Sie sind auf Seite 1von 224

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-46272 June 13, 1986 PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. !L"ERTO OP #! $ %U !M"!O &n' ( RG L O M!RCELO, accused-appellants. CRU), J.: This is an automatic revie of the !ecision of the Circuit Criminal Court, "eventh #udicial !istrict, imposin$ the death penalt% upon Alberto &pida and 'ir$ilio Marcelo for the crime of murder. (nli)e the victim in this case, ho died from onl% one stab ound, the decision under revie several fatal fla s, all e*uall% deadl%. +t suffices to discuss onl% one of them. suffers from

Time and a$ain this Court has declared that due process re*uires no less than the cold neutralit% of an impartial ,ud$e. 1 Bolsterin$ this re*uirement, e have added that the ,ud$e must not onl% be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to $ive added assurance to the parties that his decision ill be ,ust. 2 The parties are entitled to no less than this, as a minimum $uarant% of due process. This $uarant% as not observed in this case. &n #ul% -., ./01, in 2ue3on Cit%, several persons $an$ed up on 4abian 5alvan, stoned and hit him ith beer bottles until finall% one of them stabbed him to death. The actual )nife- ielder as identified as Mario del Mundo. 3 Nonetheless, Alberto &pida and 'ir$ilio Marcelo ere char$ed ith murder as conspirators and, after trial, sentenced to death. 4 The basis of their conviction b% the trial court as the testimon% of t o prosecution itnesses, neither of hom positivel% said that the accused ere at the scene of the crime, their e6tra,udicial confessions, hich ere secured ithout the assistance of counsel, and corroboration of the alle$ed conspirac% under the theor% of interloc)in$ confession. * 7hat is stri)in$ about this case is the a% the trial ,ud$e conducted his interro$ation of the t o accused and their lone itness, 8ilian 8a%u$. +t as hardl% ,udicious and certainl% far from ,udicial, at times irrelevant, at 7orst malicious. Readin$ the transcript, one $athers the impression that the ,ud$e had allied himself ith the prosecution to discredit at the outset the credibilit% of the itnesses for the defense. &pida is a police character, admittedl% a member of the Commando $an$ and ith a strin$ of convictions for robber%, theft and va$ranc%. 6 +t is orth notin$ that the ,ud$e too) special interest in his tattoos, re*uired him to remove his shirt so the% could be e6amined, and even described them in detail for the record. 7 Besides belaborin$ &pida9s criminal activities and his tattoos, the ,ud$e as)ed him if he had :ever been convicted at the National Mental ;ospital ith hat else but malice and su$$ested to him that his claim of manhandlin$ b% the police as a lie because investi$ators leave no mar) hen the% torture a suspect. 8 This as a point that could have been validl% raised b% the prosecution but certainl% not b% the court. The ,ud$e also made it of record that the itness as $nashin$ his teeth, as sho in$ si$ns of hostilit%, that he as uneas% and that he as restless. :No , hom do %ou ant to fool the ,ud$e as)ed, :the prosecutor, %our la %er, or the court< 9 +n the hearin$ of "eptember ==, ./01, the interro$ation of 'ir$ilio Marcelo, the other accused, as conducted almost holl% b% the ,ud$e ho started cross-e6aminin$ the itness even before the defense counsel could as) his first *uestion, and too) over from the prosecution the tas) of impeachin$ Marcelo9s credibilit%. 1+ The ,ud$e as)ed him about his dru$ addiction, his membership in the Commando $an$, his tattoos, his parenta$e, his activities, his criminal record all hen he as supposed to be under direct e6amination b% his o n la %er. !efense counsel could hardl% put in a ord ed$e ise because the ,ud$e )ept interruptin$ to as) his o n *uestions. 11

The *uestions ere not clarificator% but adversar%> and hen the% ere not adversar%, the% ere irrelevant, and sometimes also cruel. At one point, the ,ud$e dre from the itness the statement that his mother as livin$ ith another man> forth ith he su$$ested that the mother as unfaithful to his father. 12 7e deplore this sadistic treatment of the itness, especiall% as, for all his supposed :tou$hness,: he could not ans er bac). 7e fail to see hat possible connection the mother9s infidelit% could have had, b% an% stretch of the ima$ination, ith the instant prosecution. But the ,ud$e as to save the best or orst of his spite for the third itness, 8ilian 8a%u$, a aitress in the restaurant here the appellant &pida as or)in$ as a coo). Notin$ at the outset that she spo)e En$lish, he anted to )no here she had learned it and as)ed in ill-concealed insinuation if she had or)ed in An$eles Cit% or &lon$apo or "an$le%. 13 Because she as $esturin$ nervousl%, he as)ed, :Are %ou a conductor< 14 &f the t o accused, he as)ed her, :The% are ver% proud of belon$in$ to the Commando $an$ to hich the itness ans ered, puttin$ him in his place, :That + do not )no , ?our ;onor.: 1* &ne cannot but note the moc)er% in the follo in$ *uestions put b% the ,ud$e to the probabl% onderin$ hat the interro$ation as all about Court 2 ?ou are a ver% $ood friend of Alberto &pida< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 ?ou have )no n him for %ears< A &ne %ear onl%, ?our ;onor. 2 ;e al a%s feed %ou A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 ;e is a ver% $ood coo)< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 Because A + )no hat he could coo), %ou could not coo)< to coo), ?our ;onor. ith his favorite menu< itness, ho as

also ho

2 Ans er m% *uestion. A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 7henever %ou tr% to coo) because he is a $ood coo)< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 "o, %our admiration developed because of his coo)in$< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 7hat favorite dish does he coo) that %ou li)e, as far as %ou are concerned< A Adobo, ?our ;onor. 2 Most often %ou re*uest him to coo) adobo for %ou< hat he coo)ed, %ou could not imitate it,

A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 That is precisel% one of the reasons A That is also a part, ?our ;onor, 2 7henever %ou re*uest him to coo) adobo for %ou, he al a%s accommodate %ou< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 As a matter of fact, the moment that he starts coo)in$ adobo, %ou could smell it alread%< A ?es, ?our ;onor, 2 That starts %our admiration for him. A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 And in return %ou reciprocate< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 7hat )ind of reciprocation do %ou $ive to Alberto &pida, admire his coo)in$ of adobo for %ou, coo)in$ ,ust for %ou< A None, ?our ;onor. 2 7henever he coo)s adobo, he A "ometimes, ?our ;onor. 2 7hat )ind of son$< A ;e is sin$in$ a son$ 2 And %ou ith intended for Cora, ?our ;onor. as sin$in$< henever %ou h% %ou also admire him<

ere also affected b% it<

A No, ?our ;onor. 2 ?ou mean to sa%, %ou are not ver% fond of emotional son$s< A + am not, because Cora is not mindin$ him, ?our ;onor. 2 But sometimes he sin$s in the absence of Cora because, as %ou said, he is coo)in$ adobo for %ou< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 7hat does he sin$s @sicA for %ou< A ;e sin$s man% son$s, ?our ;onor. 2 4or e6ample, $ive the title A Mila$ro, ?our ;onor.

2 ;e also sin$s !i%os 8aman$ An$ Na)a)aalam< A "ometimes, ?our ;onor. 2 ;e also sin$s Bapanta% a% 8an$it< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 ;e also sin$s "apa$)at Ta%o9% Tao 8aman$< A + did not hear, ?our ;onor. 2 But, %ou said he also sin$s even in the absence of Cora< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 ?ou smell adobo also< hile he coo)s and sin$s. "o, %ou developed admiration

A 8ittle onl%, ?our ;onor. 2 &ne a% or another %ou have appreciated him, but the onl% thin$, as %ou )no , he is related to Cora in the same a%< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 2 That is h% %ou are testif%in$ in his favor< Because of the smell of adobo and his son$s and it is an admiration. Therefore, there is that tendenc% to testif% in his favor< A ?es, ?our ;onor. 16 &n direct e6amination, &pida challen$ed his e6tra,udicial confession, claimin$ it had been obtained ithout observance of the ri$hts available under Article +', "ection =C of the Constitution, particularl% the ri$ht to counsel. 17 Parentheticall%, the e6tra,udicial confession of Marcelo as also made ithout assistance of counsel. 18 &pida also testified, under *uestionin$ from his counsel, that he had been repeatedl% hit ith a :dos por dos: b% a police officer hile he as bein$ investi$ated. 19 7e have consistentl% held that the ri$hts $uaranteed durin$ a custodial investi$ation are not supposed to be merel% communicated to the suspect, especiall% if he is unlettered, but must be painsta)in$l% e6plained to him so he can understand their nature and si$nificance. Moreover, manhandlin$ of an% sort ill vitiate an% e6tra,udicial confession that ma% be e6tracted from him and renders it inadmissible in evidence a$ainst him.
2+

Those principles ere $iven mere lip service b% the ,ud$e, of the challen$ed confessions.

ho did not bother to loo) deeper into the validit%

5iven the obvious hostilit% of the ,ud$e to ard the defense, it as inevitable that all the protestations of the accused in this respect ould be, as the% in fact ere, dismissed. And once the confessions ere admitted, it as eas% enou$h to emplo% them as corroboratin$ evidence of the claimed conspirac% amon$ the accused. The accused are admittedl% notorious criminals ho ere probabl% even proud of their membership in the Commando $an$ even as the% flaunted their tattoos as a bad$e of notoriet%. 21 Nevertheless, the% ere entitled to be presumed innocent until the contrar% as proved and had a ri$ht not to be held to ans er for a criminal offense ithout due process of la . 22 The ,ud$e disre$arded these $uarantees and as in fact all too ea$er to convict the accused, ho had manifestl% earned his enmit%. 7hen he said at the conclusion of the trial, :?ou ant me to dictate the

decision no <: formali3ed.

23

, he

as betra%in$ a pre-,ud$ment lon$ before made and obviousl%

aitin$ onl% to be

The scales of ,ustice must han$ e*ual and, in fact, should even be tipped in favor of the accused because of the constitutional presumption of innocence. Needless to stress, this ri$ht is available to ever% accused, hatever his present circumstance and no matter ho dar) and repellent his past. !espite their sinister connotations in our societ%, tattoos are at best dubious adornments onl% and surel% not under our la s indicia of criminalit%. &f bad taste perhaps, but not of crime. +n an% event, convictions are based not on the mere appearance of the accused but on his actual commission of crime, to be ascertained ith the pure ob,ectivit% of the true ,ud$e ho must uphold the la for all ithout favor or malice and al a%s ith ,ustice. Accused-appellants &pida and Marcelo, ho have been imprisoned since ./01, have sent us separate letters pleadin$ for the resolution of their death sentences one a% or the other once and for all. Considerin$ the a% the% ere tried, e no declare that the% should not be detained in ,ail a minute lon$er. 7hile this is not to sa% that the accused are not $uilt%, it does mean that, because their constitutional ri$hts have been violated, their $uilt, if it e6ists, has not been established be%ond reasonable doubt and so cannot be pronounced. !ue process has sta%ed the uneven hand of the *uic) condemnor and must set the defendants free. 7;ERE4&RE, the conviction of Alberto &pida and 'ir$ilio Marcelo is reversed and the% are hereb% ordered released immediatel%. No costs. "& &R!ERE!. Abad Santos, Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr. and Paras, JJ., concur. eria and ernan JJ., are on leave.

Se,&-&.e O,/n/on0

TEEH!N1EE, C.J., concurrin$D + concur. + ish to state that some of us are not persuaded at all that the t o herein accused should be held $uilt% of the sin$le stab ound inflicted on the victim in hat appears to have been a tumultuous affra%. + hail the Court9s ratio decidendi that prescindin$ therefrom, the accused9s $uilt, if it e6ists in realit%, cannot be pronounced because of the violation of their basic constitutional ri$hts of due process and of the constitutional provision outla in$ uncounselled confessions. +n m% dissentin$ opinion in the habeas corpus case of !r. Aurora Paron$, 1 rote that :the Court stands as the $uarantor of the constitutional and human ri$hts of all persons ithin its ,urisdiction and must see to it that the ri$hts are respected and enforced. +t is settled in this ,urisdiction that once a deprivation of a constitutional ri$ht is sho n to e6ist, the court that rendered the ,ud$ment or before hom the case is pendin$ is ousted of ,urisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remed% to assail the le$alit% of the detention. 2 "o accused persons deprived of the constitutional ri$ht of speed% trial have been set free. 3 And li)e ise persons detained indefinitel% ithout char$es so much so that the detention becomes punitive and not merel% preventive in character are entitled to re$ain their freedom. The spirit and letter of our Constitution ne$ates as contrar% to the basic precepts of human ri$hts and freedom that a person be detained indefinitel% ithout an% char$es.: + had stressed in another case that the plain mandate of the constitutional provision e6pressl% adopted the e6clusionar% rule as the onl% practical means of enforcin$ the constitutional in,unction a$ainst uncounselled confessions obtained in violation of one9s constitutional ri$hts b% outla in$ their admission in court. The

outla in$ of such confessions thereb% removed the incentive on the part of militar% or police officers to disre$ard such basic constitutional ri$hts, in the same manner that the e6clusionar% rule bars admission of ille$all% sei3ed evidence. 4 This fundamental rule that the court that rendered the ,ud$ment or before hom the case is pendin$ is ousted of ,urisdiction upon sho in$ of deprivation of a basic constitutional ri$ht as eroded durin$ the past authoritarian re$ime. + hail its vi$orous restatement in the ponencia of Mr. #ustice +sa$ani A. Cru3.

Se,&-&.e O,/n/on0 TEEH!N1EE, C.J., concurrin$D + concur. + ish to state that some of us are not persuaded at all that the t o herein accused should be held $uilt% of the sin$le stab ound inflicted on the victim in hat appears to have been a tumultuous affra%. + hail the Court9s ratio decidendi that prescindin$ therefrom, the accused9s $uilt, if it e6ists in realit%, cannot be pronounced because of the violation of their basic constitutional ri$hts of due process and of the constitutional provision outla in$ uncounselled confessions. +n m% dissentin$ opinion in the habeas corpus case of !r. Aurora Paron$, 1 rote that :the Court stands as the $uarantor of the constitutional and human ri$hts of all persons ithin its ,urisdiction and must see to it that the ri$hts are respected and enforced. +t is settled in this ,urisdiction that once a deprivation of a constitutional ri$ht is sho n to e6ist, the court that rendered the ,ud$ment or before hom the case is pendin$ is ousted of ,urisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remed% to assail the le$alit% of the detention. 2 "o accused persons deprived of the constitutional ri$ht of speed% trial have been set free. 3 And li)e ise persons detained indefinitel% ithout char$es so much so that the detention becomes punitive and not merel% preventive in character are entitled to re$ain their freedom. The spirit and letter of our Constitution ne$ates as contrar% to the basic precepts of human ri$hts and freedom that a person be detained indefinitel% ithout an% char$es.: + had stressed in another case that the plain mandate of the constitutional provision e6pressl% adopted the e6clusionar% rule as the onl% practical means of enforcin$ the constitutional in,unction a$ainst uncounselled confessions obtained in violation of one9s constitutional ri$hts b% outla in$ their admission in court. The outla in$ of such confessions thereb% removed the incentive on the part of militar% or police officers to disre$ard such basic constitutional ri$hts, in the same manner that the e6clusionar% rule bars admission of ille$all% sei3ed evidence. 4 This fundamental rule that the court that rendered the ,ud$ment or before hom the case is pendin$ is ousted of ,urisdiction upon sho in$ of deprivation of a basic constitutional ri$ht as eroded durin$ the past authoritarian re$ime. + hail its vi$orous restatement in the ponencia of Mr. #ustice +sa$ani A. Cru3. Foo.no.e0 . 5utierre3 v. "antos, = "CRA =E/> Banco Espanol 4ilipino vs Palanca, -0 Phil., /=.> +$nacio v. 'illalu3, /C "CRA .1> Tume% v. &hio, =0- (.". F.C> Rule .-0, "ec. ., Rules of Court> Article +', "ec. ./, of the ./0- Constitution> Paderan$a v. A3ura, .-1 "CRA =11. 4ernande3 v. Presbitero, 0/ "CRA 1.. - T"N, "ept. .-, ./01, p. .E=. !el Mundo E Rollo, p. F.-A> pp. .F=-.1C. F !bid 1 T"N, &ct. E, ./01, pp. 00-0G. as at lar$e and could not be prosecuted.

0 T"N, "ept. =/, ./01, p. .1=. G T"N, &ct. E, ./01, pp. 0=-00. / T"N, &ct. E, ./01, pp. 0.-00. .C T"N "ept. ==, ./-1. pp. E/-FC. .. T"N, "ept. ==, ./01, pp. .1.-.1=. .= T"N, "ept. ==, ./01, p. F1. .- T"N, &ct. E, ./01, p. /.. .E T"N, &ct. E, ./01, p. /-. .F T"N, &ct. E, ./01, pp. .C0-.CG. .1 .. T"N, &ct. E, ./01, pp. ..C-..F. .0 Rollo, p. F.-A. .G Rollo, p. F.-A. ./ T"N, &ct. E, ./01, pp. 0F-01. =C People v. Ca$uioa, /F "CRA => People v. Alde, 1E "CRA ==E> People v. ;ol$ado, GF Phil. 0F=> People v. Ramos, .== "CRA -.=> People v. 5alit, .-F "CRA E1F> People v. Cabrera, .-E "CRA -1=, =. T"N, &ct. E, ./01, pp. .C1-.CG. == ./0- Constitution, Art. +', "ecs. ./,.0. =- T"N, &ct. E, ./01, p. .=.. Teehan)ee, C.#.D . .=. "CRA E0=, F==, F-.. = 5umabon vs. !irector of Prisons, -0 "CRA E=C, E=0. - Conde vs. !ia3, EF Phil. .0-. E Ma$toto vs. Man$uera, 1- "CRA E, =/.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Ba$uio Cit%

T;+R! !+'+"+&N G.R. NO. 1881+4 !,-/2 23, 2+1+

PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NES, Appellee, vs. "EN!NC O MORTER! $ "EL!RM NO, Appellant. !EC+"+&N MEN#O)!, J.: This is an appeal from the #anuar% =-, =CC/ !ecision . of the Court of Appeals hich affirmed ith modification the !ecision= of the Re$ional Trial Court, Branch .1, Hamboan$a Cit% "#$%&, in Criminal Case No. ./-.., hich found accused Benancio - Belarmino $uilt% be%ond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder for the )illin$ of one Robel%n Ro,as. The accusator% portion of the Amended +nformation E char$in$ the accused ith murder readsD

That on or about Au$ust =F, =CC=, in the Cit% of Hamboan$a, Philippines and ithin the ,urisdiction of this ;onorable Court, the above named accused, armed ith a )nife, b% means of treacher% and ith intent to )ill, did then and there illfull%, unla full% and feloniousl%, assault, attac) and stab from behind ith the use of said eapon that he as then armed ith, at the person of R&BE8?N R&#A" % MA88AR+, emplo%in$ means, manner and form hich tended directl% and speciall% to insure its e6ecution ithout an% dan$er to the person of the accused, and as a result of hich attac), the said Robel%n Ro,as % Mallari sustained stabbed ound on the fatal part of the latterIs bod% hich directl% caused his death to the dama$e and pre,udice of the heirs of said victim. C&NTRAR? T& 8A7. (pon arrai$nment on 4ebruar% 1, =CCE, the accused pleaded :Not 5uilt%.: F At the trial, the prosecution presented the follo in$ itnessesD @.A Ramil 5re$orio, an e%e itness> @=A #ovel 'eJales, another e%e itness> @-A !r. #amella Marbella, e6aminin$ ph%sician> @EA 8eticia Ro,as, mother of Robel%n> and @FA P&. ?aser ;a)im. The prosecutionIs version of the incident, as found b% the trial court and adopted b% the &ffice of the "olicitor 5eneral, appears in the AppelleeIs Brief1 as follo sD Robel%n Mallari Ro,as, =- %ears old, sin$le, as stabbed and )illed on Au$ust =F, =CC= at Cabato 8ane, 5ov. Camins, Hamboan$a Cit%. Post mortem e6amination conducted b% !r. #amella Marbella, Medical &fficer ' of Hamboan$a Cit% ;ealth &ffice sho ed that Robel%n Ro,as sustained the follo in$ in,uriesD .. Penetratin$ ound, clean ed$es, =-F cm idth ..F cm. $apin$ located at F cm. from spine belo the left sub-scapular re$ion. ./ cm. deep up ard to ards a6illa, and .. cm. deep do n ard to ards left flan) re$ion. =. 8inear abrasion F.F cm. in len$th at the left lateral aspect of left arm @E6. :B:A. The cause of his death as cardio pulmonar% arrest probabl% secondar% to hemorrha$ic shoc) secondar% to stab ound, penetratin$ left bac) @E6h. :A-.:A. Prosecution itness Ramil 5re$orio % Toribio, =E %ears old, sin$le, testified that on Au$ust =F, =CC=, at about -DCC oIcloc) in the afternoon, he to$ether ith #ovel 'eJales, Archie "aavedra, #ohn Carpio, Plon$ "iano and Alberto Ro,as ere drin)in$ tuba at Cabato 8ane, near Acapulco !rive, 5overnor Camins, Hamboan$a Cit%. 4our of them ere sittin$ on a chair leanin$ on a concrete all hile t o of their companions sat on the $round. The% have ,ust started drin)in$ hen Benancio Mortera, #r. arrived. ;e anted to hit Alberto Ro,as ith a Nescafe $lass. Alberto Ro,as ran a a%. Mortera said, :"a%an$.: ;e listened hile the $roup of Ramil 5re$orio ere @sicA sin$in$ accompanied b% a $uitar. #omer !ia3, brotherin-la of Alberto !ia3, arrived. ;e bou$ht somethin$ from a store five meters a a% from the place here

5re$orio and his companions ere drin)in$. Mortera said, :;ere comes another Ro,as.: 5re$orio and his companions told #omer !ia3 to run a a%. Mortera hurled a stone at !ia3 but the latter as not hit. Mortera left but he said that he ill return. After a fe minutes, Mortera came bac). 7hen #omer !ia3 ran, Robel%n Ro,as, brother of Alberto Ro,as ent to #omer. Mortera met Robel%n at a distance of about seven meters from the place here Ramil 5re$orio and his companions ere drin)in$. Mortera and Robel%n discussed ith each other. After their discussion, Mortera and Robel%n shoo) hands. Robel%n turned his face and al)ed three steps. Mortera suddenl% stabbed Robel%n Ro,as at the bac) ith a )nife about / inches lon$. Robel%n as hit at the bac). After stabbin$ Robel%n, Mortera ran a a%. Robel%n Ro,as tried to chase Mortera but he as not able to catch up ith the latter. Robel%n fell do n mortall% ounded. ;e as brou$ht to the hospital b% his brother Ric)% but he as KpronouncedL dead on arrival at the hospital @E6h. :A:A. #ovel 'eJales % Bandian, =- %ears old, ho as drin)in$ to$ether ith Ramil 5re$orio, Archie "aavedra, #ohn Carpio, Plon$ "iano and Alberto Ro,as, in the afternoon of Au$ust =F, =CC= corroborated Ramil 5re$orioIs testimon%. Mrs. 8eticia Ro,as % Mallari, EG %ears old, married, is the mother of Robel%n Ro,as % Mallari. "he testified that Robel%n is one of her ei$ht children. 666 "he as at or) at Hamboan$a Puericulture 8%in$-in Maternit% ;ospital as laundr% oman hen her dau$hter Maril%n called her b% telephone informin$ her that Robel%n as stabbed. "he ent to 7estern Mindanao Medical Center here she sa Robel%n alread% dead ith stab ound at the bac). At past 1DCC oIcloc) in the evenin$, Robel%nIs bod% as brou$ht to Remedios 4uneral Parlor. Mrs. Ro,as testified that she spent a total of Php-G,1F-.CC in connection ith her sonIs death @E6h. :#:> :#-.:, :#-.-A: to :#-.-':A. Althou$h the accused pleaded not $uilt% hen arrai$ned, 0 durin$ the trial, he admitted havin$ stabbed the victim hom he referred to as Ton%in$, but claimed self-defense. G B% his account, after leavin$ his uncleIs house at 5ov. Camins, he passed b% a corner and sa a $roup of people drin)in$. The% ere Ramil 5re$orio, #onel 'eJales and Ton%in$. (pon seein$ him, Ton%in$ ran a a% and called his brother, Alberto Ro,as. 7hen the accused as about to reach the main road, Alberto Ro,as, Ton%in$ and a certain :!u): @brother-in-la of Ton%in$A accosted him and as)ed him for li*uor mone%. 7hen he refused, the three men $ot an$r%. After tellin$ them that he had to $o, Ton%in$ hit him ith a spra% $un @for paintin$A, causin$ him to fall do n. 7hile he as in a supine position, Ton%in$ attempted to hit him a$ain. +t as at that point that he as able to $et hold of his )nife and thrust it for ard and hit someone. ;e did not )no ho $ot stabbed. ;e then immediatel% fled to A%ala and later to 8intan$an, Hamboan$a del Norte. / The defense itness, Roden Macasantos, claimed that he as drin)in$ ith the $roup of Alberto Ro,as hen he sa the accused havin$ an ar$ument ith #omer !ia3. After the% had pacified the t o, he sa !ia3 run a a%. 8ater, he returned ith Robel%n Ro,as. Robel%n also ar$ued ith the accused, and the% ere li)e ise pacified b% the others in the $roup. The dispute apparentl% settled, the $roup left Robel%n and the accused alone. After about five minutes, the% heard omen shoutin$. 7hen the% ent to find out hat it as all about, the% sa Robel%n ounded. ;e, ho ever, did not see the person ho stabbed him. .C &n #anuar% =-, =CC0, the RTC rendered ,ud$ment findin$ the accused $uilt% of murder. The trial court disposed of the case as follo sD 7;ERE4&RE, the Court finds the accused BENANC+& M&RTERA, #R. ? BE8ARM+N& 5(+8T? BE?&N! REA"&NAB8E !&(BT of the crime of murder, as principal, for the un,ustified )illin$ of Robel%n Ro,as % Mallari and "ENTENCE" said accused to suffer the penalt% of REC8("+&N PERPET(A and its accessor% penalties, to pa% the heirs of the victim PhpFC, CCC.CC as indemnit% for his death> PhpFC,CCC.CC as moral dama$es> Php-C,CCC.CC as e6emplar% dama$es> Php-G,1F-.CC as actual dama$es> and to pa% the costs. "& &R!ERE!. +n re,ectin$ the claim of self-defense, the trial court stated that it the credible testimonies of the prosecution itnesses. .. as not orth% of belief as it as belied b%

The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals raisin$ the issues of denial of due process of la and his ri$ht to an impartial trial. ;e claimed that the trial court ,ud$e, #ud$e #esus Carbon, as hostile to ards him and pre,ud$ed his $uilt as could be inferred from his :prosecutor-li)e: conduct. The accused li)e ise reiterated his claim of self-defense. +n its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC ith modification as to the civil liabilit% of the accused. The CA ruled that the trial ,ud$e did not trans$ress the standard of :cold neutralit%: re*uired

of a ma$istrate and added that the *uestions he propounded ere :substantiall% clarificator%.: The claim of self-defense as re,ected for failure to prove the element of unla ful a$$ression b% clear and convincin$ evidence. 7ith respect to his civil liabilit%, temperate dama$es in the amount of P=F,CCC.CC as a arded, in lieu of the actual dama$es a arded b% the trial court, for failure of 8eticia Ro,as to substantiate her claim ith official receipts. The amount of e6emplar% dama$es as li)e ise reduced to P=F,CCC.CC. "pecificall%, the dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals readsD 7;ERE4&RE, in vie of the fore$oin$, the !ecision dated #anuar% .1, =CC0 in Criminal Case No. ./-.. findin$ accused-appellant $uilt% be%ond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and sentencin$ him to suffer the penalt% of reclusion perpetua and its accessor% penalties is hereb% A44+RME! 7+T; M&!+4+CAT+&N that accused-appellant is &R!ERE! to pa% the heirs of victim Robel%n Ro,as the amounts of PFC,CCC.CC as civil indemnit%, PFC,CCC.CC as moral dama$es, P=F,CCC.CC as temperate dama$es in lieu of actual dama$es, and P=F,CCC as e6emplar% dama$es> and costs. "& &R!ERE!. "till not satisfied, the accused no comes before this Court. .= +n see)in$ his ac*uittal, he has assi$ned three errors for the courtIs resolution, to itD @iA there as a denial of his ri$ht to due process and of his ri$ht to have an impartial trial> @iiA there as no appreciation of the ,ustif%in$ circumstance of self defense> and @iiiA assumin$ that not all the re*uirements of self-defense ere present, there as no appreciation of the special miti$atin$ circumstance of incomplete self-defense. After an assiduous assessment of the records, the Court finds no reason to reverse the ,ud$ment of conviction or even appreciate the special miti$atin$ circumstance of incomplete self-defense. 7e, thus, affirm. 4or a better $rasp of the assertion of the defense that he as denied his ri$ht to due process of la ri$ht to an impartial trial, e *uote at len$th the transcript of steno$raphic notes. ThusD !+RECT EMAM+NAT+&N &N T;E 7+TNE"" 'ENANC+& M&RTERA, #R. C&(RTD 2D !urin$ the arrai$nment %ou said %ou did not )ill this Robel%n Ro,as. !id %ou sa% that< AD ?es, ?our ;onor. C&(RTD And, itIs here here the accused interposed a ne$ative defense because, %ou said %ou have nothin$ to do ith the death of Robel%n Ro,as. 7+TNE""D As far as + could remember ?our ;onor, he hit me then + fell do n then he still approached me so hat + did, + as able to thrust m% )nife. C&(RTD 2D ?ou ere su$$estin$ that %ou mi$ht have )illed him in self-defense< and his

