of Sections 1 and 5, Article XIII and conventional agreement.