IL Second Sem 2015
3
Ichong vs Hernandez 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 sunt 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. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. HELD: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In this case, there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.” 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.
description
International Law
Transcript of IL Second Sem 2015
Ichong vs HernandezLao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage ofbusiness opportunities herein abound (then) particularly in the retail business. ForsometimeheandhisfellowChinesebusinessmenenoyeda!monopoly"inthelocal market in #asay. $ntil in %une &'() when Congress passed the *+ &&,- or the*etail .rade /ationali0ation +ct the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos theright to engage in the retail business. Ichong then petitioned for the nulli1cation ofthe said +ct on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the *#which2 according to him2 violates the e3ual protection clause (pacta sunt servanda).4e said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the countrywhohelps intheincomegenerationof thecountryheshouldbegivene3ualopportunity.ISSUE: 5hether or not alawmayinvalidateor supersedetreatiesor generallyaccepted principles.HELD: 6es2 a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In thiscase2 there is no con7ict at all between the raised generally accepted principle andwith *+ &&,-. .he e3ual protection of the law clause !does not demand absolutee3uality amongst residents8 it merely re3uires that all persons shall be treated alike2under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred andliabilities enforced"8 and2 that thee3ual protectionclause!is not infringedbylegislation which applies only to those persons falling within a speci1ed class2 if itappliesaliketoall personswithinsuchclass2 andreasonablegroundse9ist formaking a distinction between those who fallwithin such class and those who donot."For the sake of argument2 even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be incon7ict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented ane9ercise of the police power which2 being inherent could not be bargained away orsurrendered through the medium of a treaty. 4ence2 Ichongcan no longer assert hisright to operate his market stalls in the #asay city market.Gonzales vs HechanovaFacts: ;uring the termof #resident ;iosdado urma for the importation of rice withoutcomplying with the re3uisite of securing a certi1cation from the /ational ?conomicCouncil showing that there is a shortage in cereals or rice. 4ence2 the then?9ecutive @ecretary2 *u1no 4echanova2 authori0ed the importation of AB2--- tonsof rice from abroad to the detriment of our localplanters. *amon Con0ales2 thenpresidentoftheIloilo#alayandCorn#lanters+ssociationassailedthee9ecutiveagreements. Con0ales averred that 4echanova is without urisdiction or in e9cess ofurisdiction"2 because *epublic +ct D)(E prohibits the importation of rice and cornby !the *ice and Corn +dministration or any other government agency.ISSUE: 5hether or not *+ D)(E prevails over the E e9ecutive agreements enteredinto by