AD ?es, ?our ;onor. 2D As if there is somethin$ defense< AD Not intentional. ron$ to %our stor% last 4ebruar% 1, =CCE, %ou invo)ed a ne$ative

2D "o, %ou are chan$in$ %our stor% no < N 4rom a ne$ative defense %ou are no affirmative defense<

assertin$

AD ;e hit me first then + fell do n ,ust the same he continued approachin$ me so + C&(RTD

as able to do it<

!n e''ect, ()ile you (ere in t)e middle o' t)e river you are c)an*in* boat and ()en you c)an*e boat in t)e middle o' t)e river, sometimes you *et dro(ned. +ecause you told even your o(n la(yer Atty. Mendoza, said t)at you interpose a ne*ative de'ense t)at is ()y (e did not )ave reverse trial. You (ere not even tellin* t)e trut) to Atty. Mendoza. +ecause )ad you told )im t)e trut), it could )ave been, 2D 7h% did Att%. Mendo3a, invo)e ne$ative defense< AD ?es, ?our ;onor. ATT?. MEN!&HAD ?es, ?our ;onor, + insisted that, in fact, he told me that he donIt KsicL )no nameN C&(RTD 7ell, if he had nothin$ to do ith the death of said person, ne$ative defense. "o, if %ou are not tellin$ the truth to %our la %er, ho ould + )no no that %ou are tellin$ the truth<N An% a% if %ou )illed a person %ou ill have to pa% for it Mr. Mortera, do %ou a$ree also< 7+TNE""D ?es, ?our ;onor. C&(RTD "o, cross-e6amination. PR&"EC(T&R 8E!E"MAD CR&"" EMAM+NAT+&N &N T;E 7+TNE"" 'ENANC+& M&RTERA, #r. Prosecutor 8edesmaD 666 2D And %ou said earlier that it %ou fell do n< as this Tin$a% KdeceasedL ho attac)ed %ou ith this spra% $un then that person b% that

AD ?es. Then he still approached me and at the same time as)ed mone% and + as)ed :for Then he said, for their vices. 2D ?ou ere havin$ this conversation hile %ou ere do n<

hat<: N

AD Not %et. 2D ;e AD ?es. 2D Then %ou said hile %ou ere do n %ou ere able to thrust %our )nife up ard, correct< as holdin$ the spra% $un on his hand, correct<

AD 7ell, after hittin$ me, me a$ain.

hen +

as alread% do n he

as still approachin$ me and

anted to hit

2D ?es, approachin$ %ou and in the process of hittin$ %ou, that the )nife, correct< AD ?es. 2D And it AD ?es. C&(RTD 2D ?ou felt the blade of the )nife slicin$ a person< AD ?es, ?our ;onor. 2D As if the )nife hit a pi$ %ou ere used to sellin$< as %ou, ho advanced personall% that %ou

as the time that %ou thrusted KsicL

ere able to hit him, correct<

AD That )nife is stainless used in cuttin$ rope. 2D +tIs a lon$ hite )nife<

AD Not so lon$ ?our ;onor 2D But, enou$h to )ill a person< AD "ome hat li)e that ?our ;onor. 2D But, not enou$h to )ill a pi$< AD No, ?our ;onor. That is onl% used in cuttin$ rope. 2D 7here is that evil )nife< AD 7ell, it is in the place at Ba$sa)an C&(RTD ?ou tell them to thro it a a% or bur% that )nife because that is a bad )nife. "o lon$ as that )nife is there the one in possession of that ill al a%s have bad luc). +t is cursed. Eventuall%, Tin$a% is alread% dead. 2D !id %our uncle also tell %ou that Tin$a%, sustained a sin$le AD ?es. C&(RTD 2D So, ()en you stabbed )im )e (as tryin* to )it you (it) a very small spray *un. Ho( (as it t)at )e (as )it at t)e bac-. A/ 0ell, ()en )e (as in t)e act o' )ittin* me a*ain, ! t)rusted KsicL t)e -ni'e to, s)all (e say to(ards )im Your Honor. 2D $)at is ()y, it is impossible because i' )e (as tryin* to )it you (it) a spray *un, you t)rusted KsicL t)e -ni'e to(ards )im, )o( (as it t)at )e (as )it at t)e bac-. ound at his bac)< here e are havin$ a place.

AD ;e C&(RTD

as hit ?our ;onor,

hen he

as in the act of hittin$ me a$ain.

Proceed, Att%. 8edesma. 666 C&(RTD Robel%n Ro,as, 7+TNE""D + do not )no C&(RTD &f course, %ou do not )no . The life span of a 4ilipino no is about 0C %ears old, 4iscal< .. Because e e6pect that lon$. "o, if %ou did not )ill him he ill still have E0 %ears to live. PR&"EC(T&R 8E!E"MAD + believed KsicL GC %ears ?our ;onor. C&(RTD GC for purposes of compensation. PR&"EC(T&R 8E!E"MAD ?es. C&(RTD ;e has F0 %ears more to live. That is the trouble of )illin$ people because %ou are deprivin$ the person of his ri$ht to live and even if hat %ou are sa%in$ is true, %ou could not have been )illed ith that small spra% $unN You )ave no ri*)t to stab )im. +esides, t)at is not ()at your (itness said even your o(n (itness )ere is not supportin* your story. 7ho is that itness< 7+TNE""D !enden MacasantosN C&(RTD ?es, !enden Macasantos. ;e did not declare hat %ou are sa%in$ no . ?ou are ,ust ma)in$ a stor%. the a$e. as =- %ears old hen %ou )illed him.

2D "o, even the stor% of %our itness ho + thin) as tellin$ the truth, donIt KsicL support %our stor% Mr. MorteraN ?our stor% no is differentN !id %ou hear !enden< AD ?es. 2D The% did not tell the same stor% as %ou are sa%in$ no %ou< AD + do not )no ith them ?our ;onor, but in m% case + about the spra% $un bein$ used to hit

as reall% hit

ith that spra% $un.

2D 7ere %ou in,ured< AD No. 2D ThatIs the AD + hole trouble. 7h% ill %ou have in,ur% hen %ou ere not hit<

as hit ?our ;onor. ere hit<

2D ?ou

AD ?es, + fell do n and he continued approachin$ me. C&(RTD ?ou did more than hat Robel%n, did to %ou. ?ou )illed him. Proceed.

PR&"EC(T&R 8E!E"MAD 2D ?ou did not report to the police that incident involvin$ Tin$a% and his $roup, correct< AD ?es, + did not. 2D +nstead, %ou immediatel% left for A%ala< AD 7ell, after the incident + ran a a% to ards A%ala. C&(RTD 2D B% %our runnin$ a a% because %ou AD That is ere afraid, %ou ere committin$ somethin$ ron$<

h%, + ran a a% + have done somethin$ +

as able to )ill somebod%.

2D 7h% did %ou run to A%ala then run to 8intan$an then return to Acapulco !rive, )no in$ that %ou have a 7arrant of Arrest, %ou ent bac) to 8intan$an< N Because %ou felt $uilt%< AD ?es, ?our ;onor. 2D Robel%n, has seven brothers and sisters< N "o, ma%be %ou should have some vacation in #ail %ou are supposed to serve< AD ?es. @+talics suppliedA Citin$ the fore$oin$ as basis, the accused ar$ues that #ud$e #esus Carbon, #r. displa%ed his hostilit% to ards him and condemned him even before the defense could rest its presentation of evidence. B% sa%in$ that he as :,ust ma)in$ a stor%,: the ,ud$e alread% concluded his $uilt durin$ trial. The Court is not una are of the case of $abuena v. Sandi*anbayan,.here it as rittenD

The Court has ac)no led$ed the ri$ht of a trial ,ud$e to *uestion itnesses ith a vie to satisf%in$ his mind upon an% material point hich presents itself durin$ the trial of a case over hich he presides. But not onl% should his e6amination be limited to as)in$ clarificator% *uestions, the ri$ht should be sparin$l% and ,udiciousl% used> for the rule is that the court should sta% out of it as much as possible, neither interferin$ nor intervenin$ in the conduct of trialN hardl% in fact can one avoid the impression that the "andi$anba%an had allied itself ith, or to be more precise, had ta)en the cud$els for the prosecution in provin$ the case a$ainst Tabuena and PeraltaN. $)e 1cold neutrality o' an impartial 2ud*e1 re3uirement o' due process (as certainly denied $abuena and Peralta ()en t)e court, (it) its overzealousness, assumed t)e dual role o' ma*istrate and advocate, A substantial portion of the T"N as incorporated in the ma,orit% opinion not to

focus on :numbers: alone, but more importantl% to sho that the court *uestions ere in the interest of the prosecution and hich thus depart from the common standard of fairness and impartialit%. @emphasis addedA The situation in the case at bench is, ho ever, different. As correctl% pointed out b% the Court of Appeals, althou$h the trial ,ud$e mi$ht have made improper remar)s and comments, it did not amount to a denial of his ri$ht to due process or his ri$ht to an impartial trial. (pon perusal of the transcript as a hole, it cannot be said that the remar)s ere reflective of his partialit%. The% ere not out of conte6t. Not onl% did the accused mislead the court b% initiall% invo)in$ a ne$ative defense onl% to claim other ise durin$ trial, he as also not candid to his o n la %er, ho as )ept in the dar) as to his intended defense. The accused havin$ admitted the )illin$, a reverse order of trial could have proceeded. .E As it turned out, the prosecution undertoo) to dischar$e the burden of provin$ his $uilt, hen the burden of proof to establish that the )illin$ as ,ustified should have been his. .F Most probabl%, the trial ,ud$e as peeved at the strate$% he adopted. The trial ,ud$e cannot be faulted for havin$ made those remar)s, not ithstandin$ the sarcastic tone impressed upon it. The sarcasm alone cannot lead us to conclude that the trial ,ud$e :had ta)en the cud$els for the prosecution. The invocation of 4pida.1 fails to persuade us either. The facts therein are not at all fours ith the case at bench. +n 4pida, e did not fail to notice the :malicious,: :sadistic: and :adversarial: manner of *uestionin$ b% the trial ,ud$e of the accused therein, includin$ their defense itness. +n 4pida, the accused never admitted the commission of the crime, and so the burden of proof remained ith the prosecution. +n his second assi$ned error, the accused invo)es self-defense. B% assertin$ it, ho ever, it became incumbent upon him to prove b% clear and convincin$ evidence that he indeed had acted in defense of himself. The re*uisites of self-defense areD @.A unla ful a$$ression> @=A reasonable necessit% of the means emplo%ed to repel or prevent it> and @-A lac) of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defendin$ himself..05avvp)i5 The issue of hether or not the accused acted in self-defense is undoubtedl% a *uestion of fact, and it is ell entrenched in ,urisprudence that findin$s of fact of the trial court command $reat ei$ht and respect unless patent inconsistencies are i$nored or here the conclusions reached are clearl% unsupported b% evidence. .G +n the present case, e find no co$ent reason to disturb the decision of the trial court, as modified b% the CA. +n debun)in$ his claim, e *uote ith approval the rulin$ of the CA. +n the instant case, accused-appellant claims that there as unla ful a$$ression on the part Robel%n Ro,as hen the latter alle$edl% hit him ith a spra% $un. ;o ever, e6cept this self-servin$ statement, no other evidence as presented to prove that indeed he as hit b% Robel%n. Accused-appellant failed to sho here he as hit and hat in,uries he sustained, if an%. Moreover, his o n defense itness Roden Macasantos did not see him bein$ hit b% a spra% $un. &n the contrar%, the prosecution has clearl% sho n that before Robel%n as stabbed, the t o even discussed ith each other and accused-appellant even shoo) hands ith him. Moreover, if indeed it as true that Robel%n as carr%in$ a spra% $un and tried to hit him, accusedappellant, hile he as in a supine position, could have easil% ,ust flaunted his )nife to scare his alle$ed attac)ers a a%. &n the other hand, even if e assume to be true that he as in a supine position hen he thrust the )nife at his attac)er, it is ho ever impossible that the bac) of Robel%n ould be hit, unless the latter could also fell @sicA on his bac), hich is a$ain far from realit%. +n a m%riad of cases, it has been ruled that the location, number or seriousness of the stab or hac) ounds inflicted on the victim are important indicia hich ma% disprove accusedIs plea of self defense. +n the instant case, it is clear that the victim as stabbed at the bac) ne$atin$ an% indication that accused-appellant acted in self defense. 4indin$ the primordial re*uisite of unla ful a$$ression circumstance of incomplete self-defense. antin$, the Court cannot appreciate the miti$atin$

As re$ards dama$es, e affirm the modification made b% the Court of Appeals. Considerin$ that onl% P.E,1F-.FC of the P-G,1F-.CC actual dama$es a arded b% the trial court is supported b% receipts, the a ard of P=F,CCC.CC as temperate dama$es is proper../ 7e, ho ever, reinstate the amount of e6emplar% dama$es to P-C,CCC.CC to be in accord ith current ,urisprudence. =C 3HEREFORE, the #anuar% =-, =CC/ !ecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-5.R. CR-;.C. No. CCF.G-M+N is A44+RME!.

SO OR#ERE#.
Foo.no.e0
.

Penned b% #ustice Rodri$o 4. 8im #r. and concurred in b% #ustices Michael P. Elbinias and Ruben C. A%son, CA rollo, pp..=1-.E1. Penned b% #ud$e #esus C. Carbon, #r. AppellantIs Brief, CA rollo, p. ., supra note .. Records, p. ..

+d. at ./. CA rollo, pp. FF-F0. Records, p. =C. T"N, 4ebruar% .0, =CCF, p. .E. +d. at E-/. T"N, November =F, =CCE, pp. =-.C. Records, pp. .C0-.CG. ith the filin$ of supplemental briefs and submittin$ the

.C

..

Both the accused and the &"5 manifested that the% ere dispensin$ case for decision based on the briefs the% had filed ith the CA.
.= .-

5.R. Nos. .C-FC.-C-, 5.R. No. .C-FC0, 4ebruar% .0, .//0, =1G "CRA --=. Rule ../, "ection ... The trial shall proceed in the follo in$ orderD 6666 @eA 7hen the accused admits the act or omission char$ed in the complaint or information but interposes a la ful defense, the order of trial ma% be modified.

.E

.F

People v. (narce, 5.R. No. .=CFE/, April E, .//0, =0C "CRA 0F1. 5.R. No. 8-E1=0=, #une .-, ./G1, .E= "CRA =/F. Novicio v. People, G.R. No. 163331, !u4u0. 29, 2++8, F1- "CRA 1GC. People v. +arri*a, 5.R. No. .0GFEF "eptember =/, =CCG, F10 "CRA 1F. People v. "e, 5.R. No. .F=/11, March .0, =CCE, E=F "CRA 0=F.

.1

.0

.G

./

People v. 6lmer Peralta y Hidal*o, 5..R. No. .G0F-., &ctober .1, =CC/> and People v. Antonio 7alisay y 7estresa, 5.R. No. .GG.CC, November =F, =CC/.
=C

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT "EC&N! !+'+"+&N

G.R. No. 1*3166 #e5e67e- 16, 2++* TERES T! L. (ERTU#ES,. Petitioner, vs. JUL E "UEN!FLOR &n' "URE!U OF MM GR!T ON, Respondents. !EC+"+&N PUNO, J.8 Before us is a petition for revie b% certiorari under Rule EF of the Rules of Court, see)in$ to revie and set aside the decision= and resolution- of the Court of Appeals @CAA, hich affirmed the decision of the Civil "ervice Commission @C"CA findin$ petitioner $uilt% of $rave misconduct and dismissin$ her from $overnment service. Petitioner Teresita 8. 'ertudes as a fin$erprint e6aminer at the Alien Re$istration !ivision of the Bureau of +mmi$ration @B+A. +n a facsimile letterE dated #ul% =0, .//G, a certain Pen$ 'illas, a ne s editor of the Philippine 7ee)l% Ne spaper, referred to then B+ Commissioner Rufus Rodri$ue3 the complaints of private respondent #ulie Buenaflor, Am% Cosino and Manuelito 8ao, a$ainst petitioner. Accordin$ to 'illas, private respondent Buenaflor complained of havin$ been convinced b% petitioner into pa%in$ the total amount of P0/,CCC.CC in e6chan$e for the processin$ of her visa, passport and other travel documents for #apan. Private respondent delivered to petitioner "ecurit% Ban) @"BA Chec) Nos. CC.E0/0 and CC.E0/G in the amounts of P-C,CCC.CC and P=C,CCC.CC, respectivel%, and cash orth P=/,CCC.CC. ;o ever, no visa as delivered. Private respondent insisted that petitioner return her mone%, to no avail. 'illas also referred to Commissioner Rodri$ue3 the complaint of 8ao ho alle$edl% told him that he paid P1C,CCC.CC to petitioner in e6chan$e for a Chinese 'isa and a passport for Tai an. 8i)e ise, 'illas referred CosinoIs complaint that the latter collected from 'irfinia !umbri*ue, #aime "antos 4lores and Mariano Evan$elista, the amounts of P=C,CCC.CC each, upon petitioner9s ord that the% ould be in e6chan$e for tourist visas. Both 8ao and Cosino claimed that the promised passport and visas did not materiali3e and despite man% re*uests for the return of the amounts paid to petitioner, she refused to compl%. Alle$edl%, :'ertude3 threatened them that the% cannot force her to pa% bac) the said amount as she has the bac) up KofL hi$her B+! officials.: Actin$ upon 'illas9 letter, Commissioner Rodri$ue3 issued a memorandum, F directin$ the petitioner to submit a s orn ritten e6planation. +n her s orn ritten memorandum, 1 petitioner assailed the credibilit% of 'illas. "he alle$ed that 'illas as not a member of the National Press Club as he claimed to be. "he averred that the sum of PFC,CCC.CC, as evidenced b% "B Chec) Nos. CC.E0/0 and CC.E0/G, as e6tended to her b% private respondent Buenaflor as a loan. "he as constrained to borro mone% from private respondent and other close friends hen her brother became seriousl% ill. ;o ever, she claimed that she had full% settled her obli$ation to private respondent throu$h installment. "he also claimed that private respondent as the one en$a$ed in ille$al recruitment throu$h the use of falsified or for$ed passports. Private respondent as alle$edl% usin$ petitionerIs name in dealin$ ith some immi$ration officials and emplo%ees to e6pedite the processin$ of the documents of her @private respondentIsA clients. Petitioner alle$edl% informed said officers and emplo%ees that she as not connected to private respondent in an% a%. Private respondent alle$edl% resented this :abrupt disassociation.: Also, her repeated refusal to :escort: private respondent9s clients ho ere leavin$ for abroad usin$ falsified travel documents alle$edl% led private respondent to threaten her that she could easil% use "B Chec) Nos. CC.E0/0 and CC.E0/G as evidence to file char$es a$ainst petitioner b% ma)in$ it appear that she @private respondentA $ave the mone% because of petitioner9s promise to facilitate her travel to #apan. Petitioner denied havin$ received the sum of P=/,CCC.CC from private respondent, contendin$ that such claim is :pure falsehood because of the absence of document to prove the alle$ed receipt.: As re$ards the complaints of 8ao and Cosino, petitioner denied havin$ met or )no n said persons.

4indin$ petitionerIs e6planation :unsatisfactor% and KherL defense ea),: Commissioner Rodri$ue3 issued Personnel &rder No. RBR /G-1C,0 preventivel% suspendin$ her for si6t% @1CA da%s pendin$ the investi$ation of the case. The instant case as assi$ned to "pecial Prosecutor Norberto dela Cru3, ho issued a subpoena G orderin$ private respondent and petitioner to appear before him on &ctober .F, .//G for the formal investi$ation of the case. +t appears that in the meantime, 'illas died and private respondent personall% too) on the instant complaint ith the B+ for 5rave Misconduct a$ainst petitioner, doc)eted as Administrative Char$e No. CCCE. 8ao and Cosino filed their respective complaint-affidavits / ith the B+ hich became the sub,ect of another administrative case a$ainst petitioner. .C &n Au$ust =., .//G, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration @ReD Personnel &rder No. RBR-/G-1CA ith Motion to !ismiss... &n "eptember =, .//G, petitioner filed a Manifestation ith (r$ent Pra%er to Resolve Motion to !ismiss,.= averrin$ that the complaint instituted b% 'illas in behalf of private respondent as a harassment case a$ainst her. Petitioner sou$ht the dismissal of the instant action on the $round that in addition to the instant administrative case, private respondent had personall% filed her complaint-affidavit :of similar nature and character: ith the Manila Cit% Prosecutor9s &ffice, doc)eted as /G-;-EECCC-., and ith the &ffice of the &mbudsman, doc)eted as &MB-/G-.0C.. Private respondent narrated the pertinent events in her complaint-affidavit .- as follo sD .. That + met Ms. Teresita 'ertudes, an emplo%ee of the Bureau of +mmi$ration and !eportation, +ntramuros, Manila sometime in the middle part of .//1> =. That from that time on, e became friends because e come from the same re$ion and that she used to tell us that she is capable of deplo%in$ ,ob applicants to #apan> -. That durin$ one of those times that + dropped b% her office, she intimated to me that a $roup of +mmi$ration &fficers are scheduled to leave for #apan for trainin$ and that she as the one ho received a call from a #apanese Consul> E. That Ms. Teresita 'ertudes as)ed me if + am interested in $oin$ to #apan because she ill find a a% to accommodate me and + told her that + am deepl% interested but m% problem as that m% passport as left in Bacolod Cit% and she volunteered to or)-out KandL facilitate the processin$ of m% passport and visa and that KallL + need to do is $ive her m% picture hich + did> F. That she even added that she has a brother in #apan ho could also help me find a ,ob and + ill be $oin$ there alon$ ith her son, #imm% 'KeLrtudes "antos. "he sho ed to me her son9s passport and application for a 'isa, copies of hich are attached and mar)ed as Anne6es :A:, :B: and :C:> 1. That accordin$ to Ms. 'ertudes + ill be receivin$ a salar% of one lapad per da% as a factor% or)er and that should + accept to her offer, all that ill be re*uired of me is to $ive her the amount of PGC,CCC.CC> 0. That on !ecember =E, .//0 Ms. 'ertudes received from me "ecurit% Ban) Chec) No. CC.E0/0 in the amount of P-C,CCC.CC hich she as able to encash and li)e ise "ecurit% Ban) Chec) No. CC.E0/G in the amount of P=C,CCC.CC 6 6 6 Anne6es :!: and :E:> G. That on 4ebruar% G, .//G, because of her insistence and persistence that + should deliver the balance of P-C,CCC.CC to her so that + could leave in a ee)9s time, + as forced to produce the said amount b% re*uestin$ a friend to pa n m% ,e elr% in the amount of P=/,CCC.CC and the aforesaid amount as handed to Ms. 'ertudes in the presence of Ms. #o% 5utierre3 at her office in @B+!A, +ntramuros, Manila> /. That after that last pa%ment, + have been as)in$ her as to hen + am supposeKdL to leave because + as alread% prepared to leave and have in fact told m% relatives and friends that + ill be leavin$ soon for #apan but she did not stop ma)in$ promises> .C. That upon the adviKcLe of a la %er and to be able to )no once and for all hether + could still leave, + re*uested m% la %er to rite a letter to Ms. 'ertudes for her to refund the sums of mone% hich + delivered to her in the total amount of P0/,CCC.CC for the processin$ of m% Passport and 'isa for ,ob deplo%ment abroad but she did not even ans er the letter and neither called up m% la %er to e6plain her side> letter is attached as Anne6 :E:>

... That for Ms. Teresita 'ertudes9 failure to ma)e $ood her promise to deplo% me after receivin$ the amount of P0/,CCC.CC in consideration of a ,ob placement in #apan, + hereb% char$e her for the crime of +lle$al Recruitment and Estafa> 6 6 6 Anne6ed to private respondent9s complaint-affidavit ereD aA the affidavit of a certain #essil%n 5utierre3 .E ho attested that she accompanied private respondent in $oin$ to the office of petitioner and she as ith private respondent hen the latter delivered to petitioner the chec)s amountin$ to PFC,CCC.CC and cash orth P=/,CCC.CC for private respondent9s ,ob placement to #apan> bA copies of the passport and application for a visa of petitioner9s son, to prove that petitioner sho ed these documents to her so she ould believe that she ould be $oin$ to #apan ith petitioner9s son> cA copies of "B Chec) Nos. CC.E0/0 and CC.E0/G, to prove petitioner9s receipt of the total amount of PFC,CCC.CC from private respondent> and dA letter of private respondent9s counsel to petitioner demandin$ the refund of P0/,CCC.CC from petitioner. &n &ctober .F, .//G, petitioner, accompanied b% her counsel, and private respondent appeared before "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3 for the formal investi$ation of the case. .F The second hearin$ too) place on &ctober =0, .//G, durin$ hich, petitioner submitted her Counter-Affidavit .1 and the affidavits of her itnesses. ;er version asD E... + first met Ms. Buenaflor sometime in .//1 the Bureau of +mmi$ration> hen + as still assi$ned at the 5eneral "ervices !ivision of

E.=. At that time, Ms. Buenaflor represented to me that she as connected processOfacilitate documents of their clients in the Buereau of +mmi$ration>

ith a travel a$enc% assi$ned to

E.-. +ndeed, + sa Ms. Buenaflor processin$ and ma)in$ follo -ups of documents in the different !ivisionsO!epartments of the Bureau of +mmi$ration similar to hat ere bein$ done b% the representatives of other travel a$encies transactin$ business there ith> E.E. !urin$ that period, Ms. Buenaflor and me became close friends because she fre*uentl% visited me in m% office at 5eneral "ervices !ivision and ould even sta% thereat hile processin$ documents and aitin$ for their release. +n fact, she often too) her lunch and merienda ith me and sometimes, ith the other emplo%ees of our division> E.F. "ometime in the third ee) of !ecember .//0, + as informed b% m% relatives in our hometo n that m% brother, Mariano :!ido: 'ertudes as seriousl% ill and as thereafter confined on !ecember ==, .//0 at 5in$oo$ 5eneral ;ospital located at 5in$oo$ Cit%, Misamis &riental> E.1. The t%pe of illness of m% brother re*uired e6tensive treatment and medication> and for this reason, the% re*uested for financial assistance to defra% the e6penses therefor> E.0. "ince + as then in financial distress, + as constrained to borro mone% ith interests from Ms. Buenaflor and other close friends of mine. As a )ind $esture on the part of Ms. Buenaflor she e6tended to me a loan in the total amount of PFC,CCC.CC as represented b% "ecurit% Ban) chec) nos. CC.E0/0 and CC.E0/G in the respective amounts of P-C,CCC.CC and P=C,CCC.CC @citation omittedA> E.G. +t is ho ever our a$reement that + ould pa% the amount of PFC,CCC.CC P.C,CCC.CC representin$ the interests therefore for a total of P1C,CCC.CC> ith the additional amount of

E./. 7e further a$reed that + ould pa% m% financial obli$ation to Ms. Buenaflor on or before the last da% of Ma% .//G from !ecember .//0 on installment basis> E..C. 7ith the aforementioned amount of PFC,CCC.CC loaned to me b% #ulie Buenaflor and the other amounts 6 6 6 from other friends, + as able to contribute the total amount of P.CC,CCC.CC for the treatment and hospitali3ation of m% brother. +t as, ho ever, to no avail because m% brother died on #anuar% 1, .//G> E.... Pursuant to our a$reement, + as able to pa% Ms. Buenaflor on installment basis the total amount of P1C,CCC.CC at m% earlier indicated address on the follo in$ datesD !ATE AM&(NT

