G.R. No. L-7995
May 31, 1957
Facts
Republic Act No. 1180 aka “An Act Regulating the Retail Trade” was enacted into law. The law seeks to prohibit persons or association of persons who are not Philippine citizens, and against associations, corporations, and partnerships the capital of which are not wholly owned by the citizens to engage in the retail trade business. In other words, it seeks to prohibit aliens from engaging in the retail trade. Hence, the law aims to nationalize the retail trade business.
Petitioner, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents, corporations, and partnerships, pray that Republic Act No. 1180 be declared unconstitutional and enjoin the Secretary of Finance and all under him from enforcing the said law. The petitioner contends that the law deprives aliens of their liberty and property without due process of law. Petitioner’s main argument is that retail is a common, ordinary occupation, one of those privileges long ago recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men; that it is a gainful and honest occupation and therefore beyond the power of the legislature to prohibit and penalize.
On its defense, the Legislature found that the privilege has been so grossly abused by the alien, thru the illegitimate use of pernicious designs and practices, that he now enjoys a monopolistic control of the occupation and threatens a deadly stranglehold on the nation’s economy endangering the national security in times of crisis and emergency.
Issue
Whether or not the enactment of RA No. 1180 which excludes aliens from the retail trade infringes the constitutional limitation of due process?
Held
No.
Due process is one of the limitation to the exercise of police power. In other words, the State can deprive any person or group of persons the life, liberty, and property provided there is due process of law.
As provided for by the highest authority in the United States, the test of reasonableness of law requires that (1) law should not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the (2) means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the subject sought to be attained.
In the case at bar, the exclusion of aliens from the retail trade did not deprive aliens of the liberty and property without due process. Applying the test of reasonableness of law, the RA No. 8180 is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious since law is made prospective and recognizes the right and privilege of those already engaged in the occupation to continue therein during the rest of their lives; and similar recognition of the right to continue is accorded associations of aliens. The right or privilege is denied to those only upon conviction of certain offenses.
Moreover, the law is deemed absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative objective i.e., to free national economy from alien control and dominance. Judged by this test, disputed legislation, which is not merely reasonable but actually necessary, must be considered not to have infringed the constitutional limitation of reasonableness. Further, the law is consistent with the Constitution as enunciated in the preamble which seeks to preserve our national patrimony and Section 8 Article XIV “no franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines.” The nationalization of the retail trade is only a continuance of the nationalistic protective policy laid down as a primary objective of the Constitution.
Therefore, RA No. 8180 does not infringe the constitutional limitation of due process.