4ebruar% =G, .//G P.F,CCC.CC March -., .//G .F,CCC.CC April -C, .//G .F,CCC.CC Ma% -C, .//G .F,CCC.CC E..=. + tendered the said pa%ments to Ms. Buenaflor at m% residence on the dates earlier enumerated in the presence of m% housemaids, Eli3a Compo and #ocel%n Re%es> 6 6 6 Petitioner averred that private respondent misrepresented to her @petitioner9sA son, #imm% "antos, #r., that she @private respondentA ould facilitate his travel to and emplo%ment in #apan. "he also assailed the credibilit% of private respondent b% accusin$ her of usin$ several passports under different names. Attached to petitioner9s counter-affidavit ereD aA a cop% of a passport application in the name of ;onna "umadia Araneta sho in$ the photo$raphs of private respondent> bA referral slip of the Pasa% Cit% Police "tation and the s orn statement of a certain Armando 5ambala char$in$ private respondent ith Estafa and +lle$al Recruitment>.0 cA affidavits of petitioner9s son, #imm% "antos, #r., .G and a certain Enrico Tua3on, sho in$ that the% li)e ise filed a case for Estafa and +lle$al Recruitment a$ainst private respondent> and dA a cop% of the Certificate of Business Name and Certification ./ issued b% Prudential Ban), to prove that private respondent misstated the address of her business establishment. Petitioner also submitted to "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3 the Pina*saman* Sinumpaan* Salaysay=C of her t o housemaids, Eli3a Compo and #ocel%n Re%es, to prove that she had full% paid her obli$ation to private respondent. 8i)e ise, she submitted the hand ritten ,oint s orn statement=. of Ernesto '. Cloma and #hun M. Romero, media practitioners, to prove that 'illas as)ed for petitionerIs for$iveness before he died, admittin$ that he onl% sent his letter dated #ul% =0, .//G to Commissioner Rodri$ue3 in consideration of the amount $iven b% private respondent. &n the same hearin$, the parties a$reed to submit the instant case for resolution. == Thus, in his Resolution dated November .=, .//G,=- "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3 found petitioner $uilt% of $rave misconduct and recommended her dismissal from the service. Meantime, the case instituted b% private respondent &ffice of the Cit% Prosecutor, thusD ith the &ffice of the &mbudsman as referred to the

After evaluation, the undersi$ned finds that the char$es imputed a$ainst the respondent are no. o99/5e -e2&.e' and that the administrative aspect of the case had alread% been underta)en b% the Bureau of +mmi$ration. +n vie thereof, it is respectfull% recommended that the instant complaint be -e9e--e' .o .:e O99/5e o9 .:e C/.$ P-o0e5u.o- o9 M&n/2& 9o- &,,-o,-/&.e &5./on. "& &R!ERE!.=E @emp)ases suppliedA Petitioner filed a Motion to Re-open=F ith the B+, contendin$ that the findin$ of the &mbudsman that :the char$es imputed a$ainst KpetitionerL are not office related: clearl% sho s that she is not administrativel% liable for $rave misconduct. "he moved for the re-openin$ of the case :to allo her to adduce further evidence mainl% based on the findin$s of the &mbudsman.: The motion, ho ever, as denied for lac) of merit.=1 &n #anuar% .=, .///, Commissioner Rodri$ue3 issued an order, adoptin$ the resolution of "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3, vizD 7;ERE4&RE, respondent Teresita 8. 'ertude3 is hereb% found liable for $rave misconduct under P! No. GC0 and the Administrative Code of ./G0. Accordin$l%, she is ordered dismissed from the service effective immediatel% ith forfeiture of all benefits under the la , ith pre,udice to her reinstatement in this Bureau and all its branches. "& &R!ERE!.=0 The order *uoted the pertinent portion of "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru39s resolution, vizD

After carefull% ei$hin$ and evaluatin$ the versions of the complainant and the respondent, this &ffice is more inclineKdL to $ive credence to complainant9s declarations that she as indeed duped b% the respondent into partin$ ith the hard-earned mone% of P0/,CCC.CC on the promise of the respondent that she ould secure a passport and visa for the complainant to #apan. Respondent9s alibi that the said amount as a loan from the complainant, ho is her friend, is hi$hl% unbelievable. Complainant does not appear to be a rich person ho ould so easil% part ith such bi$ amount of mone% ithout an% securit% ithout an% hope or assurance of bein$ re-paid. The fact that complainant paid P0/,CCC.CC to the respondent so she could $et a passport and a visa to or) in #apan as a factor% or)er clearl% sho ed that she as desperatel% in need of a ,ob. 4or her to $ive such amount to the respondent as an unsecured loan is e6tremel% incredulous. Respondent9s claim that the present complaint is pure harassment b% the complainant is completel% bereft of credence. 7hat benefit or advanta$e ould the complainant achieve in fabricatin$ char$es a$ainst the respondent< +f the complainant filed this complaint, it as because she as ron$ed b% the respondent.

8i)e ise, respondent9s alle$ation that the PFC,CCC.CC she received from the complainant as a loan because she @respondentA as then in a financial distress and she needed mone% to help her sic) brother in the province as belied b% her o n son, #imm% '. "antos, #r., ho declared in his Affidavit that sometime in !ecember .//0, he $ave PFC,CCC.CC to the complainant so that the latter could obtain a tourist visa for him to #apan. 7h% should the respondent bother to $et a PFC,CCC.CC loan from the complainant to assist her ailin$ brother hen she could readil% obtain this amount from her o n son< As to respondent9s assertion that she as able to pa% the PFC,CCC.CC to the complainant, there is nothin$ to support such pa%ment. The statements of her t o @=A maids -- Eli3a CKoLmpo and #ocel%n Re%es -- in their Sinumpaan* Salaysay that respondent paid to the complainant the total amount of P1C,CCC.CC durin$ the months of 4ebruar% .//G to Ma% .//G cannot be believed. Bein$ the housemaids of the respondent, it is but natural and to be e6pected of these persons to come to the aid of their emplo%eKrL. =G Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration andOor Ne Trial, =/ reiteratin$ her ar$ument in her Motion to Reopen. A$ain, the motion as denied.-C "ubse*uentl%, the assailed order of dismissal as affirmed b% then !epartment of #ustice "ecretar% "erafin Cuevas. -. Petitioner appealed to the C"C,-= raisin$ the issues of lac) of due process and lac) of substantial evidence. &n November ./, .///, the C"C dismissed petitioner9s appeal. +t held, in part, thatD A careful stud% of the records in the li$ht of the ar$uments of appellant reveals that the re*uirements of due process have been dul% observed in the proceedin$s had in this case. 666 As to the second issue, the Commission finds substantial evidence to prove that respondent receiveKdL mone% in e6chan$e for her services in facilitatin$ the issuance of passport and visa of #ulie Bernardo @ sicA. The complaint-affidavit of #ulie Buenaflor is reproduced in part as follo sD 6 6 6 +n the absence of an% improper motive or malice on the part of the itness to foist said char$es on respondent, the Commission is inclined to $ive credence to the statements of itness Bernardo @ sicA. +n fact 'ertude3 has admitted that she received mone% from Buenaflor but ar$ued that the mone% as a mere loan. ;o ever, if this ere true, Buenaflor should have demanded for a collateral, considerin$ the amount involved. 'ertude3 failed to present an% evidence that she $ave an% securit% in return for said loan hich ma)es her version hi$hl% incredible. 6 6 6-Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration-E of the C"C9s Resolution, to no avail. The C"C heldD +n so far as 'ertude39KsL ille$al recruitment activities are concerned, the Commission finds the e6istence of clear substantial evidence to establish the same. Evidence presented all point to the fact that 'ertude3

solicited mone% from B+ clients in return for a visa to #apan. The itnesses a$ainst 'ertude3 include Pen$ 'illas @!eceasedA, #ulie Buenflor @sicA, Am% Cosino, 'ir$inia 8ubriano, Manuelito 8ao and #aime "antos 4lores. The affidavits of said itnesses all spea) of the modus operandi of 'ertude3 at the B+, here she approaches B+ clients and offers them a visa, passport and an emplo%ment contract in e6chan$e for P.=C,CCC.CC. +n the case of itness #ulie Buenaflor, she testified that respondent assured her of a visa, a passport and a ,ob in #apan for a fee of PGC,CCC.CC and that 'ertude3 after $ettin$ paid failed to fulfill her promise. +t is observed that 'ertude3 see)s to destro% the credibilit% of itness Buenaflor b% impl%in$ that the former has a pendin$ case for ille$al recruitment and estafa. Records, ho ever, sho that the char$es a$ainst itness Buenaflor all came up after 'ertude3 as formall% char$ed b% the B+ and that such char$es have no reasonable connection ith her administrative case pendin$ before the Commission. +n this re$ard, 1$)ere bein* not)in* in record to s)o( t)at (itnesses (ere actuated by any improper motive, t)eir testimony s)all be entitled to 'ull 'ait) and credit.1 @People v. 4lores, =F= "CRA -.A-F Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for revie before the CA, raisin$ the issues ofD aA hether or not the B+ and C"C violated petitioner9s ri$ht to due process> bA hether or not respondents erred in findin$ that the alle$ed ille$al recruitment activit% of the petitioner had a direct relation to and connected ith the performance of her duties and responsibilities as an emplo%ee of the B+> and cA hether or not there is substantial evidence to support the findin$ that petitioner is an ille$al recruiter, thus, arrantin$ her removal from public service.-1 &n 4ebruar% .=, =CC=, the CA dismissed the petition for lac) of merit. The CA found that :petitioner as $iven more than ample opportunit% to ventilate her defense and disprove the char$es leveled a$ainst her, hence, there can be no denial of her ri$ht to due process.: -0 Moreover, it held that :there is more than substantial evidence provin$ the char$e of $rave misconduct a$ainst petitioner.: -G The CA ratiocinated thatD +n the proceedin$s a *uo, it as established that petitioner, indeed, received and encashed the t o @=A chec)s $iven b% private respondent in the total amount of PhpFC,CCC.CC. This fact, therefore, $ives credence to the claim of private respondent that she $ave petitioner t o @=A chec)s in consideration of the latter9s promise to facilitate her emplo%ment abroad. This bein$ the case, the burden as shifted to petitioner to refute this established fact throu$h e*uall% ei$ht% and competent evidence. No , petitioner admitted havin$ received, and encashed, the t o chec)s from private respondent but offered the e6cuse that the same as e6tended to her as a loan. Aside from her testimon% and that of her household helpers to prove this assertion, no other independent and unbiased evidence as offered to prove the fact of loan. As it is, her theor% of loan stands on flims% $round and is not sufficient enou$h to overthro the fact established b% complainant. This considerin$ that it is hi$hl% improbable and even contrar% to human e6perience for a person to loan a hu$e amount of mone% as PhpFC,CCC.CC ithout an% document evidencin$ such loan nor a collateral to secure its pa%ment. Note even that the t o chec)s ere made pa%able to :cash,: a bearer instrument, and as not even crossed on its face, hence, can be encashed b% an% person holdin$ the ne$otiable instrument. +f, indeed, private respondent $ave the t o chec)s to petitioner as a clean loan @ ithout an% collateralA ithout an% separate document embod%in$ their loan a$reement, the latter should have at least been made the pa%ee of the chec)s and a memorandum ritten at the bac) of the chec) to the effect that it is bein$ e6tended as a loan, in order to protect the interest of the lender. This is conventional business practice hich is alto$ether absent in the case at bar, hence, petitioner9s theor% of loan must necessaril% crumble. -/ Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, EC contendin$ that the CA failed to resolve the issue of hether petitioner9s alle$ed ille$al recruitment activities are directl% connected ith her duties and responsibilities as a 4in$erprint E6aminer of the B+. This motion as denied. E. (ndaunted, petitioner filed this petition, summin$ up the issues as follo sD .. 7;ET;ER &R N&T T;E ;&N&RAB8E "(PREME C&(RT MA? RE'+E7 T;E !EC+"+&N &4 T;E C&(RT &4 APPEA8" +N CA-5.R. "P N&. FG011> =. 7;ET;ER &R N&T T;E C&(RT &4 APPEA8" RE"&8'E! T;E "EC&N! +""(E RA+"E! +N T;E PET+T+&N 4&R RE'+E7 4+8E! BE4&RE +T> -. 7;ET;ER &R N&T T;ERE +" "(B"TANT+A8 E'+!ENCE T& "(PP&RT T;E 4+N!+N5" T;AT PET+T+&NER +" 5(+8T? &4 5RA'E M+"C&N!(CT>

E. 7;ET;ER &R N&T A PR&M+"E T& 4AC+8+TATE EMP8&?MENT &4 AN&T;ER ABR&A! C&N"T+T(TE" 5RA'E M+"C&N!(CTK>L F. 7;ET;ER &R N&T PET+T+&NER 7A" ACC&R!E! !(E PR&CE""> 1. 7;ET;ER &R N&T T;E ACT C&N"T+T(T+N5 5RA'E M+"C&N!(CT M("T ;A'E A !+RECT RE8AT+&N T& T;E 4(NCT+&N &4 T;E P(B8+C &44+CE ;E8! B? RE"P&N!ENT" +N A!M+N+"TRAT+'E CA"E"> AN! 0. 7;ET;ER &R N&T T;E A88E5E! ACT C&MM+TTE! B? T;E PET+T+&NER +" !+RECT8? RE8ATE! T& AN? &4 ;ER 4(NCT+&N" A" 4+N5ERPR+NT EMAM+NER AT T;E B(REA( &4 +MM+5RAT+&N. E= The petition is denied. 7e shall first resolve the issue of due process. Petitioner contends that the essential re*uirements of due process as laid do n in !n4 T/7&$ ;. Cou-. o9 n'u0.-/&2 Re2&./on0 E- and #o-ue2o ;. COMELEC EE ere violated in the case at bar. 4irst, she contends that she as denied of her ri$ht to a full hearin$ hen she as not accorded the opportunit% to cross-e6amine the itnesses a$ainst her, as provided under "ection EG, par. F, Title +, Boo) ' of the Administrative Code of ./G0. "he alle$edl% raised this issue in her appeal before the C"C.EF The ar$ument is unmeritorious. 7e have e6plained the meanin$ of the ri$ht to cross-e6amination as a vital element of due process as follo sD The ri$ht of a part% to confront and cross-e6amine opposin$ itnesses in a ,udicial liti$ation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedin$s before administrative tribunals ith *uasi-,udicial po ers, is a fundamental ri$ht hich is part of due process. ;o ever, .:e -/4:. /0 & ,e-0on&2 one <:/5: 6&$ 7e <&/;e' e=,-e002$ o- /6,2/e'2$ 7$ 5on'u5. &6oun./n4 .o & -enun5/&./on o9 .:e -/4:. o9 5-o00-e=&6/n&./on. T:u0, <:e-e & ,&-.$ :&0 :&' .:e o,,o-.un/.$ .o 5-o00-e=&6/ne & </.ne00 7u. 9&/2e' .o &;&/2 :/60e29 o9 /., :e ne5e00&-/2$ 9o-9e/.0 .:e -/4:. .o 5-o00-e=&6/ne and the testimon% $iven on direct e6amination of the itness ill be received or allo ed to remain in the record. E1 @emp)asis suppliedA +n the case at bar, petitioner cannot ar$ue that she as deprived of due process simpl% because no crosse6amination too) place. Nothin$ on record sho s that petitioner as)ed for cross-e6amination durin$ the formal investi$ation conducted b% "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3. Notabl%, t o hearin$s ere conducted, durin$ hich, both private respondent and petitioner appeared. !urin$ the hearin$ dated &ctober =0, .//G, both parties a$reed to submit the case for resolution after petitioner submitted her counter-affidavit and the affidavits of her itnesses. +n fact, hen petitioner filed her Motion to Re-open the case ith the B+, she did not *uestion the lac) of cross-e6amination durin$ the investi$ation proceedin$s. "he merel% based her motion on the order of the &ffice of the &mbudsman findin$ the char$e a$ainst her as :not office related.: +n the same pleadin$, she admitted that :KaLs earl% as &ctober =0, .//G, the instant administrative action has been submitted for resolution &9.e- .:e 5on.en'/n4 ,&-./e0 :&;e 0u76/..e' .:e/- -e0,e5./;e e;/'en5e : and that her move for the re-openin$ of the administrative case as merel% : .o &22o< :e- .o &''u5e 9u-.:e- e;/'en5e 6&/n2$ 7&0e' on .:e 9/n'/n40 o9 .:e O99/5e o9 .:e O67u'06&n. : A$ain, in her Motion for Reconsideration andOor Ne Trial of Commissioner Rodri$ue39s order of dismissal, she merel% reiterated her ar$uments in her Motion to Re-open. "he never complained that she as deprived of her ri$ht to cross-e6amination durin$ the investi$ation of "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3. The ri$ht to cross-e6amination bein$ a personal ri$ht, petitioner must be deemed to have aived this ri$ht b% a$reein$ to submit the case for resolution and not *uestionin$ the lac) of it in the proceedin$s before the B+. More importantl%, it is ell-settled that the essence of due process in administrative proceedin$s is an opportunit% to e6plain one9s side or an opportunit% to see) reconsideration of the action or rulin$ complained of.E0 This as clearl% satisfied in the case at bar. Records sho that petitioner not onl% $ave her s orn ritten e6planation of the char$es a$ainst her durin$ the initial sta$e of the investi$ation, she also submittedD aA a s orn counter-affidavit refutin$ the char$es a$ainst her, ith all the attached anne6es as evidence> bA a Motion to Re-open the case ith the B+> cA a Motion for Reconsideration andOor Ne Trial ith the B+> dA an Appeal to the C"C> eA a Motion for Reconsideration ith the C"C> fA an Appeal to the CA> $A a Motion for Reconsideration ith the CA> and hA the instant petition for revie . "econd, petitioner contends that Commissioner Rodri$ue3 violated the principle that :the tribunal or bod% or an% of its ,ud$es must act on its or his o n independent consideration of the la and facts of the

controvers% and not simpl% accept the vie s of a subordinate in arrivin$ at a decision: hen his denial of her Motion to Re-open and his order findin$ her $uilt% of $rave misconduct ere based e6clusivel% on the resolution of "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3.EG This ar$ument is li)e ise unavailin$. There is nothin$ essentiall% ron$ in the head of a bureau adoptin$ the recommendation of a subordinate. "ection E0, Boo) ' of the Administrative Code of ./G0 $ives the chief of bureau or office or department the po er to dele$ate the tas) of investi$atin$ a case to a subordinate. E/ 7hat due process demands is for the chief of the bureau to personall% ei$h and assess the evidence hich the subordinate has $athered and not merel% to rel% on the recommendation of said investi$atin$ officer. FC +n the case at bar, the order of Commissioner Rodri$ue3 en,o%s the disputable presumption that official duties have been re$ularl% performed. That his decision *uotes the resolution of "pecial Prosecutor dela Cru3 does not necessaril% impl% that he did not personall% e6amine the affidavits and evidence presented b% the parties. Petitioner9s bare assertion that Commissioner Rodri$ue3 did not personall% e6amine the evidence, ithout more, is not sufficient to overcome this presumption. Third, petitioner contends that the C"C did not have basis in findin$D aA that the affidavits of :Pen$ 'illas @!eceasedA, #ulie Buenaflor, Am% Cosino, 'ir$inia 8ubriano, Manuelito 8ao and #aime "antos 4lores 6 6 6 all spea) of the modus operandi of 'ertude3 at the B+: as these affidavits ere not submitted to the C"C> and bA that petitioner :solicited mone% from B+ clients: inasmuch as private respondent never alle$ed that she as a B+ client. Moreover, the C"C9s findin$ that private respondent :testified that respondent assured her of a visa, a passport and a ,ob in #apan for a fee of PGC,CCC.CC and that 'ertude3, after $ettin$ paid, failed to fulfill her promise: is not supported b% the complaint-affidavit of private respondent hich merel% stated that petitioner :volunteered to or)-out and facilitate the processin$ of Kprivate respondent9sL passport and visa: and that petitioner :has a brother in #apan ho could also help Kprivate respondentL find a ,ob.: F. Petitioner also assails the failure of the B+ and C"C to consider the hand ritten ,oint s orn statement of media practitioners Cloma and Romero and the ,oint affidavit of the housemaids of petitioner, Compo and Re%es. F= A$ain, these ar$uments fail to impress. +t is settled that onl% *uestions of la are entertained in petitions for revie on certiorari under Rule EF of the Rules of Court.F- +t is not the function of this Court, in a petition under Rule EF, to scrutini3e, ei$h and anal%3e evidence all over a$ain.FE 7ell-settled is the rule that the findin$s of fact of *uasi-,udicial a$encies, li)e the B+ and the C"C, are accorded not onl% respect but even finalit% if such findin$s are supported b% substantial evidence.FF "ubstantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence hich a reasonable mind mi$ht accept as ade*uate to support a conclusion, even if other e*uall% reasonable minds mi$ht conceivabl% opine other ise.F1 +n the case at bar, e note that contrar% to petitioner9s stance, the affidavits of 8ao and Cosino do appear in the records of the C"C.F0 +n an% case, the affidavits of 'illas, Cosino, 8ubriano, 8ao and 4lores are of little relevance to the case at bar. +f an%, the% are merel% corroboratin$ evidence. Note that it as onl% in the C"C9s resolution on petitioner9s Motion for Reconsideration that said affidavits ere mentioned. These affidavits ere not used as basis for the decision rendered b% the B+, the main decision of the C"C den%in$ the appeal of petitioner and the decision of the CA. 7e find the unanimous findin$ of $uilt of the B+, the C"C and the CA ampl% supported b% the follo in$ evidence on recordD aA the complaint-affidavit of private respondent> bA the affidavit of #essil%n 5utierre3> cA copies of the passport and application for a visa of petitioner9s son> dA copies of "B Chec) Nos. CC.E0/0 and CC.E0/G> and eA letter of private respondent9s counsel to petitioner demandin$ from petitioner the refund of the P0/,CCC.CC that private respondent paid to petitioner. As to the other contentions, e note that in addition to the self-servin$ *uotations of petitioner from the complaint-affidavit of private respondent, said complaint-affidavit cate$oricall% alle$ed that petitioner told private respondent that the latter ould :be receivin$ a salar% of one lapad per da% as a factor% or)er and that should KsheL accept Kpetitioner9sL offer, all that K ouldL be re*uired of Kher asL to $ive KpetitionerL the amount of PGC,CCC.CC.: Private respondent also cate$oricall% alle$ed that she as char$in$ petitioner for her :failure to ma)e $ood her ,-o6/0e .o 'e,2o$ KherL after receivin$ the amount of P0/,CCC.CC in consideration of a >o7 ,2&5e6en. in #apan.: Thus, contrar% to petitioner9s stance, the assailed findin$s of the C"C are supported b% private respondent9s complaint-affidavit.

Moreover, it is ell-settled that it is not for the appellate court to substitute its o n ,ud$ment for that of the administrative a$enc% on the sufficienc% of the evidence and the credibilit% of the itnesses. Administrative decisions on matters ithin their ,urisdiction are entitled to respect and can onl% be set aside on proof of $rave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of la . None of these vices has been sho n in this case. FG 7e shall no proceed to the other issueD removal from $overnment service. hether petitioner is $uilt% of $rave misconduct arrantin$ her

Citin$ S&-/4u67& ;. P&0o?,F/ petitioner contends that :KmLisconduct, arrantin$ removal from office of a public officer, must have a direct relation to and connected ith the performance of official duties, amountin$ either to maladministration or illful, intentional ne$lect and failure to dischar$e the duties of the office.: "ince the B+ is a $overnment a$enc% principall% responsible for the administration and enforcement of immi$ration, citi3enship and alien admission and re$istration la s, :b% no stretch of ima$ination: can there be a direct relation bet een the function of a fin$erprint e6aminer and the alle$ed promise to facilitate private respondent9s emplo%ment abroad.1C Petitioner also capitali3es on the alle$ation of private respondent in her complaint-affidavit that she and petitioner :became friends: to contend that the acts bein$ imputed a$ainst her are personal and not office-related. 1. These ar$uments lac) merit. The alle$ations in private respondentIs complaint-affidavit indicate that petitioner used her position as a B+ emplo%ee to assure private respondent that she could facilitate petitioner9s deplo%ment to #apan. Private respondent alle$ed that :durin$ one of those times that KsheL dropped b% Kpetitioner9sL office, KpetitionerL intimated to KherL that & 4-ou, o9 66/4-&./on o99/5e-0 @<e-eA 05:e'u2e' .o 2e&;e 9o- J&,&n 9o.-&/n/n4 &n' .:&. @,e././one-A <&0 .:e one <:o -e5e/;e' & 5&22 9-o6 & J&,&ne0e Con0u2 .: Petitioner :as)ed Kprivate respondentL if Kshe asL interested in $oin$ to #apan because @,e././one-A </22 9/n' & <&$ .o &55o66o'&.e @:e-A.: Even petitioner9s o n admissions sho that her position as an emplo%ee of the B+ ma% be utili3ed in connection ith ille$al recruitment. +n her memorandum to Commissioner Rodri$ue3, as reiterated in her counter-affidavit, petitioner alle$ed that private respondent as en$a$ed in ille$al recruitment and : <&0 u0/n4 @,e././one-B0A n&6e /n :e- 'e&2/n40 </.: 0o6e /66/4-&./on o99/5/&20 &n' e6,2o$ee0, ,-e0u6&72$ .o e=,e'/.e .:e ,-o5e00/n4 o9 .:e 'o5u6en.0 7e2on4/n4 .o :e- 52/en.0 .: Petitioner li)e ise claimed that she :'e52/ne' @,-/;&.e -e0,on'en.B0A ,-o,o0&2 .:&. @0:eA Be05o-.B 0o6e o9 @,-/;&.e -e0,on'en.B0A 52/en.0 <:o <ou2' 7e 2e&;/n4 9o- 9o-e/4n 5oun.-/e0 7u. </.: 9&20/9/e' .-&;e2 'o5u6en.0.: Private respondent even told her that the :proposed scheme could easil% be done 7e5&u0e 7e/n4 &n e6,2o$ee o9 .:/0 "u-e&u, @,e././one- :&0A 0e;e-&2 5onne5./on0 no. on2$ &. .:e N/no$ !Cu/no n.e-n&./on&2 !/-,o-. DN! !E 7u. &20o /n M&5.&n n.e-n&./on&2 !/-,o-. .: That her position is desi$nated as :fin$erprint e6aminer: is not determinative of the issue of hether the char$e a$ainst her is or)-related. The alle$ations in the complaint a$ainst petitioner and her o n admissions sho that her duties $o be%ond her ,ob title and that the char$e a$ainst her is connected ith her position as an emplo%ee of the B+. 4inall%, petitioner contends that :a promise to find a a% to accommodate private respondent and a representation that petitioner has a brother ho could help private respondent find a ,ob are not misconduct arrantin$ the dismissal of petitioner from office: but, :KaLt most,: onl% :entitleKsL private respondent to civil indemnit%.: Petitioner contends that the CA9s findin$ that petitioner merel% made a :promise to facilitate: private respondent9s emplo%ment abroad, as distin$uished from the C"C9s findin$ that petitioner committed :shameful ille$al recruitment activities,: practicall% absolved petitioner from the char$e of $rave misconduct. This ar$ument deserves scant consideration. Misconduct has been defined as an intentional ron$doin$ or deliberate violation of a rule of la or standard of behavior, especiall% b% a $overnment official.1= As distin$uished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the la or fla$rant disre$ard of established rule, must be manifest in a char$e of $rave misconduct. 1Corruption, as an element of $rave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciar% person ho unla full% and ron$full% uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrar% to dut% and the ri$hts of others. 1E An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as $rave misconduct as in fact, crimes involvin$ moral turpitude are treated as a separate $round for dismissal under the Administrative Code. 1F

+n the case at bar, petitioner cannot do npla% the char$es a$ainst her. 7hether the char$es a$ainst petitioner satisf% the elements of ille$al recruitment to ma)e her criminall% liable for such crime is not the issue at bar. At the ver% least, petitioner as found to have ta)en advanta$e of her position as an emplo%ee of the B+ to falsel% promise, for pecuniar% $ain, the facilitation of private respondent9s travel to #apan, includin$ the processin$ of her passport, visa and other travel documents. 7orse, she as found to have refused to reimburse the amounts paid to her b% private respondent even hen the promised passport, visa, and travel documents did not materiali3e. (ndoubtedl%, these acts involve :corruption, clear intent to violate the la or fla$rant disre$ard of established rule.: (nder "ection =-@cA, Rule M+' the &mnibus Civil "ervice Rules and Re$ulations, these acts constitute a $rave offense for hich petitioner must suffer the penalt% of dismissal. N ( E3 3HEREOF, the petition is #EN E#. The Court of Appeals !ecision dated 4ebruar% .=, =CC= and Resolution dated April .1, =CC= in CA-5.R. "P No. FG011 are !FF RME#. SO OR#ERE#. REFN!TO S. PUNO
Foo.no.e0
.

Also spelled as :'ertude3: in some parts of the records. !ated 4ebruar% .=, =CC=> Rollo, pp. -0-EF. !ated April .1, =CC=> !d. at E1-E0. !d. at EG-E/. !ated #ul% -., .//G> C"C Records, p. =1. Rollo, pp. FC-FE. !ated Au$ust F, .//G> !d. at FF. C"C Records, p. -/. !d. at E.-E-. !d. at EF-E0. Rollo, pp. F1-1C. !d. at 1.-1E. !d. at ../-.=C. C"C Records, p. =F1. !d. at -=-. Anne6 :#:> Rollo, pp. 10-0E. !d. at 0F. !d. at .=.-.=E. !d. at 01. !d. at 0G-0/. !d. at G.. C"C Records, p. 0.=.

.C

..

.=

.-

.E

.F

.1

.0

.G

./

=C

=.

==

=-

!d. at .FC-.F.. Rollo, pp. G=-G-. !d. at GE-GF. Memorandum dated #anuar% .=, .///> !d. at /C. !d. at /-. !d. at /=-/-. !d. at /E-.C-. &rder dated 4ebruar% G, .///> !d. at .C0. C"C Records, p. /E. !d. at E1E-FC.. Resolution No. //=F1/> Rollo, pp. ...-..-. C"C Records, pp. 1-.E. Resolution No. CCC//-> Rollo, p. ..0. CA Rollo, p. E.. Rollo, p. E-. !d. at EF. !d. at EE-EF. CA Rollo, pp. =1F-=0C. Resolution dated April .1, =CC=> Supra note -. Memorandum> Rollo, pp. =C/-=.C. 1/ Phil. 1-F @./ECA. .-- "CRA -01 @./GEA. Memorandum for the Petitioner> Rollo, pp. ==E-==F. 4ul$ado v. CA, .G= "CRA G., G0 @.//CA, citin* "avor% 8uncheonette v. 8a)as n$ Man$$a$a a, 1= "CRA =F-, =1--=10 @./0FA.

=E

=F

=1

=0

=G

=/

-C

-.

-=

--

-E

-F

-1

-0

-G

-/

EC

E.

E=

E-

EE

EF

E1

'elas*ue3 v. ;ernande3, E-0 "CRA -F0, -1G @=CCEA, citin* Adion$ v. CA, -0. "CRA -0- @=CC.A and 'da. de !ela Cru3 v. Abille, -F= "CRA 1/. @=CC.A.
E0 EG

Memorandum for the Petitioner> Rollo, p. ==-. ho shall ma)e the

"aid provision states that :KaLn investi$ation ma% be entrusted to a re$ional director or similar officials necessar% report and recommendation to the chief of bureau or office or department.:
E/ FC

Mollaneda v. (macob, -FG "CRA F-0, FEG @=CC.A. Memorandum for the Petitioner> Rollo, pp. ==.-==-. !d. at ==F. See "ection ., Rule EF of the Rules of Court.

F.

F=

F-

'illalon v. CA, -./ "CRA F-C, F-1 @.///A, citin* Estonina v. Court of Appeals, =11 "CRA 1=0, 1-F @.//0A> Atlantic 5ulf and Pacific Compan% of Manila, +nc. v. Court of Appeals, =E0 "CRA 1C1, 1.= @.//FA> !e los "antos v. Re%es, =CF "CRA E-0, EEF @.//=A> Philippine National Ban) v. +ntermediate Appellate Court, .G- "CRA .--, .-/ @.//CA.
FE FF

Rosario v. 'ictor% Ricemill, -/0 "CRA 01C, 011 @=CC-A, citin* 4eli6 v. Enertech "%stems +ndustries, +nc., -FF "CRA 1GC @=CC.A. Ba$on$ Ba%an Corporation v. N8RC, .0G "CRA .C0 @./G/A, citin* 8ansan$ v. 5arcia, E= "CRA EEG @./0.A. C"C Records, pp. E.-EE. Bernardo v. CA, E=/ "CRA =GE, =//--CC @=CCEA, citin* !adubo v. C"C, ==- "CRA 0E0 @.//-A. .FF "CRA 1E1 @./G0A. Rollo, p. ==0. !d. at ===.

F1

F0

FG

F/

1C

1.

C"C v. Bela$an, EEC "CRA F0G, F// @=CCEA, citin* Ma$uad v. !e 5u3man, -CF "CRA E1/ @.///A and 8acson v. Ro*ue, /= Phil. EF1 @./F-A.
1= 1-

!d., citin* Civil "ervice Commission v. 8ucas, -1. Phil. EG1 @.///A. !d., citin* Blac)9s 8a !ictionar%, p. -EF.

1E

1F

See "ection E1@bA@.CA, Boo) '.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila TH R# # ( S ON

G.R. No. 12798+

#e5e67e- 19, 2++7

#E L! S!LLE UN (ERS TF, NC., EMM!NUEL S!LES, RON!L# HOLMES, JU#E #EL! TORRE, !MP!RO R O, C!RMEL T! %UE"ENGCO, !GNES FUH CO &n' J!MES F!P, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF !PPE!LS, HON. 3 LFRE#O #. REFES, /n :/0 5&,&5/.$ &0 P-e0/'/n4 Ju'4e o9 "-&n5: 36, Re4/on&2 T-/&2 Cou-. o9 M&n/2&, THE COMM SS ON ON H GHER E#UC!T ON, THE #EP!RTMENT OF E#UC!T ON CULTURE !N# SPORTS, !L( N !GU L!R, J!MES P!UL "UNGU"UNG, R CH!R# RE(ERENTE &n' RO"ERTO (!L#ES, JR., respondents. #EC REFES, R.T., J.8 N!GT!T!G S 0& ?&0on4 /.o &n4 ?&-&,&.&n4 6&4-&-&2 n4 &,&. n& e0.u'$&n.e n& n&0&n4?o. 0& &<&$ n4 '&2&<&n4 fraternity &. &n4 ?&-&,&.&n4 &?&'e6/?o n4 /0&n4 ,&6&n.&0&n. PR+'ATE respondents Alvin A$uilar, #ames Paul Bun$ubun$, Richard Reverente and Roberto 'aldes, #r. are members of Tau 5amma Phi 4raternit% ho ere e6pelled b% the !e 8a "alle (niversit% @!8"(A and Colle$e of "aint Benilde @C"BA. #oint !iscipline Board because of their involvement in an offensive action causin$ in,uries to petitioner #ames ?ap and three other student members of !omino 8u6 4raternit%. This is the bac)drop of the controvers% before (s pittin$ private respondents9 ri$ht to education vis-a-vis the (niversit%9s ri$ht to academic freedom. A""A+8E! in this Petition for %ertiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 1F of the Rules of Court are the follo in$D @.A Resolution of the Court of Appeals @CAA dated #ul% -C, .//1 dismissin$ !8"(9s petition for certiorari a$ainst respondent #ud$e and private respondents A$uilar, Bun$ubun$, Reverente, and 'aldes, #r.>= @=A Resolution of the CA dated &ctober .F, .//1 den%in$ the motion for reconsideration> - @-A &rder dated #anuar% 0, .//0 of the Re$ional Trial Court @RTCA, Branch -1 Manila $rantin$ private respondent A$uilar9s motion to reiterate rit of preliminar% in,unction> E and @EA Resolution No. .G.-/1 dated Ma% .E, .//1 of the Commission on ;i$her Education @C;E!A e6oneratin$ private respondent A$uilar and lo erin$ the penalties for the other private respondents from e6pulsion to e6clusion. F F&5.u&2 !n.e5e'en.0 5leaned from the Ma% -, .//F !ecision of the !8"(-C"B #oint !iscipline Board, t o violent incidents on March =/, .//F involvin$ private respondents occurredD 6 6 6 4rom the testimonies of the complainin$ itnesses, it appears that one ee) prior to March =/, .//F, Mr. #ames ?ap as eatin$ his dinner alone in Manan$9s Restaurant near 8a "alle, hen he overheard t o men bad-mouthin$ and apparentl% an$r% at !omino 8u6. ;e i$nored the comments of the t o. 7hen he arrived at his boardin$ house, he mentioned the remar)s to his t o other brods hile atchin$ television. These t o brods had earlier finished eatin$ their dinner at Manan$9s. Then, the three, to$ether ith four other persons ent bac) to Manan$9s and confronted the t o ho ere still in the restaurant. B% admission of respondent Bun$ubun$ in his testimon%, one of the t o as a member of the Tau 5amma Phi 4raternit%. There as no rumble or ph%sical violence then. After this incident, a meetin$ as conducted bet een the t o heads of the fraternit% throu$h the intercession of the "tudent Council. The Tau 5amma Phi 4raternit% as as)in$ for an apolo$%. :8ailan*an n$ apolo$%: in the ords of respondent A$uilar. But no apolo$% as made. Then, F members of the Tau 5amma Phi 4raternit% ent to the tambayan of the !omino 8u6 4raternit% in the campus. Amon$ them ere respondents Bun$ubun$, Reverente and Papio. The% ere loo)in$ for a person hose description matched #ames ?ap. Accordin$ to them, this person supposedl% :nambastos n* brod.: As the% could not find Mr. ?ap, one of them remar)ed :Paano ba iyan. Pasensiya na lan*.: S ON

Came March =/, .//F and the follo in$ events. Ten minutes before his ne6t class at 1DCC p.m., Mr. #ames ?ap ent out of the campus usin$ the En$ineerin$ 5ate to bu% candies across Taft Avenue. As he as about to re-cross Taft Avenue, he heard heav% footsteps at his bac). Ei$ht to ten $u%s ere runnin$ to ards him. ;e panic)ed. ;e did not )no hat to do. Then, respondent Bun$ubun$ punched him in the head ith somethin$ heav% in his hands P :paran* )nuc)les.: Respondents Reverente and 8ee ere behind ?ap, punchin$ him. Respondents Bun$ubun$ and 'aldes ho ere in front of him, ere also punchin$ him. As he as l%in$ on the street, respondent A$uilar )ic)ed him. People shouted> $uards arrived> and the $roup of attac)ers left. Mr. ?ap could not reco$ni3e the other members of the $roup ho attac)ed him. 7ith respect to respondent Papio, Mr. ?ap said :)indi -o na-ita an* mu-)a niya, )indi -o na-ita sumunto- siya .: 7hat Mr. ?ap sa as a lon$ haired $u% also runnin$ ith the $roup. T o $uards escorted Mr. ?ap inside the campus. At this point, Mr. !ennis Pascual as at the En$ineerin$ 5ate. Mr. Pascual accompanied ?ap to the universit% clinic> reported the incident to the !iscipline &ffice> and informed his fraternit% brods at their tamba%an. Accordin$ to Mr. Pascual, their head of the !omino 8u6 4raternit% saidD : 0alan* *a*ala(. 9(ian na lan*.: Mr. Ericson Cano, ho as supposed to hitch a ride ith !ennis Pascual, sa him under the cloc) in Mi$uel Buildin$. ;o ever, the% did not proceed directl% for home. 7ith a certain Michael Pere3, the% ent to ards the direction of !a$ono% "treet because Mr. Pascual as supposed to pic) up a boo) for his friend from another friend ho lives some here in the area. As the% ere alon$ !a$ono% "treet, and before the% could pass the Bolehi%o n$ Malate Restaurant, Mr. Cano first sa several $u%s inside the restaurant. ;e said not to mind them and ,ust )eep on al)in$. ;o ever, the $roup $ot out of the restaurant, amon$ them respondents Reverente, 8ee and 'aldes. Mr. Cano told Mr. 8eeD :Aya( namin n* *ulo.: But, respondent 8ee hit Mr. Cano ithout provocation. Respondent Reverente )ic)ed Mr. Pascual and respondent 8ee also hit Mr. Pascual. Mr. Cano and Mr. Pere3 mana$ed to run from the maulin$ and the% ere chased b% respondent 8ee and t o others. Mr. Pascual as left behind. After respondent Reverente first )ic)ed him, Mr. Pascual as $an$edupon b% the rest. ;e as able to run, but the $roup as able to catch up ith him. ;is shirt as torn and he as hit at the bac) of his head ith a lead pipe. Respondent 8ee ho as chasin$ Cano and Pere3, then returned to Mr. Pascual. Mr. Pascual identified respondents Reverente and 8ee, as amon$ those ho hit him. Althou$h Mr. Pascual did not see respondent 'aldes hit him, he identified respondent 'alde3 @ sicA as also one of the members of the $roup. +n fact, Mr. Cano sa respondent 'aldes near Mr. Pascual. ;e as almost near the corner of 8eon 5uinto and Estrada> hile respondent Pascual ho mana$ed to run as stopped at the end of !a$ono% alon$ 8eon 5uinto. Respondent 'aldes shoutedD : M*a putan*-ina niyo.: Respondent Reverente hit Mr. Pascual for the last time. Apparentl% bein$ satisfied ith their handi or), the $roup left. The victims, Cano, Pere3 and Pascual proceeded to a friend9s house and aited for almost t o hours, or at around GDCC in the evenin$ before the% returned to the campus to have their ounds treated. Apparentl%, there ere three cars roamin$ the vicinit%. 1 The maulin$ incidents ere a result of a fraternit% ar. The victims, namel%D petitioner #ames ?ap and !ennis Pascual, Ericson Cano, and Michael Pere3, are members of the :!omino 8u6 4raternit%,: hile the alle$ed assailants, private respondents Alvin A$uilar, #ames Paul Bun$ubun$, Richard Reverente and Roberto 'aldes, #r. are members of :Tau 5amma Phi 4raternit%,: a rival fraternit%. The ne6t da%, March -C, .//F, petitioner ?ap lod$ed a complaint 0 ith the !iscipline Board of !8"( char$in$ private respondents ith :direct assault.: "imilar complaints G ere also filed b% !ennis Pascual and Ericson Cano a$ainst Alvin 8ee and private respondents 'aldes and Reverente. Thus, cases entitled : 7e :a Salle 9niversity and %olle*e o' St. +enilde v. Alvin A*uilar "A+-+SM;<5=>5?=&, James Paul +un*ubun* "A+PSM;<>@AA?@&, #obert #. Baldes, Jr. "+S-+S-APM;<>@=?CD&, Alvin :ee "677;<AD>@>=&, #ic)ard #everente "A+-MG$;<5=@C@E& and Malvin A. Papio "A+-MG$;<>=5>>E& : ere doc)eted as !iscipline Case No. /E/F--=F.=..

The !irector of the !8"( !iscipline &ffice sent separate notices to private respondents A$uilar, Bun$ubun$ and 'aldes, #r. and Reverente informin$ them of the complaints and re*uirin$ them to ans er. Private respondents filed their respective ans ers. / As it appeared that students from !8"( and C"B.C ere involved in the maulin$ incidents, a ,oint !8"(-C"B !iscipline Board.. as formed to investi$ate the incidents. Thus, petitioner Board Chairman Emmanuel "ales sent notices of hearin$.= to private respondents on April .=, .//F. "aid notices uniforml% stated as follo sD Please be informed that a ,oint and e6panded !iscipline Board had been constituted to hear and deliberate the char$e a$ainst %ou for violation of C;E! &rder No. E arisin$ from the ritten complaints of #ames ?ap, !ennis C. Pascual, and Ericson ?. Cano. ?ou are directed to appear at the hearin$ of the Board scheduled on April ./, .//F at /DCC a.m. at the Bro. Connon ;all for %ou and %our itnesses to $ive testimon% and present evidence in %our behalf. ?ou ma% be assisted b% a la %er hen %ou $ive %our testimon% or those of %our itnesses. &n or before April .G, .//F, %ou are further directed to provide the Board, throu$h the !iscipline &ffice, ith a list of %our itnesses as ell as the s orn statement of their proposed testimon%. ?our failure to appear at the scheduled hearin$ or %our failure to submit the list of itnesses and the s orn statement of their proposed testimon% ill be considered a aiver on %our part to present evidence and as an admission of the principal act complained of. 4or %our strict compliance..!urin$ the proceedin$s before the Board on April ./ and =G, .//F, private respondents interposed the common defense of alibi, summari3ed b% the !8"(-C"B #oint !iscipline Board as follo sD 4irst, in the case of respondent Bun$ubun$, March =/, .//F as one of the fe instances hen he as pic)ed-up b% a driver, a certain Romeo ". Carillo. Most of the time, respondent Bun$ubun$ $oes home alone sans driver. But on this particular date, respondent Bun$ubun$ said that his dad as)ed his permission to use the car and thus, his dad instructed this driver Carillo to pic)-up his son. Mr. Carillo is not a famil% driver, but or)s from GDCC a.m. to FDCC p.m. for the Philippine Ports Authorit% here the elder Bun$ubun$ is also emplo%ed. Thus, attemptin$ to corroborate the alibi of respondent Bun$ubun$, Mr. Carillo said that he arrived at 8a "alle at EDF1 p.m.> pic)ed-up respondent at FDC= p.m.> too) the Ro6as Blvd. route to ards respondent9s house in B4 ParaJa*ue @on a 7ednesda% in BaclaranA> and arrived at the house at 1D.F p.m. Respondent Bun$ubun$ as dropped-off in his house, and ta)in$ the same route bac), Mr. Carillo arrived at the "outh ;arbor at 1DFF p.m. the Philippine Ports Authorit% is located at the "outh ;arbor..E 6666 "econdl%, respondent 'aldes said that he as ith his friends at Mc!onald9s Taft ,ust before 1DCC p.m. of March =/, .//F. ;e said that he left Mc!onald at FDFC p.m. to$ether to $et some medicine at the universit% clinic for his throat irritation. ;e said that he as at the clinic at FDF= p.m. and ent bac) to Mc!onald, all ithin a span of - or even E minutes. T o itnesses, a certain "haron "ia and the $irlfriend of respondent 'aldes, a certain #or$ette A*uino, attempted to corroborate 'alde39 alibi..F 6666 Third, respondent Reverente told that @sicA the Board that he as at his home at FDCC p.m. of March =/, .//F. ;e said that he as $iven the responsibilit% to be the pa%master of the construction or)ers ho ere doin$ some or)s in the apartment of his parents. Althou$h he had classes in the evenin$, the or)ers accordin$ to him ould ait for him sometimes up to /DCC p.m. hen he arrives from his classes. The or)ers $et paid ever%da%.

Respondent Reverente submitted an affidavit, unsi$ned b% the or)ers listed there, supposedl% attestin$ to the fact that he paid the or)ers at the date and time in *uestion. .1 6666 4ourth, respondent A$uilar :solemnl% s KoreL that KheL left !8"( at FDCC p.m. for Camp Crame for a meetin$ ith some of the officers that e ere preparin$.: .0 &n Ma% -, .//F, the !8"(-C"B #oint !iscipline Board issued a Resolution .G findin$ private respondents $uilt%. The% ere meted the supreme penalt% of automatic e6pulsion, ./ pursuant to C;E! &rder No. E.=C The dispositive part of the resolution readsD 7;ERE4&RE, considerin$ all the fore$oin$, the Board finds respondents A8'+N A5(+8AR @ABB"MO/.F=.CFA, #AME" PA(8 B(N5(B(N5 @AB-P"MO/=-EEC-A, A8'+N 8EE @E!!O/E1=-=FCA and R+C;AR! '. RE'ERENTE @AB-M5TO/.F-G-0A $uilt% of havin$ violated C;E! &rder No. E and thereb% orders their automatic e6pulsion. +n the case of respondent MA8'+N A. PAP+& @AB-M5TO/=F.==0A, the Board ac*uits him of the char$e. "& &R!ERE!.=. Private respondents separatel% moved for reconsideration == before the &ffice of the "enior 'ice-President for +nternal &perations of !8"(. The motions ere all denied in a 8etter-Resolution =- dated #une ., .//F. &n #une F, .//F, private respondent A$uilar filed ith the RTC, Manila, a$ainst petitioners a petition for certiorari and in,unction under Rule 1F of the Rules of Court ith pra%er for temporar% restrainin$ order @TR&A andOor rit of preliminar% in,unction. +t as doc)eted as Civil Case No. /F-0E.== and assi$ned to respondent #ud$e of Branch -1. The petition essentiall% sou$ht to annul the Ma% -, .//F Resolution of the !8"(-C"B #oint !iscipline Board and the #une ., .//F 8etter-Resolution of the &ffice of the "enior 'icePresident for +nternal Affairs. The follo in$ da%, #une 1, .//F, respondent #ud$e issued a TR& =E directin$ !8"(, its subordinates, a$ents, representatives andOor other persons actin$ for and in its behalf to refrain and desist from implementin$ Resolution dated Ma% -, .//F and 8etter-Resolution dated #une ., .//F and to immediatel% desist from barrin$ the enrollment of A$uilar for the second term of school %ear @"?A .//F. "ubse*uentl%, private respondent A$uilar filed an eF parte motion to amend his petition to correct an alle$ation in para$raph -.=.=F of his ori$inal petition. Respondent #ud$e amended the TR& =1 to conform to the correction made in the amended petition. =0 &n #une 0, .//F, the C;E! directed !8"( to furnish it ith copies of the case records of !iscipline Case No. /E/F---=F.=.,=G in vie of the authorit% $ranted to it under "ection 00@cA of the Manual of Re$ulations for Private "chools @MRP"A. &n the other hand, private respondents Bun$ubun$ and Reverente, and later, 'aldes, filed petitions-inintervention=/ in Civil Case No. /F-0E.==. Respondent #ud$e also issued correspondin$ temporar% restrainin$ orders to compel petitioner !8"( to admit said private respondents. &n #une ./, .//F, petitioner "ales filed a motion to dismiss -C in behalf of all petitioners, e6cept #ames ?ap. &n #une =C, .//F, petitioners filed a supplemental motion to dismiss -. the petitions-in-intervention. &n "eptember =C, .//F, respondent #ud$e issued an &rder -= den%in$ petitioners9 @respondents thereA motion to dismiss and its supplement, and $ranted private respondents9 @petitioners thereA pra%er for a of preliminar% in,unction. The pertinent part of the &rder readsD

rit

4or this purpose, respondent, its a$ents, representatives or an% and all other persons actin$ for and in its behalf isOare restrained and en,oined from P

.. +mplementin$ and enforcin$ the Resolution dated Ma% -, .//F orderin$ the automatic e6pulsion of petitioner and the petitioners-in-intervention from the !e 8a "alle (niversit% and the letter-resolution dated #une ., .//F, affirmin$ the Resolution dated Ma% -, .//F> and =. Barrin$ the enrolment of petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention in the courses offered at respondent !e 8a "alle (niversit% and to immediatel% allo them to enroll and complete their respective coursesOde$rees until their $raduation thereat in accordance ith the standards set b% the latter. 7;ERE4&RE, the ancillar% remed% pra%ed for is $ranted. Respondent, its a$ents, representatives, or an% and all persons actin$ for and its behalf are hereb% restrained and en,o%ed fromD .. +mplementin$ and enforcin$ the Resolution dated Ma% -, .//F orderin$ the automatic e6pulsion of petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention and the 8etter-Resolution dated #une ., .//F> and =. Barrin$ the enrollment of petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention in the courses offered at respondent @!e 8a "alle (niversit%A and to forth ith allo all said petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention to enroll and complete their respective coursesOde$rees until their $raduation thereat. The 7rit of Preliminar% +n,unction shall ta)e effect upon petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention postin$ an in,unctive bond in the amount of P.F,CCC.CC e6ecuted in favor of respondent to the effect that petitioner and petitioners-in-intervention ill pa% to respondent all dama$es that the latter ma% suffer b% reason of the in,unction if the Court ill finall% decide that petitioner and petitioners-inintervention are not entitled thereto. The motion to dismiss and the supplement thereto is denied for lac) of merit. Respondents are directed to file their Ans er to the Petition not later than fifteen @.FA da%s from receipt thereof. "& &R!ERE!.-!espite the said order, private respondent A$uilar as refused enrollment b% petitioner !8"( hen he attempted to enroll on "eptember ==, .//F for the second term of "? .//F-.//1. Thus, on "eptember =F, .//F, A$uilar filed ith respondent #ud$e an ur$ent motion to cite petitioners @respondents thereA in contempt of court.-E A$uilar also pra%ed that petitioners be compelled to enroll him at !8"( in accordance ith respondent #ud$e9s &rder dated "eptember =C, .//F. &n "eptember =F, .//F, respondent #ud$e issued-F a rit of preliminar% in,unction, the relevant portion of hich readsD +T +" ;EREB? &R!ERE! b% the undersi$ned of the RE5+&NA8 TR+A8 C&(RT &4 MAN+8A that until further orders, %ou the said !E 8A "A88E (niversit% as ell as %our subordinates, a$ents, representatives, emplo%ees and an% other person assistin$ or actin$ for or on %our behalf, to immediatel% desist from implementin$ the Resolution dated Ma% -, .//F orderin$ the automatic e6pulsion of petitioner and the intervenors in !8"(, and the letter-resolution dated #une ., .//F affirmin$ the said Resolution of Ma% -, .//F and to immediatel% desist from barrin$ the enrolment of petitioner and intervenors in the courses offered at !8"( and to allo them to enroll and complete their de$ree courses until their $raduation from said school. -1 &n &ctober .1, .//F, petitioner !8"( filed ith the CA a petition for certiorari -0 @CA-5.R. "P No. -G0./A ith pra%er for a TR& andOor rit of preliminar% in,unction to en,oin the enforcement of respondent #ud$e9s "eptember =C, .//F &rder and rit of preliminar% in,unction dated "eptember =F, .//F. &n April .=, .//1, the CA $ranted petitioners9 pra%er for preliminar% in,unction. On M&$ 14, 1996, .:e CHE# /00ue' /.0 Cue0./one' Re0o2u./on No. 181-96, 0u66&-/2$ '/0&,,-o;/n4 .:e ,en&2.$ o9 e=,u20/on 9o- &22 ,-/;&.e -e0,on'en.0. !0 9o- !4u/2&-, :e <&0 .o 7e -e/n0.&.e', <:/2e o.:e- ,-/;&.e -e0,on'en.0 <e-e .o 7e e=52u'e'.-G The Resolution statesD RE"&8(T+&N .G.-/1

RE"&8'E! T;AT T;E RE2(E"T &4 T;E !E 8A "A88E (N+'ER"+T? @!8"(A, TA4T A'EN(E, MAN+8A 4&R T;E APPR&'A8 &4 T;E PENA8T? &4 EMP(8"+&N +MP&"E! &N MR. A8'+N A5(+8AR, #AME" PA(8 B(N5(B(N5, R&BERT R. 'A8!E", #R., A8'+N 8EE AN! R+C;AR! '. RE'ERENTE BE, A" +T +" ;EREB? +", !+"APPR&'E!. RE"&8'E! 4(RT;ER, T;AT T;E C&MM+""+&N !+RECT T;E !8"( T& +MME!+ATE8? E44ECT T;E RE+N"TATEMENT &4 MR. A5(+8AR AN! T;E 8&7ER+N5 &4 T;E PENA8T? &4 MR. #AME" PA(8 B(N5(B(N5, MR. R&BER R. 'A8!EH, #R., @sicA MR. A8'+N 8EE AN! MR. R+C;AR! '. RE'ERENTE 4R&M EMP(8"+&N T& EMC8("+&N.-/ !espite the directive of C;E!, petitioner !8"( a$ain prevented private respondent A$uilar from enrollin$ andOor attendin$ his classes, promptin$ his la %er to rite several demand letters EC to petitioner !8"(. +n vie of the refusal of petitioner !8"( to enroll private respondent A$uilar, C;E! rote a letter dated #une =1, .//1 addressed to petitioner 2ueben$co re*uestin$ that private respondent A$uilar be allo ed to continue attendin$ his classes pendin$ the resolution of its motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. .G./1. ;o ever, petitioner 2ueben$co refused to do so, promptin$ C;E! to promul$ate an &rder dated "eptember =-, .//1 hich statesD Actin$ on the above-mentioned re*uest of Mr. A$uilar throu$h counsel en,oinin$ !e 8a "alle (niversit% @!8"(A to compl% ith C;E! Resolution .G.-/1 @#e/ 6Fpulsion %ase o' Alvin A*uilar, et al. v. 7:S9A directin$ !8"( to reinstate Mr. A$uilar and findin$ the ur$ent re*uest as meritorious, there bein$ no other plain and speed% remed% available, considerin$ the set deadline for enrollment this current TR+ME"TER, and in order to prevent further pre,udice to his ri$hts as a student of the institution, !8"(, throu$h the proper school authorities, is hereb% directed to allo Mr. Alvin A$uilar to provisionall% enroll, pendin$ the Commission9s Resolution of the instant Motion for Reconsideration filed b% !8"(. "& &R!ERE!.E. Not ithstandin$ the said directive, petitioner !8"(, throu$h petitioner 2ueben$co, still refused to allo private respondent A$uilar to enroll. Thus, private respondent A$uilar9s counsel rote another demand letter to petitioner !8"(.E= Mean hile, on #une -, .//1, private respondent A$uilar, usin$ C;E! Resolution No. .G.-/1, filed a motion to dismissE- in the CA, ar$uin$ that C;E! Resolution No. .G.-/1 rendered the CA case moot and academic. On Ju2$ 3+, 1996, .:e C! /00ue' /.0 Cue0./one' -e0o2u./on 4-&n./n4 .:e 6o./on .o '/06/00 o9 ,-/;&.e -e0,on'en. !4u/2&-, disposin$ thusD T;E 4&RE5&+N5 C&N"+!ERE!, dismissal of herein petition is hereb% directed. "& &R!ERE!.EE On O5.o7e- 1*, 1996, .:e C! /00ue' /.0 -e0o2u./on 'en$/n4 ,e././one-0B 6o./on 9o- -e5on0/'e-&./on , as follo sD +t is obvious to (s that C;E! Resolution No. .G.-/1 is immediatel% e6ecutor% in character, the pendenc% of a Motion for Reconsideration not ithstandin$. After considerin$ the &pposition and for lac) of merit, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereb% denied. "& &R!ERE!.EF &n &ctober =G, .//1, petitioners re*uested transfer of case records to the !epartment of Education, Culture and "ports @!EC"A from the C;E!.E1 Petitioners claimed that it is the !EC", not C;E!, hich has ,urisdiction over e6pulsion cases, thus, necessitatin$ the transfer of the case records of !iscipline Case No. /E/F--=F.=. to the !EC".

&n November E, .//1, in vie of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari in CA-5.R. "P No. -G0./ and the automatic liftin$ of the rit of preliminar% in,unction, private respondent A$uilar filed an ur$ent motion to reiterate rit of preliminar% in,unction dated "eptember =F, .//F before respondent RTC #ud$e of Manila. E0 On J&nu&-$ 7, 1997, -e0,on'en. Ju'4e /00ue' /.0 Cue0./one' o-'e- 4-&n./n4 ,-/;&.e -e0,on'en. !4u/2&-B0 u-4en. 6o./on .o -e/.e-&.e ,-e2/6/n&-$ /n>un5./on . The pertinent portion of the order readsD +n li$ht of the fore$oin$, petitioner A$uilar9s ur$ent motion to reiterate is hereb% $ranted, and respondents9 motion to dismiss is denied. The rit of preliminar% in,unction

rit of preliminar% in,unction dated "eptember =F, .//F is declared to be in force and effect.

8et a cop% of this &rder and the rit be served personall% b% the Court9s sheriff upon the respondents at petitioners9 e6pense. "& &R!ERE!.EG Accordin$l%, private respondent A$uilar as allo ed to conditionall% enroll in petitioner !8"(, sub,ect to the continued effectivit% of the rit of preliminar% in,unction dated "eptember =F, .//F and to the outcome of Civil Case No. /F-0E.==. &n 4ebruar% .0, .//0, petitioners filed the instant petition. &n #une .F, .//G, 7e issued a TR&E/ as pra%ed for b% the ur$ent motion for the issuance of a TR& FC dated #une E, .//G of petitioners, and en,oined respondent #ud$e from implementin$ the rit of preliminar% in,unction dated "eptember =F, .//F issued in Civil Case No. /F-0E.==, effective immediatel% and until further orders from this Court. &n March =0, =CC1, private respondent A$uilar filed his manifestation F. statin$ that he has lon$ completed his course at petitioner !8"(. ;e finished and passed all his enrolled sub,ects for the second trimester of .//0-.//G, as indicated in his transcript of records F= issued b% !8"(. ;o ever, despite havin$ completed all the academic re*uirements for his course, !8"( has not issued a certificate of completionO$raduation in his favor. 00ue0 7e are tas)ed to resolve the follo in$ issuesD .. 7hether it is the !EC" or the C;E! hich has le$al authorit% to revie decisions of institutions of hi$her learnin$ that impose disciplinar% action on their students found violatin$ disciplinar% rules. =. 7hether or not petitioner !8"( is ithin its ri$hts in e6pellin$ private respondents.

=.a 7ere private respondents accorded due process of la < =.b Can petitioner !8"( invo)e its ri$ht to academic freedom< =.c 7as the $uilt of private respondents proven b% substantial evidence< -. 7hether or not the penalt% imposed b% !8"( on private respondents is proportionate to their misdeed. Ou- Ru2/n4 Prefatoril%, there is merit in the observation of petitioners F- that hile C;E! Resolution No. .G.-/1 disapproved the e6pulsion of other private respondents, it nonetheless authori3ed their e6clusion from petitioner !8"(. ;o ever, because of the dismissal of the CA case, petitioner !8"( is no faced ith the spectacle of havin$ t o different directives from the C;E! and the respondent #ud$e P C;E! orderin$ the

e6clusion of private respondents Bun$ubun$, Reverente, and 'aldes, #r., and the #ud$e orderin$ petitioner !8"( to allo them to enroll and complete their de$ree courses until their $raduation. This is the reason 7e opt to decide the hole case on the merits, brushin$ aside technicalities, in order to settle the substantial issues involved. This Court has the po er to ta)e co$ni3ance of the petition at bar due to compellin$ reasons, and the nature and importance of the issues raised arrant the immediate e6ercise of &ur ,urisdiction.FE This is in consonance ith our case la no accorded near-reli$ious reverence that rules of procedure are but tools desi$ned to facilitate the attainment of ,ustice, such that hen its ri$id application tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial ,ustice, this Court has the dut% to suspend their operation.FF I. It is the CHED, not DECS, which has the power of supervision and review over disciplinary cases decided by institutions of higher learning. !n4 CHE#, :/n'/ &n4 #ECS, &n4 6&$ ?&,&n4$&-/:&n n4 ,&40u7&$7&$ &. ,&4-e,&0o 0& 64& 'e0/0$on4 ,&n'/0/,2/n& n4 64& /n0./.u0$on n4 6&0 6&.&&0 n& ,&4-&&-&2. Petitioners posit that the ,urisdiction and dut% to revie student e6pulsion cases, even those involvin$ students in secondar% and tertiar% levels, is vested in the !EC" not in the C;E!. +n support of their stance, petitioners cite "ections E,F1 .F@=A Q @-A,F0 FE,FG F0@-AF/ and 0C1C of Batas Pambansa @B.P.A Bl$. =-=, other ise )no n as the :Education Act of ./G=.: Accordin$ to them, Republic Act @R.A.A No. 00== did not transfer to the C;E! the !EC"9 po er of supervisionOrevie over e6pulsion cases involvin$ institutions of hi$her learnin$. The% sa% that unli)e B.P. Bl$. =-=, R.A. No. 00== ma)es no reference to the ri$ht and dut% of learnin$ institutions to develop moral character and instill discipline amon$ its students. The clear concern of R.A. No. 00== in the creation of the C;E! as academic, i.e., the formulation, recommendation, settin$, and development of academic plans, pro$rams and standards for institutions of hi$her learnin$. The enumeration of C;E!9s po ers and functions under "ection G does not include supervisor%Orevie po ers in student disciplinar% cases. The reference in "ection - to C;E!9s :covera$e: of institutions of hi$her education is limited to the po ers and functions specified in "ection G. The Bureau of ;i$her Education, hich the C;E! has replaced and hose functions and responsibilities it has ta)en over, never had an% authorit% over student disciplinar% cases. 7e cannot a$ree. &n Ma% .G, .//E, Con$ress approved R.A. No. 00==, other ise )no n as :An Act Creatin$ the Commission on ;i$her Education, Appropriatin$ 4unds Thereof and for other purposes.: "ection - of the said la , hich paved the a% for the creation of the C;E!, providesD

"ection -. %reation o' t)e %ommission on Hi*)er 6ducation . P +n pursuance of the abovementioned policies, the Commission on ;i$her Education is hereb% created, hereinafter referred to as Commission. The Commission shall be independent and separate from the !epartment of Education, Culture and "ports @!EC"A and attached to the office of the President for administrative purposes onl%. +ts covera$e shall be both public and private institutions of hi$her education as ell as de$ree-$rantin$ pro$rams in all post secondar% educational institutions, public and private. The po ers and functions of the C;E! are enumerated in "ection G of R.A. No. 00==. The% include the follo in$D "ec. G. Po(ers and 'unctions o' t)e %ommission. P The Commission shall have the follo in$ po ers and functionsD 6666 nA promul$ate such rules and re$ulations and e6ercise such other po ers and functions as ma% be necessar% to carr% out effectivel% the purpose and ob,ectives of this Act> and

oA perform such other functions as ma% be necessar% for its effective operations and for the continued enhancement of $ro th or development of hi$her education. Clearl%, there is no merit in the contention of petitioners that R.A. No. 00== did not transfer to the C;E! the !EC"9 po er of supervisionOrevie over e6pulsion cases involvin$ institutions of hi$her learnin$. 4irst, the fore$oin$ provisions are all e!bracing. The% ma)e no reservations of po ers to the !EC" insofar as institutions of hi$her learnin$ are concerned. The% sho that the authorit% and supervision over all public and private institutions of hi$her education, as ell as de$ree-$rantin$ pro$rams in all post-secondar% educational institutions, public and private, belon$ to the C;E!, not the !EC". "econd, to rule that it is the !EC" hich has authorit% to decide disciplinar% cases involvin$ students on the tertiar% level ould render nugatory the covera$e of the C;E!, hich is :both public and private institutions of hi$her education as ell as de$ree $rantin$ pro$rams in all post secondar% educational institutions, public and private.: That ould be absurd. +t is of public )no led$e that petitioner !8"( is a private educational institution pro$rams. ;ence, it is under the C;E! authorit%. hich offers tertiar% de$ree

T:/-', the polic% of R.A. No. 00==1. is not only the protection, fosterin$ and promotion of the ri$ht of all citi3ens to affordable *ualit% education at all levels and the ta)in$ of appropriate steps to ensure that education shall be accessible to all. The la is li"ewise concerned ith ensurin$ and protectin$ academic freedom and ith promotin$ its e6ercise and observance for the continued intellectual $ro th of students, the advancement of learnin$ and research, the development of responsible and effective leadership, the education of hi$h-level and middle-level professionals, and the enrichment of our historical and cultural herita$e. +t is thus safe to assume that hen Con$ress passed R.A. No. 00==, its members ere a are that disciplinar% cases involvin$ students on the tertiar% level ould continue to arise in the future, hich ould call for the invocation and e6ercise of institutions of hi$her learnin$ of their ri$ht to academic freedom. Fou-.:, petitioner !8"( cited no authorit% in its bare claim that the Bureau of ;i$her Education, hich C;E! replaced, never had authorit% over student disciplinar% cases. +n fact, the responsibilities of other $overnment entities havin$ functions similar to those of the C;E! were transferred to the C;E!.1= "ection 00 of the MRP"1- on the process of revie in student discipline cases should therefore be read in con#unction ith the provisions of R.A. No. 00==. 4ifth, "ection .G of R.A. No. 00== is ver% clear in statin$ that $%#&urisdiction over DECS supervised or chartered state supported post secondary degree granting vocational and tertiary institutions shall be transferred to the Co!!ission %'n Higher Education&.$ This provision does not li!it or distinguish that hat is bein$ transferred to the C;E! is merel% the formulation, recommendation, settin$ and development of academic plans, pro$rams and standards for institutions of hi$her learnin$, as hat petitioners ould have us believe as the onl% concerns of R.A. No. 00==. 9bi leF non distin*uit nec nos distin*uere debemusD 7here the la does not distin$uish, neither should e. To &ur mind, this provision, if not an e(plicit grant of #urisdiction to the C;E!, necessarily includes the transfer to the C;E! of an% ,urisdiction hich the !EC" mi$ht have possessed b% virtue of B.P. Bl$. =-= or an% other la or rule for that matter. IIa. )rivate respondents were accorded due process of law. !n4 64& private respondents &$ n&7/4$&n n4 .&6&n4 ,-o0e0o n4 7&.&0. The !ue Process Clause in Article +++, "ection . of the Constitution embodies a s%stem of ri$hts based on moral principles so deepl% imbedded in the traditions and feelin$s of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civili3ed societ% as conceived b% our entire histor%. 1E The constitutional behest that no person shall be deprived of life, libert% or propert% ithout due process of la is solemn and infle6ible. 1F

+n administrative cases, such as investi$ations of students found violatin$ school discipline, :KtLhere are ithal minimum standards hich must be met before to satisf% the demands of procedural due process and these areD that @.A the students must be informed in ritin$ of the nature and cause of an% accusation a$ainst them> @=A the% shall have the ri$ht to ans er the char$es a$ainst them and ith the assistance if counsel, if desired> @-A the% shall be informed of the evidence a$ainst them> @EA the% shall have the ri$ht to adduce evidence in their o n behalf> and @FA the evidence must be dul% considered b% the investi$atin$ committee or official desi$nated b% the school authorities to hear and decide the case.: 11 7here a part% as afforded an opportunit% to participate in the proceedin$s but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.10 Notice and hearin$ is the bul ar) of administrative due process, the ri$ht to hich is amon$ the primar% ri$hts that must be respected even in administrative proceedin$s. 1G The essence of due process is simpl% an opportunit% to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedin$s, an opportunit% to e6plain one9s side or an opportunit% to see) reconsideration of the action or rulin$ complained of.1/ "o lon$ as the part% is $iven the opportunit% to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there as denial of due process. 0C A formal trial-t%pe hearin$ is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process P it is enou$h that the parties are $iven a fair and reasonable opportunit% to e6plain their respective sides of the controvers% and to present supportin$ evidence on hich a fair decision can be based. 0. :To be heard: does not onl% mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court P one ma% also be heard throu$h pleadin$s and here the opportunit% to be heard throu$h pleadin$s is accorded, there is no denial of due process. 0= Private respondents ere dul% informed in ritin$ of the char$es a$ainst them b% the !8"(-C"B #oint !iscipline Board throu$h petitioner "ales. The% ere $iven the opportunit% to ans er the char$es a$ainst them as the%, in fact, submitted their respective ans ers. The% ere also informed of the evidence presented a$ainst them as the% attended all the hearin$s before the Board. Moreover, private respondents ere $iven the ri$ht to adduce evidence on their behalf and the% did. 8astl%, the !iscipline Board considered all the pieces of evidence submitted to it b% all the parties before renderin$ its resolution in !iscipline Case No. /E/F---=F.=.. Private respondents cannot claim that the% ere denied due process hen the% ere not allo ed to crosse6amine the itnesses a$ainst them. This ar$ument as alread% re,ected in Guzman v. National 9niversity0here this Court held that :6 6 6 the imposition of disciplinar% sanctions re*uires observance of procedural due process. And it bears stressin$ that due process in disciplinar% cases involvin$ students does not entail proceedin$s and hearin$s similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedin$s in courts of ,ustice. The proceedin$s in student discipline cases ma% be summar%> and cross e6amination is not, 6 6 6 an essential part thereof.: IIb. )etitioner D*S+, as an institution of higher learning, possesses acade!ic freedo! which includes deter!ination of who to ad!it for study. !n4 petitioner #LSU, 7/2&n4 /n0./.u0$on n4 6&0 6&.&&0 n& ,&4-&&-&2, &$ n&4.&.&42&$ n4 ?&2&$&&n4 &?&'e6/?o n& 0&?o, &n4 ?&-&,&.&n4 ,u6/2/ n4 64& 6&4-&&-&2 '/.o. "ection F@=A, Article M+' of the Constitution $uaranties all institutions of hi$her learnin$ academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom includes the ri$ht of the school or colle$e to decide for itself, its aims and ob,ectives, and ho best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibl% hen the overridin$ public interest calls for some restraint. 0E Accordin$ to present ,urisprudence, academic freedom encompasses the independence of an academic institution to determine for itself @.A ho ma% teach, @=A hat ma% be tau$ht, @-A ho it shall teach, and @EA ho ma% be admitted to stud%. 0F +t cannot be $ainsaid that :the school has an interest in teachin$ the student discipline, a necessar%, if not indispensable, value in an% field of learnin$. B% instillin$ discipline, the school teaches discipline. Accordin$l%, the ri$ht to discipline the student li)e ise finds basis in the freedom : hat to teach.: 01 +ndeed, hile it is cate$oricall% stated under the Education Act of ./G= that students have a ri$ht :to freel% choose their field of stud%, sub,ect to e6istin$ curricula and to continue their course therein up to $raduation,: 00 such ri$ht is sub,ect to the established academic and disciplinar% standards laid do n b% the academic institution. Petitioner !8"(, therefore, can ver% ell e6ercise its academic freedom, hich includes its free choice of students for admission to its school.

IIc. ,he guilt of private respondents -ungubung, .everente and /aldes, Jr. was proven by substantial evidence. !n4 ,&4?&?&0&2& n4 private respondents n& 0/n& "un4u7un4, Re;e-en.e &. (&2'e0, J-. &$ n&,&.un&$&n n4 e7/'en0/$&n4 0u70.&n0$&2. As has been stated earlier, private respondents interposed the common defense of alibi. ;o ever, in order that alibi ma% succeed as a defense, :the accused must establish b% clear and convincin$ evidence @aA his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and @bA the ph%sical impossibilit% of his presence at the scene of the crime.:0G &n the other hand, the defense of alibi ma% not be successfull% invo)ed here the identit% of the assailant has been established b% itnesses.0/ Positive identification of accused here cate$orical and consistent, ithout an% sho in$ of ill motive on the part of the e%e itness testif%in$, should prevail over the alibi and denial of appellants hose testimonies are not substantiated b% clear and convincin$ evidence. GC 7ell-settled is the rule that denial and alibi, bein$ ea) defenses, cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the offended parties.G. Courts re,ect alibi hen there are credible e%e itnesses to the crime ho can positivel% identif% the accused.G= Alibi is an inherentl% ea) defense and courts must receive it ith caution because one can easil% fabricate an alibi.G- #urisprudence holds that denial, li)e alibi, is inherentl% ea) and crumbles in li$ht of positive declarations of truthful itnesses ho testified on affirmative matters that accused ere at the scene of the crime and ere the victim9s assailants. As bet een cate$orical testimonies that rin$ of truth on one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former must prevail. GE Alibi is the ea)est of all defenses for it is eas% to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and it is for this reason that it cannot prevail over the positive identification of accused b% the itnesses. GF The re*uired proof in administrative cases, such as in student discipline cases, is neither proof be%ond reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence but onl% substantial evidence. Accordin$ to An* $ibay v. %ourt o' !ndustrial #elations,G1 it means :such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind mi$ht accept as ade*uate to support a conclusion.: 'ie ed from the fore$oin$, 7e re,ect the alibi of private respondents Bun$ubun$, 'aldes #r., and Reverente. The% ere unable to sho convincin$l% that the% ere not at the scene of the crime on March =/, .//F and that it as impossible for them to have been there. Moreover, their alibi cannot prevail over their positive identification b% the victims. 7e har) bac) to this Court9s pronouncement affirmin$ the e6pulsion of several students found $uilt% of ha3in$D No one can be so m%opic as to doubt that the immediate reinstatement of respondent students have been investi$ated and found $uilt% b% the !isciplinar% Board to have violated petitioner universit%9s disciplinar% rules and standards ill certainl% undermine the authorit% of the administration of the school. This e ould be most loathe to do. More importantl%, it ill seriousl% impair petitioner universit%9s academic freedom enshrined in the ./-F, ./0- and the present ./G0 Constitution. G0 ho

hich has been

Certainl%, private respondents Bun$ubun$, Reverente and 'aldes, #r. do not deserve to claim a venerable institution as their o n, for the% ma% foreseeabl% cast a malevolent influence on the students currentl% enrolled, as ell as those ho come after them.GG +t must be borne in mind that universities are established, not merel% to develop the intellect and s)ills of the studentr%, but to inculcate loft% values, ideals and attitudes> na%, the development, or flo erin$ if %ou ill, of the total man. G/ As for private respondent A$uilar, ho ever, 7e are inclined to $ive credence to his alibi that he as at Camp Crame in 2ue3on Cit% at the time of the incident in *uestion on March =/, .//F. This claim as ampl% corroborated b% the certification that he submitted before the !8"(-C"B #oint !iscipline Board, to itD CERT+4+CAT+&N

T& 7;&M T;+" MA? C&NCERND 7e, the undersi$ned, hereb% declare and affirm b% a% of this Certification that sometime on March =/, .//F, at about and bet een ED-C P.M. and FD-C P.M., e ere to$ether ith Alvin A. A$uilar, at Bian$an ;all, inside Camp Crame, 2ue3on Cit%, meetin$ in connection ith an affair of our class )no n as Class 0, Batch G/ of the Philippine Constabular% discussin$ on the proposed sponsorship of TA( 5AMMA P;+ from said Batch 9G/ affair. That the meetin$ as terminated at about 1D-C P.M. that evenin$ and Alvin A$uilar had as)ed our permission to leave and e sa him leave Camp Crame, in his car ith the driver. April .G, .//F, Camp Crame, 2ue3on Cit%./C The said certification as dul% si$ned b% P&- Nicanor R. 4austino @Anti-&r$ani3ed Crime C+C, NCRA, P&Ale,andro !. !eluviar @&!+TRM, Camp Crame, 2ue3on Cit%A, P&= "everino C. 4iller @TNT"C, Camp Crame, 2ue3on Cit%A, and P&- +reneo M. !esesto @"uppl% Center, PNP8""A. The rule is that alibi assumes si$nificance or stren$th hen it is ampl% corroborated b% credible and disinterested itnesses. /. +t is true that alibi is a ea) defense hich an accused can easil% fabricate to escape criminal liabilit%. But here the prosecution evidence is ea), and betra%s lac) of credibilit% as to the identification of defendant, alibi assumes commensurate stren$th. This is but consistent ith the presumption of innocence in favor of accused./= Alibi is not al a%s undeservin$ of credit, for there are times hen accused has no other possible defense for hat could reall% be the truth as to his hereabouts at the crucial time, and such defense ma%, in fact, tilt the scales of ,ustice in his favor./III. ,he penalty of e(pulsion i!posed by D*S+ on private respondents is disproportionate to their !isdeed. !n4 ,&-u0&n4 e(pulsion n& /,/n&.&< n4 #LSU 0& ,-/;&.e -e0,on'en.0 &$ :/n'/ &n4?o, 0& ?&n/2&n4 ,&4?&?&0&2&. +t is true that schools have the po er to instill discipline in their students as subsumed in their academic freedom and that :the establishment of rules $overnin$ universit%-student relations, particularl% those pertainin$ to student discipline, ma% be re$arded as vital, not merel% to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its ver% survival.:/E This po er, ho ever, does not $ive them the untrammeled discretion to impose a penalt% hich is not commensurate ith the $ravit% of the misdeed. +f the concept of proportionalit% bet een the offense committed and the sanction imposed is not follo ed, an element of arbitrariness intrudes. That ould $ive rise to a due process *uestion. /F 7e a$ree ith respondent C;E! that under the circumstances, the penalt% of e6pulsion is $rossl% disproportionate to the $ravit% of the acts committed b% private respondents Bun$ubun$, Reverente, and 'aldes, #r. Each of the t o maulin$ incidents lasted onl% for fe seconds and the victims did not suffer an% serious in,ur%. !isciplinar% measures especiall% here the% involve suspension, dismissal or e6pulsion, cut si$nificantl% into the future of a student. The% attach to him for life and become a mort$a$e of his future, hardl% redeemable in certain cases. &fficials of colle$es and universities must be an6ious to protect it, conscious of the fact that, appropriatel% construed, a disciplinar% action should be treated as an educational tool rather than a punitive measure./1 Accordin$l%, 7e affirm the penalt% of e6clusion/0 onl%, not e6pulsion,/G imposed on them b% the C;E!. As such, pursuant to "ection 00@bA of the MRP", petitioner !8"( ma% e6clude or drop the names of the said private respondents from its rolls for bein$ undesirable, and transfer credentials immediatel% issued. 3HEREFORE, the petition is P!RT !LLF GR!NTE#. The Court of Appeals Resolutions dated #ul% -C, .//1 and dated &ctober .F, .//1, and Re$ional Trial Court of Manila, Branch -1, &rder dated #anuar% 0, .//0 are !NNULLE# AN! SET !S #E, hile C;E! Resolution .G.-/1 dated Ma% .E, .//1 is !FF RME#. Petitioner !8"( is ordered to issue a certificate of completionO$raduation in favor of private respondent A$uilar. &n the other hand, it ma% e6clude or drop the names of private respondents Bun$ubun$, Reverente, and 'aldes, #r. from its rolls, and their transfer credentials immediatel% issued.

SO OR#ERE#. Ynares-Santia*o, %)airperson, Guisumbin* R, %)ico-Nazario, Belasco, Jr. RR , JJ., concur.


Foo.no.e0 'ice Associate #ustice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martine3, per Raffle dated November =G, =CC0. #ustice Austria-Martine3 concurred the CA decision under consideration hen she as still a member of that Court @see note =A.
R

ith

'ice Associate #ustice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Raffle dated November ./, =CC0. #ustice Nachura previousl% participated in this case as "olicitor 5eneral.
RR .

Colle$e of "aint Benilde is an educational institution

hich is part of the !e 8a "alle "%stem. ith Associate #ustices 5loria C. Paras and Ma. Alicia

Rollo, pp. .C0-.... Penned b% Associate #ustice Bernardo 88. "alas, Austria-Martine3 @no a member of this CourtA, concurrin$.
= -

+d. at .CE-.CF. +d. at ...-..-. +d. at .=F-.=1. +d. at .EC-.E-. +d. at .=0. +d. at .=G-.=/. +d. at .-C-.--. +d. at G. A$uilar, Bun$ubun$, and 'aldes, #r. are students of !8"(, hile Reverente is a student of C"B.

.C

The composition of the !8"(-C"B #oint !iscipline Board are petitioner Att%. Emmanuel "ales @ChairmanA, petitioner Att%. #ude 8a Torre @4acult% RepresentativeOC"BA, petitioner Ronald ;olmes @4acult% RepresentativeO!8"(A, Amparo Rio @"tudent RepresentativeA and Peter Paul 8i$$a%u @"tudent RepresentativeA.
.. .=

Rollo, pp. .-E-.-0. +d. at .-E. +d. at .EE-.EF. +d. at .EF. +d. at .E1. +d. at .E0. +d. at .-/-.FC.

.-

.E

.F

.1

.0

.G

Manual of Re$ulations for Private "chools @.//=A, "ec. 00@cA provides that e6pulsion is :an e6treme penalt% of an errin$ pupil or student consistin$ of his e6clusion from admission to an% public or private school in the Philippines and hich re*uires the prior approval of the "ecretar%. The penalt% ma% be imposed for acts or offenses constitutin$ $ross misconduct, dishonest%, ha3in$, carr%in$ deadl% eapons, immoralit%, sellin$ andOor possession of prohibited dru$s such as mari,uana, dru$ dependenc%, drun)enness, hooli$anism, vandalism, and other serious school offenses such as assaultin$ a pupil or student or school personnel, insti$atin$ or leadin$ ille$al stri)es or similar concerned activities resultin$ in the stoppa$e of classes, preventin$ or threatenin$ an% pupil or student or school personnel from enterin$ the school premises or attendin$ classes or dischar$in$ their duties, for$in$ or tamperin$ ith school records or school forms, and securin$ or usin$ for$ed school records, forms and documents.:
./ =C

Rollo, pp. .F.-.F-. +d. at .FC. +d. at .=GE-.-CE.

=.

==

=-

+d. at .0=-.0G. +d. at .GC.

=E

Private respondent @petitioner thereA A$uilar claimed that, throu$h inadvertence, his petition erroneousl% alle$ed that he as bein$ prevented from enrollin$ for the :second term of "? .//F,: hen, in truth, he as bein$ barredOprohibited from enrollin$ for the :first term of "? .//F-.//1.:
=F =1

Rollo, pp. =C1-=C0. +d. at .G.-=CF. +d. at =CG. +d. at =.C-=-1. +d. at =-0-=E1. +d. at =E0-=0F. +d. at ...1-..=E. +d. at ..=--..=E. +d. at .F1--.F0.. +d. at ..E-..F. +d. at ..F. +d. at --1--/=.

=0

=G

=/

-C

-.

-=

--

-E

-F

-1

-0

Manual of Re$ulations for Private "chools @.//=A, "ec. 00@bA provides that e6clusion is :a penalt% in hich the school is allo ed to e6clude or drop the name of the errin$ pupil or student from the school rolls for bein$ undesirable, and transfer credentials immediatel% issued.:
-G -/

Rollo, pp. .=F-.=1. +d. at .F//-.1C1. +d. at 1CG. +d. at .1CF-.1C1. +d. at E-F-E-G. +d. at ..C. +d. at .CF. +d. at F.G-F==. +d. at F=--F-C. +d. at ..-. +d. at ..EC-..E=.

EC

E.

E=

E-

EE

EF

E1

E0

EG

E/

+d. at ..=G-..-=. +t as alle$ed there that private respondent A$uilar had apparentl% completed all the necessar% units for $raduation and as demandin$ that his academic records be evaluated b% the office of the universit% re$istrar ith a vie to $raduation.
FC F.

+d. at ..1=-..10. +d. at .1E0-.1FC.

F=

F-

+d. at /=.

"ee !el Mar v. Philippine Amusement and 5amin$ Corporation, ECC Phil. -C0, -=1--=0 @=CCCA, citin$ 4ortich v. Corona, 5.R. No. .-.EF0, April =E, .//G, =G/ "CRA 1=E.
FE FF

+d., citin$ Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. //E=F, March -, .//0, =1/ "CRA -E.

Batas Pambansa Bl$. =-= @./G=A, "ec. E provides educational institutions :shall aim to inculcate love of countr%, teach the duties of citi3enship, and develop moral character, personal discipline, and scientific, technolo$ical, and vocational efficienc%.:
F1

+d., "ec. .F@=A Q @-A essentiall% states that students have the obli$ation to :KuLphold the academic inte$rit% of the school, endeavor to achieve academic e6cellence and abide b% the rules and re$ulations $overnin$ his academic responsibilities and moral inte$rit%,: and :KpLromote and maintain the peace and tran*uilit% of the school b% observin$ the rules of discipline, and b% e6ertin$ efforts to attain harmonious relationships ith fello students, the teachin$ and academic staff and other school personnel.:
F0

+d., "ec. FE $ives the Ministr% of Education, Culture and "ports @no !EC"A the po er to administer the educational s%stem and to supervise and re$ulate educational institutions, ithout pre,udice to the provisions of the charter of an% state colle$e and universit%.
FG

+d., "ec. F0@-A provides that the !EC" shall :KpLromul$ate rules and re$ulations necessar% for the administration, supervision and re$ulation of the educational s%stem in accordance ith declared polic%.:
F/

+d., "ec. 0C mandates that the :the Minister @no "ecretar%A of Education, Culture and "ports, char$ed and enforcement of this Act, shall promul$ate the necessar% implementin$ rules and re$ulations.:
1C 1.

ith the administration

Republic Act No. 00== @approved Ma% .G, .//EA, "ec. = declares the polic% of la

as follo sD

"ection =. !eclaration of Polic%. P The "tate shall protect, foster and promote the ri$ht of all citi3ens to affordable *ualit% education at all levels and shall ta)e appropriate steps to ensure that education shall be accessible to all. The state shall li)e ise ensure and protect academic freedom and shall promote its e6ercise and observance for the continuin$ intellectual $ro th, the advancement of learnin$ and research, the development of responsible and effective leadership, the education of hi$h level and middle-level professionals, and the enrichment of our historical and cultural herita$e. "tate-supported institutions of hi$her learnin$ shall $ear their pro$rams to national, re$ional or local development plans. 4inall%, all institutions of hi$her learnin$ shall e6emplif% throu$h their ph%sical and natural surroundin$s the di$nit% and beaut% of, as ell as their pride in, the intellectual and scholarl% life.
1=

+d., "ec. .G also e6plicitl% providesD

"ec. .G. Transitor% Provisions. P "uch personnel, properties, assets and liabilities, functions and responsibilities of the Bureau of ;i$her Education, includin$ those for hi$her and tertiar% education and de$ree $rantin$ vocational and technical pro$rams in the re$ional offices, under the !epartment of Education, Culture and "ports, and other $overnment entities havin$ functions similar to those of the Commission are hereb% transferred to the Commission. Manual of Re$ulations for Private "chools @.//=A, "ec. 00 aside from definin$ the penalties of suspension, e6clusion and e6pulsion, also provides for the process of revie over student discipline cases. Thus, the decision of the school on ever% case involvin$ the penalt% of suspension hich e6ceeds t ent% @=CSA percent of the prescribed school da%s for a school %ear or term shall be for arded to the Re$ional &ffice Ki.e., an% of the re$ional offices of the !EC" hich has ,urisdiction over the school or institution concernedL concerned ithin ten da%s from the termination of the investi$ation of each case for its information. &n the other hand, the decision of the school on ever% case involvin$ the penalt% of e6clusion from the rolls, to$ether ith all the pertinent papers therefor, shall be filed in the school for a period of one %ear in order for the !epartment Ki.e., the !EC"L the opportunit% to revie the case in the event an appeal is ta)en b% the part% concerned. 8astl%, the decision of the school on ever% case involvin$ the penalt% of e6pulsion, to$ether ith the supportin$ papers shall be for arded to the Re$ional &ffice concerned ithin ten da%s from the termination of the investi$ation of each case.
11E

A$abon v. National 8abor Relations Commission, 5.R. No. .FG1/-, November .0, =CCE, EE= "CRA F0-, 1..-1.=. People v. Besonia, EE1 Phil. G== @=CCEA. 5u3man v. National (niversit%, 5.R. No. 8-1G=GG, #ul% .., ./G1, .E= "CRA 1//, 0C1-0C0. Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .F0=./, Ma% =G, =CCE, E-C "CRA -F-. 5lobe Telecom, +nc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, 5.R. No. .E-/1E, #ul% =1, =CCE, E-F "CRA ..C. 'aliao v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .E11=., #ul% -C, =CCE, E-F "CRA FE-. Bar3a v. !in$lasan, #r., 5.R. No. .-1-FC, &ctober =F, =CCE, EE. "CRA =00.

1F

11

10

1G

1/

0C

0.

"eastar Marine "ervices, +nc. v. Bul-an, #r., 5.R. No. .E=1C/, November =F, =CCE, EEE "CRA .EC. Batul v. Ba%ron, 5.R. Nos. .F01G0 Q .FG/F/, 4ebruar% =1, =CCE, E=E "CRA =1. "upra note 11, at 0C1.

0=

0-

Miriam Colle$e 4oundation, +nc. v. Court of Appeals, EC. Phil. E-., EFF-EF1 @=CCCA, citin$ Tan$onan v. PaJo, 5.R. No. 8EF.F0, #une =0, ./GF, .-0 "CRA =EF, =F1-=F0.
0E

Re$ino v. Pan$asinan Colle$es of "cience and Technolo$%, 5.R. No. .F1.C/, November .G, =CCE, EE- "CRA F1. The :four essential freedoms of a universit%: ere formulated b% Mr. #ustice 4eli6 4ran)furter of the (nited "tates "upreme Court in his concurrin$ opinion in the leadin$ case of " ee3% v. Ne ;ampshire, -FE (" =-E, . 8. Ed. =d .-.., 00 ". Ct. .=C-.
0F 01

Miriam Colle$e 4oundation, +nc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 0E, at =GF. Batas Pambansa Bl$. =-= @effective "eptember .., ./G=A, "ec. /@=A. People v. &bri*ue, E1F Phil. ==. @=CCEA. People v. "antos, E1E Phil. /E. @=CCEA. People v. Abes, E1F Phil. .1F @=CCEA. People v. Arevalo, #r., E11 Phil. E./ @=CCEA. People v. "umalino$, #r., E11 Phil. E10 @=CCEA. People v. &rilla, E10 Phil. =F- @=CCEA. People v. Ta$ana, 5.R. No. .--C=0, March E, =CCE, E=E "CRA 1=C. People v. Medina, 5.R. No. .FF=F1, #ul% -C, =CE, E-F "CRA 1.C. 1/ Phil. 1-F @./ECA. Ateneo de Manila (niversit% v. Capulon$, 5.R. No. //-=0, Ma% =0, .//-, === "CRA 1EE, 1F/-11C. "ee id. at 11E. +d. Rollo, p. .-G. "ee People v. Esto%a, 5.R. No. .F-F-G, Ma% ./, =CCE, E=G "CRA FEE. People v. Peruelo, 5.R. No. 8-FC1-., #une =/, ./G., .CF "CRA ==1, =-G.

00

0G

0/

GC

G.

G=

G-

GE

GF

G1

G0

GG

G/

/C

/.

/=

People v. Manambit, --G Phil. F0, /1 @.//0A, citin$ People v. Maon$co, 5.R. Nos. .CG/1--1F, March ., .//E, =-C "CRA F1=, F0F.
//E

"ee note G0, at 11--11E. Malabanan v. Ramento, =.E Phil. -./, --C @./GEA. Rollo, p. F.F. "ee note -G. "ee note ./.

/F

/1

/0

/G

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-*+6+

J&nu&-$ 26, 191+

THE UN TE# ST!TES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LU S TOR " O, defendant-appellant. #odri*uez H 7el #osario, 'or appellant. Attorney-General Billamor, 'or appellee. C!RSON, J.: The evidence of record full% sustains the findin$s of the trial court that the appellant slau$htered or caused to be slau$htered for human consumption, the carabao described in the information, ithout a permit from the municipal treasure of the municipalit% herein it as slau$htered, in violation of the provisions of sections -C and -- of Act No. ..E0, an Act re$ulatin$ the re$istration, brandin$, and slau$hter of lar$e cattle. +t appears that in the to n of Carmen, in the Province of Bohol, herein the animal as slau$htered there is no municipal slau$hterhouse, and counsel for appellant contends that under such circumstances the provisions of Act No. ..E0 do not prohibit nor penali3e the slau$hter of lar$e cattle ithout a permit of the municipal treasure. "ections -C, -., -=, and -- of the Act are as follo sD "EC. -C. No lar$e cattle shall be slau$htered or )illed for food at the municipal slau$hterhouse e6cept upon permit secured from the municipal treasure. Before issuin$ the permit for the slau$hter of lar$e cattle for human consumption, the municipal treasurer shall re*uire for branded cattle the production of the ori$inal certificate of o nership and certificates of transfer sho in$ title in the person appl%in$ for the permit, and for unbranded cattle such evidence as ma% satisf% said treasurer as to the o nership of the animals for hich permit to slau$hter has been re*uested. "EC. -.. No permit to slau$hter has been carabaos shall be $ranted b% the municipal treasurer unless such animals are unfit for a$ricultural or) or for draft purposes, and in no event shall a permit be $iven to slau$hter for food an% animal of an% )ind hich is not fit for human consumption. "EC. -=. The municipal treasurer shall )eep a record of all permits for slau$hter issued b% him, and such record shall sho the name and residence of the o ner, and the class, se6, a$e, brands, )nots of radiated hair commonl% )no as remolinos or co lic)s, and other mar)s of identification of the animal for the slau$hter of hich permit is issued and the date on hich such permit is issued. Names of o ners shall be alphabeticall% arran$ed in the record, to$ether ith date of permit. A cop% of the record of permits $ranted for slau$hter shall be for arded monthl% to the provincial treasurer, ho shall file and properl% inde6 the same under the name of the o ner, to$ether ith date of permit. "EC. --. An% person slau$hterin$ or causin$ to be slau$htered for human consumption or )illin$ for food at the municipal slau$hterhouse an% lar$e cattle e6cept upon permit dul% secured from the municipal treasurer, shall be punished b% a fine of not less than ten nor more than five hundred pesos, Philippine currenc%, or b% imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than si6 months, or b% both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. +t is contended that the proper construction of the lan$ua$e of these provisions limits the prohibition contained in section -C and the penalt% imposed in section -- to cases @.A of slau$hter of lar$e cattle for human consumption in a municipal slau*)ter ithout a permit dul% secured from the municipal treasurer, and @=A cases of )illin$ of lar$e cattle for food in a municipal slau*)ter)ouse ithout a permit dul% secured from the municipal treasurer> and it is ur$ed that the municipalit% of Carmen not bein$ provided ith a municipal slau$hterhouse, neither the prohibition nor the penalt% is applicable to cases of slau$hter of lar$e cattle ithout a permit in that municipalit%.

7e are of opinion, ho ever, that the prohibition contained in section -C refers @.A to the slau$hter of lar$e cattle for human consumption, an% here, ithout a permit dul% secured from the municipal treasurer, and @=A e6pressl% and specificall% to the )illin$ for food of lar$e cattle at a municipal slau$hterhouse ithout such permit> and that the penalt% provided in section -- applies $enerall% to the slau$hter of lar$e cattle for human consumption, an% here, ithout a permit dul% secured from the municipal treasurer, and specificall% to the )illin$ for food of lar$e cattle at a municipal slau$hterhouse ithout such permit. +t ma% be admitted at once, that the pertinent lan$ua$e of those sections ta)en b% itself and e6amined apart from the conte6t fairl% admits of t o constructionsD one hereb% the phrase :at the municipal slau$hterhouse: ma% be ta)en as limitin$ and restrictin$ both the ord :slau$htered: and the ords :)illed for food: in section -C, and the ords :slau$hterin$ or causin$ to be slau$htered for human consumption: and the ords :)illin$ for food: in section --> and the other hereb% the phrase :at the municipal slau$hterhouse: ma% be ta)en as limitin$ and restrictin$ merel% the ords :)illed for food: and :)illin$ for food: as used in those sections. But upon a readin$ of the hole Act, and )eepin$ in mind the manifest and e6pressed purpose and ob,ect of its enactment, it is ver% clear that the latter construction is that hich should be adopted. The Act primaril% see)s to protect the :lar$e cattle: of the Philippine +slands a$ainst theft and to ma)e eas% the recover% and return of such cattle to their proper o ners hen lost, stra%ed, or stolen. To this end it provides an elaborate and compulsor% s%stem for the separate brandin$ and re$istr% of o nership of all such cattle throu$hout the +slands, hereb% o ners are enabled readil% and easil% to establish their title> it prohibits and invalidates all transfers of lar$e cattle unaccompanied b% certificates of transfer issued b% the proper officer in the municipalit% here the contract of sale is made> and it provides also for the disposition of thieves or persons unla full% in possession, so as to protect the ri$hts of the true o ners. All this, manifestl%, in order to ma)e it difficult for an% one but the ri$htful o ner of such cattle to retain them in his possession or to dispose of them to others. But the usefulness of this elaborate and compulsor% s%stem of identification, restin$ as it does on the official re$istr% of the brands and mar)s on each separate animal throu$hout the +slands, ould be lar$el% impaired, if not totall% destro%ed, if such animals ere re*uirin$ proof of o nership and the production of certificates of re$istr% b% the person slau$hterin$ or causin$ them to be slau$htered, and this especiall% if the animals ere slau$htered privatel% or in a clandestine manner outside of a municipal slau$hterhouse. ;ence, as it ould appear, sections -C and -- prohibit and penali3e the slau$hter for human consumption or )illin$ for food at a municipal slau$hterhouse of such animals ithout a permit issued b% the municipal treasurer, and section -= provides for the )eepin$ of detailed records of all such permits in the office of the municipal and also of the provincial treasurer. +f, ho ever, the construction be placed on these sections hich is contended for b% the appellant, it ill readil% be seen that all these carefull% or)ed out provisions for the re$istr% and record of the brands and mar)s of identification of all lar$e cattle in the +slands ould prove in lar$e part abortion, since thieves and persons unla full% in possession of such cattle, and naturall% ould, evade the provisions of the la b% slau$hterin$ them outside of municipal slau$hterhouses, and thus en,o% the fruits of their ron$doin$ ithout e6posin$ themselves to the dan$er of detection incident to the brin$in$ of the animals to the public slau$hterhouse, here the brands and other identification mar)s mi$ht be scrutini3ed and proof of o nership re*uired. 7here the lan$ua$e of a statute is fairl% susceptible of t o or more constructions, that construction should be adopted hich ill most tend to $ive effect to the manifest intent of the la ma)er and promote the ob,ect for hich the statute as enacted, and a construction should be re,ected hich ould tend to render abortive other provisions of the statute and to defeat the ob,ect hich the le$islator sou$ht to attain b% its enactment. 7e are of opinion, therefore, that sections -C and -- of the Act prohibit and penali3e the slau$hterin$ or causin$ to be slau$htered for human consumption of lar$e cattle at an% place ithout the permit provided for in section -C. +t is not essential that an e6planation be found for the e6press prohibition in these sections of the :)illin$ for food at a municipal slau$hterhouse: of such animals, despite the fact that this prohibition is clearl% included in the $eneral prohibition of the slau$hter of such animals for human consumption an% here> but it is not improbable that the re*uirement for the issue of a permit in such cases as e6pressl% and specificall% mentioned out of superabundance of precaution, and to avoid all possibilit% of misunderstandin$ in the event that some of the municipalities should be disposed to modif% or var% the $eneral provisions of the la b% the passa$e of local ordinances or re$ulations for the control of municipal slau$hterhouse. "imilar reasonin$ applied to the specific provisions of section -. of the Act leads to the same conclusion. &ne of the secondar% purposes of the la , as set out in that section, is to prevent the slau$hter for food of carabaos fit for a$ricultural and draft purposes, and of all animals unfit for human consumption. A

construction hich ould limit the prohibitions and penalties prescribed in the statute to the )illin$ of such animals in municipal slau$hterhouses, leavin$ unprohibited and unpenali3ed their slau$hter outside of such establishments, so manifestl% tends to defeat the purpose and ob,ect of the le$islator, that unless imperativel% demanded b% the lan$ua$e of the statute it should be re,ected> and, as e have alread% indicated, the lan$ua$e of the statute is clearl% susceptible of the construction hich e have placed upon it, hich tends to ma)e effective the provisions of this as ell as all the other sections of the Act. +t appears that the defendant did in fact appl% for a permit to slau$hter his carabao, and that it as denied him on the $round that the animal as not unfit :for a$ricultural or) or for draft purposes.: Counsel for appellant contends that the statute, in so far as it underta)es to penali3e the slau$hter of carabaos for human consumption as food, ithout first obtainin$ a permit hich can not be procured in the event that the animal is not unfit :for a$ricultural or) or draft purposes,: is unconstitutional and in violation of the terms of section F of the Philippine Bill @Act of Con$ress, #ul% ., ./C=A, hich provides that :no la shall be enacted hich shall deprive an% person of life, libert%, or propert% ithout due process of la .: +t is not *uite clear from the ar$ument of counsel hether his contention is that this provision of the statute constitutes a ta)in$ of propert% for public use in the e6ercise of the ri$ht of eminent domain (it)out providin* 'or t)e compensation o' t)e o(ners , or that it is an undue and unauthori3ed e6ercise of the police po er of the "tate. But hatever ma% be the basis of his contention, e are of opinion, appropriatin$, ith necessar% modifications understood, the lan$ua$e of that $reat ,urist, Chief #ustice "ha @in the case of Com. vs. Te )sbur%, .. Met., FF, here the *uestion involved as the constitutionalit% of a statute prohibitin$ and penali3in$ the ta)in$ or carr%in$ a a% b% an% person, includin$ the o ner, of an% stones, $ravel, or sand, from an% of the beaches in the to n of Chesea,A that the la in *uestion :is not a ta)in$ of the propert% for public use, ithin the meanin$ of the constitution, but is a ,ust and le$itimate e6ercise of the po er of the le$islature to re$ulate and restrain such particular use of the propert% as ould be inconsistent ith or in,urious to the ri$hts of the public. All propert% is ac*uired and held under the tacit condition that it shall not be so used as to in,ure the e*ual ri$hts of others or $reatl% impair the public ri$hts and interest of the communit%.: +t ma% be conceded that the beneficial use and e6clusive en,o%ment of the propert% of all carabao o ners in these +slands is to a $reater or less de$ree interfered ith b% the provisions of the statute> and that, ithout in*uirin$ hat *uantum of interest thus passes from the o ners of such cattle, it is an interest the deprivation of hich detracts from their ri$ht and authorit%, and in some de$ree interferes ith their e6clusive possession and control of their propert%, so that if the re$ulations in *uestion ere enacted for purel% private purpose, the statute, in so far as these re$ulations are concerned, ould be a violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill relied on be appellant> but e are satisfied that it is not such a ta)in$, such an interference ith the ri$ht and title of the o ners, as is involved in the e6ercise b% the "tate of the ri$ht of eminent domain, so as to entitle these o ners to compensation, and that it is no more than :a ,ust restrain of an in,urious private use of the propert%, hich the le$islature had authorit% to impose.: +n the case of Com. vs. Al$er @0 Cush., F-, GEA, herein the doctrine laid do n in Com. vs. Te )sbur% @supraA as revie ed and affirmed, the same eminent ,urist ho rote the former opinion, in distin$uishin$ the e6ercise of the ri$ht of eminent domain from the e6ercise of the soverei$n police po ers of the "tate, saidD 7e thin) it is settled principle, $ro in$ out of the nature of ell-ordered civil societ%, that ever% holder of propert%, ho ever absolute and un*ualified ma% be his title, holds it under the implied liabilit% that his use of it ma% be so re$ulated that is shall not be in,urious to the e*ual en,o%ment of others havin$ an e*ual ri$ht to the en,o%ment of their propert%, nor in,urious to the ri$hts of the communit%. . . . Ri$hts of propert%, li)e all other social and conventional ri$hts, are sub,ect to such reasonable limitations in their en,o%ment as shall prevent them from bein$ in,urious, and to such reasonable restrain and re$ulations establish b% la , as the le$islature, under the $overnin$ and controllin$ po er vested in them b% the constitution, ma% thin) necessar% and e6pedient. This is ver% different from the ri$ht of eminent domain, the ri$ht of a $overnment to ta)e and appropriate private propert% to public use, henever the public e6i$enc% re*uires it> hich can be done onl% on condition of providin$ a reasonable compensation therefor. The po er e allude to is rather the police po er, the po er vested in the le$islature b% the constitution, to ma)e, ordain, and establish all manner of holesome and reasonable la s, statutes, and ordinances, either ith penalties or ithout, not repu$nant to the constitution, as the% shall ,ud$e to be for the $ood and elfare of the common ealth, and of the sub,ects of the same.

+t is much easier to perceive and reali3e the e6istence and sources of this po er than to mar) its boundaries or prescribe limits to its e6ercise. Appl%in$ these principles, e are opinion that the restrain placed b% the la on the slau$hter for human consumption of carabaos fit for a$ricultural or) and draft purpose is not an appropriation of propert% interests to a :public use,: and is not, therefore, ithin the principle of the e6ercise b% the "tate of the ri$ht of eminent domain. +t is fact a mere restriction or limitation upon a private use, hich the le$islature deemed to be detrimental to the public elfare. And e thin) that an e6amination of the $eneral provisions of the statute in relation to the public interest hich it see)s to safe$uard and the public necessities for hich it provides, leaves no room for doubt that the limitations and restraints imposed upon the e6ercise of ri$hts of o nership b% the particular provisions of the statute under consideration ere imposed not for private purposes but, strictl%, in the promotion of the :$eneral elfare: and :the public interest: in the e6ercise of the soverei$n police po er hich ever% "tate possesses for the $eneral public elfare and hich :reaches to ever% species of propert% ithin the common ealth.: 4or several %ears prior to the enactment of the statute a virulent conta$ious or infectious disease had threatened the total e6tinction of carabaos in these +slands, in man% sections s eepin$ a a% sevent%, ei$ht%, and in some cases as much as ninet% and even one hundred per cent of these animals. A$riculture bein$ the principal occupation of the people, and the carabao bein$ the or) animal almost e6clusivel% in use in the fields as ell as for draft purposes, the rava$es of the disease ith hich the% ere infected struc) an almost vital blo at the material elfare of the countr%. lar$e areas of productive land la% aste for %ears, and the production of rice, the staple food of the inhabitants of the +slands, fell off to such an e6tent that the impoverished people ere compelled to spend man% millions of pesos in its importation, not ithstandin$ the fact that ith sufficient or) animals to cultivate the fields the arable rice lands of the countr% could easil% be made to produce a suppl% more that sufficient for its o n needs. The drain upon the resources of the +slands as such that famine soon be$an to ma)e itself felt, hope san) in the breast of the people, and in man% provinces the ener$ies of the bread inners seemed to be paral%3ed b% the apparentl% hopeless stru$$le for e6istence ith hich the% ere confronted. To meet these conditions, lar$e sums of mone% ere e6pended b% the 5overnment in relievin$ the immediate needs of the starvin$ people, three millions of dollars ere voted b% the Con$ress of the (nited "tates as a relief or famine fund, public or)s ere underta)en to furnish emplo%ment in the provinces here the need as most pressin$, and ever% effort made to alleviate the sufferin$ incident to the idespread failure of the crops throu$hout the +slands, due in lar$e measure to the lac) of animals fit for a$ricultural or) and draft purposes. "uch measures, ho ever, could onl% temporaril% relieve the situation, because in an a$ricultural communit% material pro$ress and permanent prosperit% could hardl% be hoped for in the absence of the or) animals upon hich such a communit% must necessaril% rel% for the cultivation of the fields and the transportation of the products of the fields to mar)et. Accordin$l% efforts ere made b% the 5overnment to increase the suppl% of these animals b% importation, but, as appears from the official reports on this sub,ect, hope for the future depended lar$el% on the conservation of those animals hich had been spared from the rava$es of the diseased, and their redistribution throu$hout the +slands here the need for them as $reatest. At lar$e e6pense, the services of e6perts ere emplo%ed, ith a vie to the discover% and applications of preventive and curative remedies, and it is hoped that these measures have proved in some de$ree successful in protectin$ the present inade*uate suppl% of lar$e cattle, and that the $radual increase and redistribution of these animals throu$hout the Archipela$o, in response to the operation of the la s of suppl% and demand, ill ultimatel% results in practicall% relievin$ those sections hich suffered most b% the loss of their or) animals. As as to be e6pected under such conditions, the price of carabaos rapidl% increase from the three to five fold or more, and it ma% fairl% be presumed that even if the conservative measures no adopted prove entirel% successful, the scant suppl% ill )eep the price of these animals at a hi$h fi$ure until the natural increase shall have more nearl% e*uali3ed the suppl% to the demand. Coincident ith and probabl% intimatel% connected ith this sudden rise in the price of cattle, the crime of cattle stealin$ became e6tremel% prevalent throu$hout the +slands, necessitatin$ the enactment of a special la penali3in$ ith the severest penalties the theft of carabaos and other personal propert% b% rovin$ bands> and it must be assumed from the le$islative authorit% found that the $eneral elfare of the +slands necessitated the enactment of special and some hat burdensome provisions for the brandin$ and re$istration of lar$e cattle, and supervision and restriction of their slau$hter for food. +t ill hardl% be *uestioned that the provisions of the statute touchin$ the brandin$ and re$istration of such cattle, and

prohibitin$ and penali3in$ the slau$hter of diseased cattle for food ere enacted in the due and proper e6ercise of the police po er of the "tate> and e are of opinion that, under all the circumstances, the provision of the statute prohibitin$ and penali3in$ the slau$hter for human consumption of carabaos fit for or) ere in li)e manner enacted in the due and proper e6ercise of that po er, ,ustified b% the e6i$ent necessities of e6istin$ conditions, and the ri$ht of the "tate to protect itself a$ainst the over helmin$ disaster incident to the further reduction of the suppl% of animals fit for a$ricultural or) or draft purposes. +t is, e thin), a fact of common )no led$e in these +slands, and disclosed b% the official reports and records of the administrative and le$islative departments of the 5overnment, that not merel% the material elfare and future prosperit% of this a$ricultural communit% ere threatened b% the rava$es of the disease hich s ept a a% the or) animals durin$ the %ears prior to the enactment of the la under consideration, but that the ver% life and e6istence of the inhabitants of these +slands as a civili3ed people ould be more or less imperiled b% the continued destruction of lar$e cattle b% disease or other ise. Confronted b% such conditions, there can be no doubt of the ri$ht of the 8e$islature to adopt reasonable measures for the preservation of or) animals, even to the e6tent of prohibitin$ and penali3in$ hat ould, under ordinar% conditions, be a perfectl% le$itimate and proper e6ercise of ri$hts of o nership and control of the private propert% of the citi3en. The police po er rests upon necessit% and the ri$ht of self-protection and if ever the invasion of private propert% b% police re$ulation can be ,ustified, e thin) that the reasonable restriction placed upon the use of carabaos b% the provision of the la under discussion must be held to be authori3ed as a reasonable and proper e6ercise of that po er. As stated b% Mr. #ustice Bro n in his opinion in the case of :a(ton vs. Steele @.F= (."., .--, .-1AD The e6tent and limits of hat is )no n as the police po er have been a fruitful sub,ect of discussion in the appellate courts of nearl% ever% "tate in the (nion. +t is universall% conceded to include ever%thin$ essential to the public safel%, health, and morals, and to ,ustif% the destruction or abatement, b% summar% proceedin$s, of hatever ma% be re$arded as a public nuisance. (nder this po er it has been held that the "tate ma% order the destruction of a house fallin$ to deca% or other ise endan$erin$ the lives of passers-b%> the demolition of such as are in the path of a confla$ration> the slau$hter of diseased cattle> the destruction of deca%ed or un holesome food> the prohibition of ooden buildin$s in cities> the re$ulation of rail a%s and other means of public conve%ance, and of interments in burial $rounds> the restriction of ob,ectionable trades to certain localities> the compulsar% vaccination of children> the confinement of the insane or those afficted ith conta$ious deceases> the restraint of va$rants, be$$ars, and habitual drun)ards> the suppression of obscene publications and houses of ill fame> and the prohibition of $amblin$ houses and places here into6icatin$ li*uors are sold. +eyond t)is, )o(ever, t)e State may inter'ere ()erever t)e public interests demand it, and in t)is particular a lar*e discretion is necessarily vested in t)e le*islature to determine, not only ()at t)e interests o' t)e public re3uire, but ()at measures are necessary 'or t)e protection o' suc) interests . @Barbier vs. Connoll%, ..- (. "., =0> Bidd vs. Pearson, .=G (. "., ..A To ,ustif% the "tate in thus interposin$ its authorit% in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public $enerall%, as distin$uished from those of a particular class, re*uire such interference> and, second, that the means are reasonabl% necessar% for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not undul% oppressive upon individuals. The le$islature ma% not, under the $uise of protectin$ the public interests, arbitraril% interfere ith private business, or impose unusual and unnecessar% restrictions upon la ful occupations. +n other ords, its determination as to hat is a proper e6ercise of its police po ers is not final or conclusive, but is sub,ect to the supervision of the court. 4rom hat has been said, e thin) it is clear that the enactment of the provisions of the statute under consideration as re*uired b% :the interests of the public $enerall%, as distin$uished from those of a particular class>: and that the prohibition of the slau$hter of carabaos for human consumption, so lon$ as these animals are fit for a$ricultural or) or draft purposes as a :reasonabl% necessar%: limitation on private o nership, to protect the communit% from the loss of the services of such animals b% their slau$hter b% improvident o ners, tempted either b% $reed of momentar% $ain, or b% a desire to en,o% the lu6ur% of animal food, even hen b% so doin$ the productive po er of the communit% ma% be measurabl% and dan$erousl% affected. Chief #ustice Redfield, in Thorpe vs. Rutland Q Burlin$ton R. R. Co. @=0 't., .ECA, said @p. .E/A that b% this :$eneral police po er of the "tate, persons and propert% are sub,ected to all )inds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the $eneral comfort, health, and prosperit% of the "tate> of the perfect ri$ht in the le$islature to do hich no *uestion ever as, or, upon ac)no led$e and $eneral principles, ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned.:

And Coole% in his :Constitutional 8imitations: @1th ed., p. 0-GA sa%sD +t ould be *uite impossible to enumerate all the instances in hich the police po er is or ma% be e6ercised, because the various cases in hich the e6ercise b% one individual of his ri$hts ma% conflict ith a similar e6ercise b% others, or ma% be detrimental to the public order or safet%, are infinite in number and in variet%. And there are other cases here it becomes necessar% for the public authorities to interfere ith the control b% individuals of their propert%, and even to destro% it, here the o ners themselves have full% observed all their duties to their fello s and to the "tate, but here, nevertheless, some controllin$ public necessit% demands the interference or destruction. A stron$ instance of this description is here it becomes necessar% to ta)e, use, or destro% the private propert% of individuals to prevent the spreadin$ of a fire, the rava$es of a pestilence, the advance of a hostile arm%, or an% other $reat public calamit%. ;ere the individual is in no de$ree in fault, but his interest must %ield to that :necessit%: hich :)no s no la .: The establishment of limits ithin the denser portions of cities and villa$es ithin hich buildin$s constructed of inflammable materials shall not be erected or repaired ma% also, in some cases, be e*uivalent to a destruction of private propert%> but re$ulations for this purpose have been sustained not ithstandin$ this result. 7harf lines ma% also be established for the $eneral $ood, even thou$h the% prevent the o ners of ater-fronts from buildin$ out on soil hich constitutes private propert%. And, henever the le$islature deem it necessar% to the protection of a harbor to forbid the removal of stones, $ravel, or sand from the beach, the% ma% establish re$ulations to that effect under penalties, and ma)e them applicable to the o ners of the soil e*uall% ith other persons. "uch re$ulations are onl% :a ,ust restraint of an in,urious use of propert%, hich the le$islature have authorit%: to impose. "o a particular use of propert% ma% sometimes be forbidden, here, b% a chan$e of circumstances, and ithout the fault of the po er, that hich as once la ful, proper, and unob,ectionable has no become a public nuisance, endan$erin$ the public health or the public safet%. Milldams are sometimes destro%ed upon this $rounds> and church%ards hich prove, in the advance of urban population, to be detrimental to the public health, or in dan$er of becomin$ so, are liable to be closed a$ainst further use for cemeter% purposes. These citations from some of the hi$hest ,udicial and te6t-boo) authorities in the (nited "tates clearl% indicate the ide scope and e6tent hich has there been $iven to the doctrine us in our opinion that the provision of the statute in *uestion bein$ a proper e6ercise of that po er is not in violation of the terms of section F of the Philippine Bill, hich provide that :no la shall be enacted hich shall deprive an% person of life, libert%, or propert% ithout due process of la ,: a provision hich itself is adopted from the Constitution of the (nited "tates, and is found in substance in the constitution of most if not all of the "tates of the (nion. The ,ud$ment of conviction and the sentence imposed b% the trial court should be affirmed this instance a$ainst the appellant. "o ordered. Arellano, %.J., $orres, Jo)nson, Moreland and 6lliott, JJ., concur. ith the costs of

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 118127

!,-/2 12, 2++*

C TF OF M!N L!, HON. !LFRE#O S. L M &0 .:e M&$o- o9 .:e C/.$ o9 M&n/2&, HON. JOSEL TO L. !T EN)!, /n :/0 5&,&5/.$ &0 (/5e-M&$o- o9 .:e C/.$ o9 M&n/2& &n' P-e0/'/n4 O99/5e- o9 .:e C/.$ Coun5/2 o9 M&n/2&, HON. ERNESTO !. N E(!, HON. GON)!LO P. GON)!LES, HON. !(EL NO S. C! L !N, HON. RO"ERTO C. OC!MPO, HON. !L"ERTO #OM NGO, HON. HONOR O U. LOPE), HON. FR!NC SCO G. (!RON!, JR., HON. ROMU!L#O S. M!R!N!N, HON. NESTOR C. PONCE, JR., HON. HUM"ERTO ". "!SCO, HON. FL!( !NO F. CONCEPC ON, JR., HON. ROMEO G. R (ER!, HON. M!NUEL M. )!RC!L, HON. PE#RO S. #E JESUS, HON. "ERN!R# TO C. !NG, HON. M!NUEL L. %U N, HON. JHOSEP F. LOPE), HON. CH 1! G. GO, HON. ( CTOR !NO !. MELEN#E), HON. ERNESTO (.P. M!CE#!, JR., HON. ROL!N#O P. N ETO, HON. #!N LO (. ROLE#!, HON. GER NO !. TOLENT NO, JR., HON. M!. P!) E. HERRER!, HON. JOEF #. H )ON, HON. FEL G"ERTO #. ESP R TU, HON. 1!RLO %. "UT ONG, HON. ROGEL O P. #EL! P!), HON. "ERN!R#O #. R!G!)!, HON. M!. COR!)ON R. C!"!LLES, HON. C!S M RO C. S SON, HON. " EN( N #O M. !"!NTE, JR., HON. M!. LOUR#ES M. S P, HON. !LEG!N#ER S. R C!FORT, HON. ERNESTO F. R (ER!, HON. LEON!R#O L. !NG!T, &n' HON. JOCELFN ". #!3 S, /n .:e/- 5&,&5/.$ &0 5oun5/2o-0 o9 .:e C/.$ o9 M&n/2&, Petitioner, vs. HON. PERFECTO !.S. L!GU O, JR., &0 P-e0/'/n4 Ju'4e, RTC, M&n/2& &n' M!L!TE TOUR ST #E(ELOPMENT CORPOR!T ON, Respondents. !EC+"+&N T NG!, J.8 + )no after. onl% that hat is moral is hat %ou feel $ood after and hat is immoral is hat %ou feel bad

E-ne0. He-6/n4<&$ #e&.: /n .:e !9.e-noon, C:. 1 +t is a moral and political a6iom that an% dishonorable act, if performed b% oneself, is less immoral than if performed b% someone else, ho ould be ell-intentioned in his dishonest%. J. C:-/0.o,:e- Ge-&2' "on&,&-.e /n E4$,., C:. The Court9s commitment to the protection of morals is secondar% to its fealt% to the fundamental la of the land. +t is foremost a $uardian of the Constitution but not the conscience of individuals. And if it need be, the Court ill not hesitate to :ma)e the hammer fall, and heavil%: in the ords of #ustice 8aurel, and uphold the constitutional $uarantees hen faced ith la s that, thou$h not lac)in$ in 3eal to promote moralit%, nevertheless fail to pass the test of constitutionalit%. The pivotal issue in this Petition. under Rule EF @then Rule E=A of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure see)in$ the reversal of the 7ecision= in Civil Case No. /--11F.. of the Re$ional Trial Court @RTCA of Manila, Branch .G @lo er courtA,- is the validit% of &rdinance No. 00G- @the 4rdinanceA of the Cit% of Manila.E The antecedents are as follo sD Private respondent Malate Tourist !evelopment Corporation @MT!CA is a corporation en$a$ed in the business of operatin$ hotels, motels, hostels and lod$in$ houses. F +t built and opened 'ictoria Court in Malate hich as licensed as a motel althou$h dul% accredited ith the !epartment of Tourism as a hotel. 1 &n =G #une .//-, MT!C filed a Petition 'or 7eclaratory #elie' (it) Prayer 'or a 0rit o' Preliminary !n2unction and;or $emporary #estrainin* 4rder0 "#$% Petition& ith the lo er court impleadin$ as defendants, herein petitioners Cit% of Manila, ;on. Alfredo ". 8im @8imA, ;on. #oselito 8. Atien3a, and the members of the Cit%

Council of Manila @Cit% CouncilA. MT!C pra%ed that the 4rdinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as amon$ its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional. G Enacted b% the Cit% Council/ on / March .//- and approved b% petitioner Cit% Ma%or on -C March .//-, the said 4rdinance is entitledP AN &R!+NANCE PR&;+B+T+N5 T;E E"TAB8+";MENT &R &PERAT+&N &4 B("+NE""E" PR&'+!+N5 CERTA+N 4&RM" &4 AM("EMENT, ENTERTA+NMENT, "ER'+CE" AN! 4AC+8+T+E" +N T;E ERM+TAMA8ATE AREA, PRE"CR+B+N5 PENA8T+E" 4&R '+&8AT+&N T;ERE&4, AN! 4&R &T;ER P(RP&"E". .C The 4rdinance is reproduced in full, hereunderD "ECT+&N .. An% provision of e6istin$ la s and ordinances to the contrar% not ithstandin$, no ,e-0on, ,&-.ne-0:/,, 5o-,o-&./on o- en./.$ 0:&22, /n .:e E-6/.&-M&2&.e &-e& bounded b% Teodoro M. Bala "r. "treet in the North, Taft Avenue in the East, 'ito Cru3 "treet in the "outh and Ro6as Boulevard in the 7est, pursuant to P.!. E// 7e &22o<e' o- &u.:o-/He' .o 5on.-&5. &n' en4&4e /n, &n$ 7u0/ne00 ,-o;/'/n4 5e-.&/n 9o-60 o9 &6u0e6en., en.e-.&/n6en., 0e-;/5e0 &n' 9&5/2/./e0 <:e-e <o6en &-e u0e' &0 .oo20 /n en.e-.&/n6en. &n' <:/5: .en' .o '/0.u-7 .:e 5o66un/.$, &nno$ .:e /n:&7/.&n.0, &n' &';e-0e2$ &99e5. .:e 0o5/&2 &n' 6o-&2 <e29&-e o9 .:e 5o66un/.$, such as but not limited toD .. "auna Parlors =. Massa$e Parlors -. Barao)e Bars E. Beerhouses F. Ni$ht Clubs 1. !a% Clubs 0. "uper Clubs G. !iscothe*ues /. Cabarets .C. !ance ;alls ... Motels .=. +nns "EC. = T:e C/.$ M&$o-, .:e C/.$ T-e&0u-e- or an% person actin$ in behalf of the said officials &-e ,-o:/7/.e' 9-o6 /00u/n4 ,e-6/.0, .e6,o-&-$ o- o.:e-</0e, o- 9-o6 4-&n./n4 2/5en0e0 &n' &55e,./n4 ,&$6en.0 9o- .:e o,e-&./on o9 7u0/ne00 enu6e-&.e' /n .:e ,-e5e'/n4 0e5./on. "EC. -. O<ne-0 &n'Io- o,e-&.o- o9 e0.&72/0:6en.0 en$a$ed in, or devoted to, the businesses enumerated in "ection . hereof are hereb% 4/;en .:-ee D3E 6on.:0 9-o6 .:e '&.e o9 &,,-o;&2 o9 .:/0 o-'/n&n5e </.:/n <:/5: .o </n' u, 7u0/ne00 o,e-&./on0 o- .o .-&n09e- .o &n$ ,2&5e ou.0/'e o9 .:e E-6/.&-M&2&.e &-e& o- 5on;e-. 0&/' 7u0/ne00e0 .o o.:e- ?/n'0 o9 7u0/ne00 &22o<&72e </.:/n .:e &-e&, such as but not limited toD .. Curio or anti*ue shop =. "ouvenir "hops

-. ;andicrafts displa% centers E. Art $alleries F. Records and music shops 1. Restaurants 0. Coffee shops G. 4lo er shops /. Music loun$e and sin$-alon$ restaurants, ith ell-defined activities for entertainment that cater to both local and forei$n clientele. holesome famil%

.C. Theaters en$a$ed in the e6hibition, not onl% of motion pictures but also of cultural sho s, sta$e and theatrical pla%s, art e6hibitions, concerts and the li)e. ... Businesses allo able ithin the la and medium intensit% districts as provided for in the 3onin$ ordinances for Metropolitan Manila, e6cept ne arehouse or open-stora$e depot, doc) or %ard, motor repair shop, $asoline service station, li$ht industr% ith an% machiner%, or funeral establishments. "EC. E. !n$ ,e-0on ;/o2&./n4 &n$ ,-o;/0/on0 o9 .:/0 o-'/n&n5e, 0:&22 u,on 5on;/5./on, 7e ,un/0:e' 7$ /6,-/0on6en. o9 one D1E $e&- o- 9/ne o9 F (E THOUS!N# DP*,+++.++E PESOS, o- 7o.:, at the discretion of the Court, PR&'+!E!, that in case of ,uridical person, the President, the 5eneral Mana$er, or person-in-char$e of operation shall be liable thereof> PR&'+!E! 4(RT;ER, that /n 5&0e o9 0u70eCuen. ;/o2&./on &n' 5on;/5./on, .:e ,-e6/0e0 o9 .:e e--/n4 e0.&72/0:6en. 0:&22 7e 52o0e' &n' ,&'2o5?e' ,e-6&nen.2$. "EC. F. This ordinance shall ta)e effect upon approval. Enacted b% the Cit% Council of Manila at its re$ular session toda%, March /, .//-. Approved b% ;is ;onor, the Ma%or on March -C, .//-. @Emphasis suppliedA +n the #$% Petition, MT!C ar$ued that the 4rdinance erroneousl% and improperl% included in its enumeration of prohibited establishments, motels and inns such as MT!C9s 'ictoria Court considerin$ that these ere not establishments for :amusement: or :entertainment: and the% ere not :services or facilities for entertainment,: nor did the% use omen as :tools for entertainment,: and neither did the% :disturb the communit%,: :anno% the inhabitants: or :adversel% affect the social and moral elfare of the communit%.: .. MT!C further advanced that the 4rdinance as invalid and unconstitutional for the follo in$ reasonsD @.A The Cit% Council has no po er to prohibit the operation of motels as "ection EFG @aA E @ivA .= of the 8ocal 5overnment Code of .//. @the CodeA $rants to the Cit% Council onl% the po er to re$ulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lod$in$ houses and other similar establishments> @=A The &rdinance is void as it is violative of Presidential !ecree @P.!.A No. E// .hich specificall% declared portions of the Ermita-Malate area as a commercial 3one ith certain restrictions> @-A The 4rdinance does not constitute a proper e6ercise of police po er as the compulsor% closure of the motel business has no reasonable relation to the le$itimate municipal interests sou$ht to be protected> @EA The 4rdinance constitutes an eF post 'acto la b% punishin$ the operation of 'ictoria Court hich as a le$itimate business prior to its enactment> @FA The 4rdinance violates MT!C9s constitutional ri$hts in thatD @aA it is confiscator% and constitutes an invasion of plaintiff9s propert% ri$hts> @bA the Cit% Council has no po er to find as a fact that a particular thin$ is a nuisance per se nor does it have the po er to e6tra,udiciall% destro% it> and @1A The 4rdinance constitutes a denial of e*ual protection under the la as no reasonable basis e6ists for prohibitin$ the operation of motels and inns, but not pension houses, hotels, lod$in$ houses or other similar establishments, and for prohibitin$ said business in the Ermita-Malate area but not outside of this area..E

+n their Ans(er.F dated =- #ul% .//-, petitioners Cit% of Manila and 8im maintained that the Cit% Council had the po er to :prohibit certain forms of entertainment in order to protect the social and moral elfare of the communit%: as provided for in "ection EFG @aA E @viiA of the 8ocal 5overnment Code, .1 hich reads, thusD "ection EFG. Po ers, !uties, 4unctions and Compensation. @aA The san$$unian$ panlun$sod, as the le$islative bod% of the cit%, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the $eneral elfare of the cit% and its inhabitants pursuant to "ection .1 of this Code and in the proper e6ercise of the corporate po ers of the cit% as provided for under "ection == of this Code, and shallD .... @EA Re$ulate activities relative to the use of land, buildin$s and structures promote the $eneral elfare and for said purpose shallD .... @viiA Re$ulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of an% entertainment or amusement facilities, includin$ theatrical performances, circuses, billiard pools, public dancin$ schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massa$e parlors, and other places for entertainment or amusement> re$ulate such other events or activities for amusement or entertainment, particularl% those hich tend to disturb the communit% or anno% the inhabitants, or re*uire the suspension or suppression of the same> or, prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment in order to protect the social and moral elfare of the communit%. Citin$ 8(on* Sin* v. %ity o' Manila,.0 petitioners insisted that the po er of re$ulation spo)en of in the above-*uoted provision included the po er to control, to $overn and to restrain places of e6hibition and amusement..G Petitioners li)e ise asserted that the 4rdinance as enacted b% the Cit% Council of Manila to protect the social and moral elfare of the communit% in con,unction ith its police po er as found in Article +++, "ection .G@))A of Republic Act No. EC/,./ other ise )no n as the Revised Charter of the Cit% of Manila @Revised Charter of ManilaA=C hich reads, thusD ART+C8E +++ T;E M(N+C+PA8 B&AR! . . . "ection .G. 8e$islative po ers. P The Municipal Board shall have the follo in$ le$islative po ersD . . . @))A To enact all ordinances it ma% deem necessar% and proper for the sanitation and safet%, the furtherance of the prosperit%, and the promotion of the moralit%, peace, $ood order, comfort, convenience, and $eneral elfare of the cit% and its inhabitants, and such others as ma% be necessar% to carr% into effect and dischar$e the po ers and duties conferred b% this chapter> and to fi6 penalties for the violation of ordinances hich shall not e6ceed t o hundred pesos fine or si6 months9 imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment, for a sin$le offense. 4urther, the petitioners noted, the 4rdinance had the presumption of validit%> hence, private respondent had the burden to prove its ille$alit% or unconstitutionalit%. =. Petitioners also maintained that there as no inconsistenc% bet een P.!. E// and the 4rdinance as the latter simpl% disauthori3ed certain forms of businesses and allo ed the Ermita-Malate area to remain a commercial 3one.== The 4rdinance, the petitioners li)e ise claimed, cannot be assailed as eF post 'acto as it as prospective in operation.=- The 4rdinance also did not infrin$e the e*ual protection clause and cannot be denounced as class le$islation as there e6isted substantial and real differences bet een the Ermita-Malate area and other places in the Cit% of Manila. =E ithin the cit% in order to

&n =G #une .//-, respondent #ud$e Perfecto A.". 8a$uio, #r. @#ud$e 8a$uioA issued an e6-parte temporar% restrainin$ order a$ainst the enforcement of the 4rdinance.=F And on .1 #ul% .//-, a$ain in an intrepid $esture, he $ranted the rit of preliminar% in,unction pra%ed for b% MT!C. =1 After trial, on =F November .//E, #ud$e 8a$uio rendered the assailed 7ecision, en,oinin$ the petitioners from implementin$ the 4rdinance. The dispositive portion of said 7ecision readsD=0 7;ERE4&RE, ,ud$ment is hereb% rendered declarin$ &rdinance No. 00GK-L, "eries of .//-, of the Cit% of Manila null and void, and ma)in$ permanent the rit of preliminar% in,unction that had been issued b% this Court a$ainst the defendant. No costs. "& &R!ERE!.=G Petitioners filed ith the lo er court a Notice o' Appeal=/ on .= !ecember .//E, manifestin$ that the% are elevatin$ the case to this Court under then Rule E= on pure *uestions of la . -C &n .. #anuar% .//F, petitioners filed the present Petition, alle$in$ that the follo in$ errors ere committed b% the lo er court in its rulin$D @.A +t erred in concludin$ that the sub,ect ordinance is ultra vires, or other ise, unfair, unreasonable and oppressive e6ercise of police po er> @=A +t erred in holdin$ that the *uestioned 4rdinance contravenes P.!. E//-. hich allo s operators of all )inds of commercial establishments, e6cept those specified therein> and @-A +t erred in declarin$ the 4rdinance void and unconstitutional.-= +n the Petition and in its Memorandum,-- petitioners in essence repeat the assertions the% made before the lo er court. The% contend that the assailed 4rdinance as enacted in the e6ercise of the inherent and plenar% po er of the "tate and the $eneral elfare clause e6ercised b% local $overnment units provided for in Art. -, "ec. .G @))A of the Revised Charter of Manila and con,unctivel%, "ection EFG @aA E @viiA of the Code.-E The% alle$e that the 4rdinance is a valid e6ercise of police po er> it does not contravene P.!. E//> and that it en,o%s the presumption of validit%. -F +n its Memorandum-1 dated =0 Ma% .//1, private respondent maintains that the 4rdinance is ultra vires and that it is void for bein$ repu$nant to the $eneral la . +t reiterates that the *uestioned 4rdinance is not a valid e6ercise of police po er> that it is violative of due process, confiscator% and amounts to an arbitrar% interference ith its la ful business> that it is violative of the e*ual protection clause> and that it confers on petitioner Cit% Ma%or or an% officer unre$ulated discretion in the e6ecution of the 4rdinance absent rules to $uide and control his actions. This is an opportune time to e6press the Court9s deep sentiment and tenderness for the Ermita-Malate area bein$ its home for several decades. A lon$-time resident, the Court itnessed the area9s man% turn of events. +t relished its $lor% da%s and endured its da%s of infam%. Much as the Court har)s bac) to the resplendent era of the &ld Manila and %earns to restore its lost $randeur, it believes that the 4rdinance is not the fittin$ means to that end. The Court is of the opinion, and so holds, that the lo er court did not err in declarin$ the 4rdinance, as it did, ultra vires and therefore null and void. The 4rdinance is so replete ith constitutional infirmities that almost ever% sentence thereof violates a constitutional provision. The prohibitions and sanctions therein trans$ress the cardinal ri$hts of persons enshrined b% the Constitution. The Court is called upon to shelter these ri$hts from attempts at renderin$ them orthless. The tests of a valid ordinance are ell established. A lon$ line of decisions has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not onl% be ithin the corporate po ers of the local $overnment unit to enact and must be passed accordin$ to the procedure prescribed b% la , it must also conform to the follo in$ substantive re*uirementsD @.A must not contravene the Constitution or an% statute> @=A must not be unfair or oppressive> @-A must not be partial or discriminator%> @EA must not prohibit but ma% re$ulate trade> @FA must be $eneral and consistent ith public polic%> and @1A must not be unreasonable. -0 Anent the first criterion, ordinances shall onl% be valid hen the% are not contrar% to the Constitution and to the la s.-G The 4rdinance must satisf% t o re*uirementsD it must pass muster under the test of constitutionalit% and the test of consistenc% ith the prevailin$ la s. That ordinances should be constitutional uphold the principle of the supremac% of the Constitution. The re*uirement that the enactment must not violate e6istin$ la $ives stress to the precept that local $overnment units are able to le$islate onl% b% virtue of their derivative le$islative po er, a dele$ation of le$islative po er from the national

le$islature. The dele$ate cannot be superior to the principal or e6ercise po ers hi$her than those of the latter.-/ This relationship bet een the national le$islature and the local $overnment units has not been enfeebled b% the ne provisions in the Constitution stren$thenin$ the polic% of local autonom%. The national le$islature is still the principal of the local $overnment units, hich cannot def% its ill or modif% or violate it. EC The 4rdinance as passed b% the Cit% Council in the e6ercise of its police po er, an enactment of the Cit% Council actin$ as a$ent of Con$ress. 8ocal $overnment units, as a$encies of the "tate, are endo ed ith police po er in order to effectivel% accomplish and carr% out the declared ob,ects of their creation. E. This dele$ated police po er is found in "ection .1 of the Code, )no n as the $eneral elfare clause, vizD "ECT+&N .1. General 0el'are.Ever% local $overnment unit shall e6ercise the po ers e6pressl% $ranted, those necessaril% implied therefrom, as ell as po ers necessar%, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective $overnance, and those hich are essential to the promotion of the $eneral elfare. 7ithin their respective territorial ,urisdictions, local $overnment units shall ensure and support, amon$ other thin$s, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safet%, enhance the ri$ht of the people to a balanced ecolo$%, encoura$e and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technolo$ical capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperit% and social ,ustice, promote full emplo%ment amon$ their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants. 8ocal $overnment units e6ercise police po er throu$h their respective le$islative bodies> in this case, the san**unian* panlun*sod or the cit% council. The Code empo ers the le$islative bodies to :enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the $eneral elfare of the provinceOcit%Omunicipalit% and its inhabitants pursuant to "ection .1 of the Code and in the proper e6ercise of the corporate po ers of the provinceOcit%O municipalit% provided under the Code. E= The in*uir% in this Petition is concerned ith the validit% of the e6ercise of such dele$ated po er. $)e 4rdinance contravenes t)e %onstitution The police po er of the Cit% Council, ho ever broad and far-reachin$, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon> and is sub,ect to the limitation that its e6ercise must be reasonable and for the public $ood.E- +n the case at bar, the enactment of the 4rdinance as an invalid e6ercise of dele$ated po er as it is unconstitutional and repu$nant to $eneral la s. The relevant constitutional provisions are the follo in$D "EC. F. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, libert%, and propert%, and the promotion of the $eneral elfare are essential for the en,o%ment b% all the people of the blessin$s of democrac%.EE "EC. .E. The "tate reco$ni3es the role of omen in nation-buildin$, and shall ensure the fundamental e*ualit% before the la of omen and men. EF "EC. .. No person shall be deprived of life, libert% or propert% an% person be denied the e*ual protection of la s. E1 "ec. /. Private propert% shall not be ta)en for public use A. The 4rdinance infrin$es the !ue Process Clause The constitutional safe$uard of due process is embodied in the fiat :@NAo person shall be deprived of life, libert% or propert% ithout due process of la . . . .: EG There is no controllin$ and precise definition of due process. +t furnishes thou$h a standard to hich $overnmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, libert% or propert%, in each appropriate case, be valid. This standard is aptl% described as a responsiveness to the supremac% of reason, obedience to the dictates of ,ustice,E/ and as such it is a limitation upon the e6ercise of the police po er. FC ithout due process of la , nor shall

ithout ,ust compensation. E0

The purpose of the $uarant% is to prevent $overnmental encroachment a$ainst the life, libert% and propert% of individuals> to secure the individual from the arbitrar% e6ercise of the po ers of the $overnment, unrestrained b% the established principles of private ri$hts and distributive ,ustice> to protect propert% from confiscation b% le$islative enactments, from sei3ure, forfeiture, and destruction ithout a trial and conviction b% the ordinar% mode of ,udicial procedure> and to secure to all persons e*ual and impartial ,ustice and the benefit of the $eneral la .F. The $uarant% serves as a protection a$ainst arbitrar% re$ulation, and private corporations and partnerships are :persons: ithin the scope of the $uarant% insofar as their propert% is concerned. F= This clause has been interpreted as imposin$ t o separate limits on $overnment, usuall% called :procedural due process: and :substantive due process.: Procedural due process, as the phrase implies, refers to the procedures that the $overnment must follo before it deprives a person of life, libert%, or propert%. Classic procedural due process issues are concerned ith hat )ind of notice and hat form of hearin$ the $overnment must provide hen it ta)es a particular action.F"ubstantive due process, as that phrase connotes, as)s hether the $overnment has an ade*uate reason for ta)in$ a a% a person9s life, libert%, or propert%. +n other ords, substantive due process loo)s to hether there is a sufficient ,ustification for the $overnment9s action. FE Case la in the (nited "tates @(.".A tells us that hether there is such a ,ustification depends ver% much on the level of scrutin% used. FF 4or e6ample, if a la is in an area here onl% rational basis revie is applied, substantive due process is met so lon$ as the la is rationall% related to a le$itimate $overnment purpose. But if it is an area here strict scrutin% is used, such as for protectin$ fundamental ri$hts, then the $overnment ill meet substantive due process onl% if it can prove that the la is necessar% to achieve a compellin$ $overnment purpose. F1 The police po er $ranted to local $overnment units must al a%s be e6ercised ith utmost observance of the ri$hts of the people to due process and e*ual protection of the la . "uch po er cannot be e6ercised himsicall%, arbitraril% or despoticall%F0 as its e6ercise is sub,ect to a *ualification, limitation or restriction demanded b% the respect and re$ard due to the prescription of the fundamental la , particularl% those formin$ part of the Bill of Ri$hts. +ndividual ri$hts, it bears emphasis, ma% be adversel% affected onl% to the e6tent that ma% fairl% be re*uired b% the le$itimate demands of public interest or public elfare. FG !ue process re*uires the intrinsic validit% of the la in interferin$ ith the ri$hts of the person to his life, libert% and propert%.F/ #e3uisites 'or t)e valid eFercise o' Police Po(er are not met To successfull% invo)e the e6ercise of police po er as the rationale for the enactment of the 4rdinance, and to free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmit%, not onl% must it appear that the interests of the public $enerall%, as distin$uished from those of a particular class, re*uire an interference ith private ri$hts, but the means adopted must be reasonabl% necessar% for the accomplishment of the purpose and not undul% oppressive upon individuals.1C +t must be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private ri$hts can or). A reasonable relation must e6ist bet een the purposes of the police measure and the means emplo%ed for its accomplishment, for even under the $uise of protectin$ the public interest, personal ri$hts and those pertainin$ to private propert% ill not be permitted to be arbitraril% invaded.1. 8ac)in$ a concurrence of these t o re*uisites, the police measure shall be struc) do n as an arbitrar% intrusion into private ri$hts 1= a violation of the due process clause. The 4rdinance as enacted to address and arrest the social ills purportedl% spa ned b% the establishments in the Ermita-Malate area hich are alle$edl% operated under the deceptive veneer of le$itimate, licensed and ta6-pa%in$ ni$htclubs, bars, )arao)e bars, $irlie houses, coc)tail loun$es, hotels and motels. Petitioners insist that even the Court in the case of 6rmita-Malate Hotel and Motel 4perators Association, !nc. v. %ity Mayor o' Manila1- had alread% ta)en ,udicial notice of the :alarmin$ increase in the rate of prostitution, adulter% and fornication in Manila traceable in $reat part to e6istence of motels, hich provide a necessar% atmosphere for clandestine entr%, presence and e6it and thus become the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-see)ers.:1E

The ob,ect of the 4rdinance as, accordin$l%, the promotion and protection of the social and moral values of the communit%. 5rantin$ for the sa)e of ar$ument that the ob,ectives of the 4rdinance are ithin the scope of the Cit% Council9s police po ers, the means emplo%ed for the accomplishment thereof ere unreasonable and undul% oppressive. +t is undoubtedl% one of the fundamental duties of the Cit% of Manila to ma)e all reasonable re$ulations loo)in$ to the promotion of the moral and social values of the communit%. ;o ever, the orth% aim of fosterin$ public morals and the eradication of the communit%9s social ills can be achieved throu$h means less restrictive of private ri$hts> it can be attained b% reasonable restrictions rather than b% an absolute prohibition. The closin$ do n and transfer of businesses or their conversion into businesses :allo ed: under the 4rdinance have no reasonable relation to the accomplishment of its purposes. &ther ise stated, the prohibition of the enumerated establishments ill not per se protect and promote the social and moral elfare of the communit%> it ill not in itself eradicate the alluded social ills of prostitution, adulter%, fornication nor ill it arrest the spread of se6ual disease in Manila. Concedin$ for the nonce that the Ermita-Malate area teems ith houses of ill-repute and establishments of the li)e hich the Cit% Council ma% la full% prohibit, 1F it is baseless and insupportable to brin$ ithin that classification sauna parlors, massa$e parlors, )arao)e bars, ni$ht clubs, da% clubs, super clubs, discothe*ues, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns. This is not arranted under the accepted definitions of these terms. The enumerated establishments are la ful pursuits hich are not per se offensive to the moral elfare of the communit%. That these are used as arenas to consummate illicit se6ual affairs and as venues to further the ille$al prostitution is of no moment. 7e la% stress on the acrid truth that se6ual immoralit%, bein$ a human frailt%, ma% ta)e place in the most innocent of places that it ma% even ta)e place in the substitute establishments enumerated under "ection - of the 4rdinance. +f the fla ed lo$ic of the 4rdinance ere to be follo ed, in the remote instance that an immoral se6ual act transpires in a church cloister or a court chamber, e ould behold the spectacle of the Cit% of Manila orderin$ the closure of the church or court concerned. Ever% house, buildin$, par), curb, street or even vehicles for that matter ill not be e6empt from the prohibition. "impl% because there are no :pure: places here there are impure men. +ndeed, even the "cripture and the Tradition of Christians churches continuall% recall the presence and universality o' sin in manIs )istory. 11 The problem, it needs to be pointed out, is not the establishment, hich b% its nature cannot be said to be in,urious to the health or comfort of the communit% and hich in itself is amoral, but the deplorable human activit% that ma% occur ithin its premises. 7hile a motel ma% be used as a venue for immoral se6ual activit%, it cannot for that reason alone be punished. +t cannot be classified as a house of ill-repute or as a nuisance per se on a mere li)elihood or a na)ed assumption. +f that ere so and if that ere allo ed, then the Ermita-Malate area ould not onl% be pur$ed of its supposed social ills, it ould be e6tin$uished of its soul as ell as ever% human activit%, reprehensible or not, in its ever% noo) and crann% ould be laid bare to the estimation of the authorities. The 4rdinance see)s to le$islate moralit% but fails to address the core issues of moralit%. Tr% as the 4rdinance ma% to shape moralit%, it should not foster the illusion that it can ma)e a moral man out of it because immoralit% is not a thin$, a buildin$ or establishment> it is in the hearts of men. The Cit% Council instead should re$ulate human conduct that occurs inside the establishments, but not to the detriment of libert% and privac% hich are covenants, premiums and blessin$s of democrac%. 7hile petitioners9 earnestness at curbin$ clearl% ob,ectionable social ills is commendable, the% un ittin$l% punish even the proprietors and operators of : holesome,: :innocent: establishments. +n the instant case, there is a clear invasion of personal or propert% ri$hts, personal in the case of those individuals desirous of o nin$, operatin$ and patroni3in$ those motels and propert% in terms of the investments made and the salaries to be paid to those therein emplo%ed. +f the Cit% of Manila so desires to put an end to prostitution, fornication and other social ills, it can instead impose reasonable re$ulations such as dail% inspections of the establishments for an% violation of the conditions of their licenses or permits> it ma% e6ercise its authorit% to suspend or revo)e their licenses for these violations> 10 and it ma% even impose increased license fees. +n other ords, there are other means to reasonabl% accomplish the desired end. Means employed are constitutionally in'irm The 4rdinance disallo s the operation of sauna parlors, massa$e parlors, )arao)e bars, beerhouses, ni$ht clubs, da% clubs, super clubs, discothe*ues, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns in the Ermita-Malate

area. +n "ection - thereof, o ners andOor operators of the enumerated establishments are $iven three @-A months from the date of approval of the 4rdinance ithin hich :to ind up business operations or to transfer to an% place outside the Ermita-Malate area or convert said businesses to other )inds of business allo able ithin the area.: 4urther, it states in "ection E that in cases of subse*uent violations of the provisions of the &rdinance, the :premises of the errin$ establishment shall be closed and padloc)ed permanentl%.: +t is readil% apparent that the means emplo%ed b% the 4rdinance for the achievement of its purposes, the $overnmental interference itself, infrin$es on the constitutional $uarantees of a person9s fundamental ri$ht to libert% and propert%. 8ibert% as $uaranteed b% the Constitution as defined b% #ustice Malcolm to include :the ri$ht to e6ist and the ri$ht to be free from arbitrar% restraint or servitude. The term cannot be d arfed into mere freedom from ph%sical restraint of the person of the citi3en, but is deemed to embrace the ri$ht of man to en,o% the facilities ith hich he has been endo ed b% his Creator, sub,ect onl% to such restraint as are necessar% for the common elfare.:1G +n accordance ith this case, the ri$hts of the citi3en to be free to use his faculties in all la ful a%s> to live and or) here he ill> to earn his livelihood b% an% la ful callin$> and to pursue an% avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of libert%. 1/ The (.". "upreme Court in the case of #ot) v. +oard o' #e*ents,0C sou$ht to clarif% the meanin$ of :libert%.: +t saidD 7hile the Court has not attempted to define ith e6actness the libert%. . . $uaranteed Kb% the 4ifth and 4ourteenth AmendmentsL, the term denotes not merel% freedom from bodil% restraint but also the ri$ht of the individual to contract, to en$a$e in an% of the common occupations of life, to ac*uire useful )no led$e, to marr%, establish a home and brin$ up children, to orship 5od accordin$ to the dictates of his o n conscience, and $enerall% to en,o% those privile$es lon$ reco$ni3edNas essential to the orderl% pursuit of happiness b% free men. +n a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meanin$ of :libert%: must be broad indeed. +n another case, it also confirmed that libert% protected b% the due process clause includes personal decisions relatin$ to marria$e, procreation, contraception, famil% relationships, child rearin$, and education. +n e6plainin$ the respect the Constitution demands for the autonom% of the person in ma)in$ these choices, the (.". "upreme Court e6plainedD These matters, involvin$ the most intimate and personal choices a person ma% ma)e in a lifetime, choices central to personal di$nit% and autonom%, are central to the libert% protected b% the 4ourteenth Amendment. At the heart of libert% is the ri$ht to define one9s o n concept of e6istence, of meanin$, of universe, and of the m%ster% of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood here the% formed under compulsion of the "tate. 0. Persons desirous to o n, operate and patroni3e the enumerated establishments under "ection . of the 4rdinance ma% see) autonom% for these purposes. Motel patrons ho are sin$le and unmarried ma% invo)e this ri$ht to autonom% to consummate their bonds in intimate se6ual conduct ithin the motel9s premises be it stressed that their consensual se6ual behavior does not contravene an% fundamental state polic% as contained in the Constitution. 0= Adults have a ri$ht to choose to for$e such relationships ith others in the confines of their o n private lives and still retain their di$nit% as free persons. The libert% protected b% the Constitution allo s persons the ri$ht to ma)e this choice.0- Their ri$ht to libert% under the due process clause $ives them the full ri$ht to en$a$e in their conduct ithout intervention of the $overnment, as lon$ as the% do not run afoul of the la . 8ibert% should be the rule and restraint the e6ception. 8ibert% in the constitutional sense not onl% means freedom from unla ful $overnment restraint> it must include privac% as ell, if it is to be a repositor% of freedom. The ri$ht to be let alone is the be$innin$ of all freedomit is the most comprehensive of ri$hts and the ri$ht most valued b% civili3ed men. 0E The concept of libert% compels respect for the individual hose claim to privac% and interference demands respect. As the case of Mor'e v. Mutuc,0F borro in$ the ords of 8as)i, so ver% aptl% statedD

Man is one amon$ man%, obstinatel% refusin$ reduction to unit%. ;is separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible> indeed, the% are so fundamental that the% are the basis on hich his civic obli$ations are built. ;e cannot abandon the conse*uences of his isolation, hich are, broadl% spea)in$, that his e6perience is private, and the ill built out of that e6perience personal to himself. +f he surrenders his ill to others, he surrenders himself. +f his ill is set b% the ill of others, he ceases to be a master of himself. + cannot believe that a man no lon$er a master of himself is in an% real sense free. +ndeed, the ri$ht to privac% as a constitutional ri$ht as reco$ni3ed in Mor'e, the invasion of hich should be ,ustified b% a compellin$ state interest. Mor'e accorded reco$nition to the ri$ht to privac% independentl% of its identification ith libert%> in itself it is full% deservin$ of constitutional protection. 5overnmental po ers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citi3en. 01 There is a $reat temptation to have an e6tended discussion on these civil liberties but the Court chooses to e6ercise restraint and restrict itself to the issues presented hen it should. The previous pronouncements of the Court are not to be interpreted as a license for adults to en$a$e in criminal conduct. The reprehensibilit% of such conduct is not diminished. The Court onl% reaffirms and $uarantees their ri$ht to ma)e this choice. "hould the% be prosecuted for their ille$al conduct, the% should suffer the conse*uences of the choice the% have made. That, ultimatel%, is their choice. Modality employed is unla('ul ta-in* +n addition, the 4rdinance is unreasonable and oppressive as it substantiall% divests the respondent of the beneficial use of its propert%. 00 The 4rdinance in "ection . thereof forbids the runnin$ of the enumerated businesses in the Ermita-Malate area and in "ection - instructs its o nersOoperators to ind up business operations or to transfer outside the area or convert said businesses into allo ed businesses. An ordinance hich permanentl% restricts the use of propert% that it can not be used for an% reasonable purpose $oes be%ond re$ulation and must be reco$ni3ed as a ta)in$ of the propert% ithout ,ust compensation. 0G +t is intrusive and violative of the private propert% ri$hts of individuals. The Constitution e6pressl% provides in Article +++, "ection /, that :private propert% shall not be ta)en for public use ithout ,ust compensation.: The provision is the most important protection of propert% ri$hts in the Constitution. This is a restriction on the $eneral po er of the $overnment to ta)e propert%. The constitutional provision is about ensurin$ that the $overnment does not confiscate the propert% of some to $ive it to others. +n part too, it is about loss spreadin$. +f the $overnment ta)es a a% a person9s propert% to benefit societ%, then societ% should pa%. The principal purpose of the $uarantee is :to bar the 5overnment from forcin$ some people alone to bear public burdens hich, in all fairness and ,ustice, should be borne b% the public as a hole.0/ There are t o different t%pes of ta)in$ that can be identified. A :possessor%: ta)in$ occurs hen the $overnment confiscates or ph%sicall% occupies propert%. A :re$ulator%: ta)in$ occurs hen the $overnment9s re$ulation leaves no reasonable economicall% viable use of the propert%. GC +n the landmar) case of Pennsylvania %oal v. Ma)on,G. it as held that a ta)in$ also could be found if $overnment re$ulation of the use of propert% ent :too far.: 7hen re$ulation reaches a certain ma$nitude, in most if not in all cases there must be an e6ercise of eminent domain and compensation to support the act. 7hile propert% ma% be re$ulated to a certain e6tent, if re$ulation $oes too far it ill be reco$ni3ed as a ta)in$.G= No formula or rule can be devised to ans er the *uestions of hat is too far and hen re$ulation becomes a ta)in$. +n Ma)on, #ustice ;olmes reco$ni3ed that it as :a *uestion of de$ree and therefore cannot be disposed of b% $eneral propositions.: &n man% other occasions as ell, the (.". "upreme Court has said that the issue of hen re$ulation constitutes a ta)in$ is a matter of considerin$ the facts in each case. The Court as)s hether ,ustice and fairness re*uire that the economic loss caused b% public action must be compensated b% the $overnment and thus borne b% the public as a hole, or hether the loss should remain concentrated on those fe persons sub,ect to the public action. G7hat is crucial in ,udicial consideration of re$ulator% ta)in$s is that $overnment re$ulation is a ta)in$ if it leaves no reasonable economicall% viable use of propert% in a manner that interferes ith reasonable e6pectations for use.GE A re$ulation that permanentl% denies all economicall% beneficial or productive use of land is, from the o ner9s point of vie , e*uivalent to a :ta)in$: unless principles of nuisance or propert% la

that e6isted hen the o ner ac*uired the land ma)e the use prohibitable. GF 7hen the o ner of real propert% has been called upon to sacrifice all economicall% beneficial uses in the name of the common $ood, that is, to leave his propert% economicall% idle, he has suffered a ta)in$. G1 A re$ulation hich denies all economicall% beneficial or productive use of land ill re*uire compensation under the ta)in$s clause. 7here a re$ulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminatin$ all economicall% beneficial use, a ta)in$ nonetheless ma% have occurred, dependin$ on a comple6 of factors includin$ the re$ulation9s economic effect on the lando ner, the e6tent to hich the re$ulation interferes ith reasonable investment-bac)ed e6pectations and the character of $overnment action. These in*uiries are informed b% the purpose of the ta)in$s clause hich is to prevent the $overnment from forcin$ some people alone to bear public burdens hich, in all fairness and ,ustice, should be borne b% the public as a hole.G0 A restriction on use of propert% ma% also constitute a :ta)in$: if not reasonabl% necessar% to the effectuation of a substantial public purpose or if it has an undul% harsh impact on the distinct investment-bac)ed e6pectations of the o ner.GG The 4rdinance $ives the o ners and operators of the :prohibited: establishments three @-A months from its approval ithin hich to : ind up business operations or to transfer to an% place outside of the ErmitaMalate area or convert said businesses to other )inds of business allo able ithin the area.: The directive to : ind up business operations: amounts to a closure of the establishment, a permanent deprivation of propert%, and is practicall% confiscator%. (nless the o ner converts his establishment to accommodate an :allo ed: business, the structure hich housed the previous business ill be left empt% and $atherin$ dust. "uppose he transfers it to another area, he ill li)e ise leave the entire establishment idle. Consideration must be $iven to the substantial amount of mone% invested to build the edifices hich the o ner reasonabl% e6pects to be returned ithin a period of time. +t is apparent that the 4rdinance leaves no reasonable economicall% viable use of propert% in a manner that interferes ith reasonable e6pectations for use. The second and third options to transfer to an% place outside of the Ermita-Malate area or to convert into allo ed businessesare confiscator% as ell. The penalt% of permanent closure in cases of subse*uent violations found in "ection E of the 4rdinance is also e*uivalent to a :ta)in$: of private propert%. The second option instructs the o ners to abandon their propert% and build another one outside the ErmitaMalate area. +n ever% sense, it *ualifies as a ta)in$ ithout ,ust compensation ith an additional burden imposed on the o ner to build another establishment solel% from his coffers. The proffered solution does not put an end to the :problem,: it merel% relocates it. Not onl% is this impractical, it is unreasonable, onerous and oppressive. The conversion into allo ed enterprises is ,ust as ridiculous. ;o ma% the respondent convert a motel into a restaurant or a coffee shop, art $aller% or music loun$e ithout essentiall% destro%in$ its propert%< This is a ta)in$ of private propert% ithout due process of la , na%, even ithout compensation. The penalt% of closure li)e ise constitutes unla ful ta)in$ that should be compensated b% the $overnment. The burden on the o ner to convert or transfer his business, other ise it ill be closed permanentl% after a subse*uent violation should be borne b% the public as this end benefits them as a hole. Petitioners cannot ta)e refu$e in classif%in$ the measure as a 3onin$ ordinance. A 3onin$ ordinance, althou$h a valid e6ercise of police po er, hich limits a : holesome: propert% to a use hich can not reasonabl% be made of it constitutes the ta)in$ of such propert% ithout ,ust compensation. Private propert% hich is not no6ious nor intended for no6ious purposes ma% not, b% 3onin$, be destro%ed ithout compensation. "uch principle finds no support in the principles of ,ustice as e )no them. The police po ers of local $overnment units hich have al a%s received broad and liberal interpretation cannot be stretched to cover this particular ta)in$. !istinction should be made bet een destruction from necessit% and eminent domain. +t needs restatin$ that the propert% ta)en in the e6ercise of police po er is destro%ed because it is no6ious or intended for a no6ious purpose hile the propert% ta)en under the po er of eminent domain is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore : holesome.:G/ +f it be of public benefit that a : holesome: propert% remain unused or rele$ated to a particular purpose, then certainl% the public should bear the cost of reasonable compensation for the condemnation of private propert% for public use. /C 4urther, the 4rdinance fails to set up an% standard to $uide or limit the petitioners9 actions. +t in no a% controls or $uides the discretion vested in them. +t provides no definition of the establishments covered b% it

and it fails to set forth the conditions hen the establishments come ithin its ambit of prohibition. The 4rdinance confers upon the ma%or arbitrar% and unrestricted po er to close do n establishments. &rdinances such as this, hich ma)e possible abuses in its e6ecution, dependin$ upon no conditions or *ualifications hatsoever other than the unre$ulated arbitrar% ill of the cit% authorities as the touchstone b% hich its validit% is to be tested, are unreasonable and invalid. The 4rdinance should have established a rule b% hich its impartial enforcement could be secured. /. &rdinances placin$ restrictions upon the la ful use of propert% must, in order to be valid and constitutional, specif% the rules and conditions to be observed and conduct to avoid> and must not admit of the e6ercise, or of an opportunit% for the e6ercise, of unbridled discretion b% the la enforcers in carr%in$ out its provisions./= Thus, in %oates v. %ity o' %incinnati,/- as cited in People v. Nazario,/E the (.". "upreme Court struc) do n an ordinance that had made it ille$al for :three or more persons to assemble on an% side al) and there conduct themselves in a manner anno%in$ to persons passin$ b%.: The ordinance as nullified as it imposed no standard at all :because one ma% never )no in advance hat 9anno%s some people but does not anno% others.9 : "imilarl%, the 4rdinance does not specif% the standards to ascertain hich establishments :tend to disturb the communit%,: :anno% the inhabitants,: and :adversel% affect the social and moral elfare of the communit%.: The cited case supports the nullification of the 4rdinance for lac) of comprehensible standards to $uide the la enforcers in carr%in$ out its provisions. Petitioners cannot therefore order the closure of the enumerated establishments ithout infrin$in$ the due process clause. These la ful establishments ma% be re$ulated, but not prevented from carr%in$ on their business. This is a s eepin$ e6ercise of police po er that is a result of a lac) of ima$ination on the part of the Cit% Council and hich amounts to an interference into personal and private ri$hts hich the Court ill not countenance. +n this re$ard, e ta)e a resolute stand to uphold the constitutional $uarantee of the ri$ht to libert% and propert%. 7orth% of note is an e6ample derived from the (.". of a reasonable re$ulation considered 4rdinance enacted b% the Cit% Council. hich is a far cr% from the ill-

+n 0;P+S, !N%. v. 7allas,/F the cit% of !allas adopted a comprehensive ordinance re$ulatin$ :se6uall% oriented businesses,: hich are defined to include adult arcades, boo)stores, video stores, cabarets, motels, and theaters as ell as escort a$encies, nude model studio and se6ual encounter centers. Amon$ other thin$s, the ordinance re*uired that such businesses be licensed. A $roup of motel o ners ere amon$ the three $roups of businesses that filed separate suits challen$in$ the ordinance. The motel o ners asserted that the cit% violated the due process clause b% failin$ to produce ade*uate support for its supposition that rentin$ room for fe er than ten @.CA hours resulted in increased crime and other secondar% effects. The% li)e ise ar$ued than the ten @.CA-hour limitation on the rental of motel rooms placed an unconstitutional burden on the ri$ht to freedom of association. Anent the first contention, the (.". "upreme Court held that the reasonableness of the le$islative ,ud$ment combined ith a stud% hich the cit% considered, as ade*uate to support the cit%9s determination that motels permittin$ room rentals for fe er than ten @.C A hours should be included ithin the licensin$ scheme. As re$ards the second point, the Court held that limitin$ motel room rentals to ten @.CA hours ill have no discernible effect on personal bonds as those bonds that are formed from the use of a motel room for fe er than ten @.CA hours are not those that have pla%ed a critical role in the culture and traditions of the nation b% cultivatin$ and transmittin$ shared ideals and beliefs. The ordinance challen$ed in the above-cited case merel% re$ulated the tar$eted businesses. +t imposed reasonable restrictions> hence, its validit% as upheld. The case of 6rmita Malate Hotel and Motel 4perators Association, !nc. v. %ity Mayor o' Manila ,/1 it needs pointin$ out, is also different from this case in that hat as involved therein as a measure hich re$ulated the mode in hich motels ma% conduct business in order to put an end to practices hich could encoura$e vice and immoralit%. Necessaril%, there as no valid ob,ection on due process or e*ual protection $rounds as the ordinance did not prohibit motels. The 4rdinance in this case ho ever is not a re$ulator% measure but is an e6ercise of an assumed po er to prohibit. /0

The fore$oin$ premises sho that the 4rdinance is an un arranted and unla ful curtailment of propert% and personal ri$hts of citi3ens. 4or bein$ unreasonable and an undue restraint of trade, it cannot, even under the $uise of e6ercisin$ police po er, be upheld as valid. +. $)e 4rdinance violates 63ual Protection %lause E*ual protection re*uires that all persons or thin$s similarl% situated should be treated ali)e, both as to ri$hts conferred and responsibilities imposed. "imilar sub,ects, in other ords, should not be treated differentl%, so as to $ive undue favor to some and un,ustl% discriminate a$ainst others. /G The $uarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of la s hich is en,o%ed b% other persons or other classes in li)e circumstances. // The :e*ual protection of the la s is a pled$e of the protection of e*ual la s.:.CC +t limits $overnmental discrimination. The e*ual protection clause e6tends to artificial persons but onl% insofar as their propert% is concerned. .C. The Court has e6plained the scope of the e*ual protection clause in this iseD

N 7hat does it si$nif%< To *uote from #.M. Tuason Q Co. v. 8and Tenure AdministrationD :The ideal situation is for the la 9s benefits to be available to all, that none be placed outside the sphere of its covera$e. &nl% thus could chance and favor be e6cluded and the affairs of men $overned b% that serene and impartial uniformit%, hich is of the ver% essence of the idea of la .: There is reco$nition, ho ever, in the opinion that hat in fact e6ists :cannot appro6imate the ideal. Nor is the la susceptible to the reproach that it does not ta)e into account the realities of the situation. The constitutional $uarantee then is not to be $iven a meanin$ that disre$ards hat is, hat does in fact e6ist. To assure that the $eneral elfare be promoted, hich is the end of la , a re$ulator% measure ma% cut into the ri$hts to libert% and propert%. Those adversel% affected ma% under such circumstances invo)e the e*ual protection clause onl% if the% can sho that the $overnmental act assailed, far from bein$ inspired b% the attainment of the common eal as prompted b% the spirit of hostilit%, or at the ver% least, discrimination that finds no support in reason.: Classification is thus not ruled out, it bein$ sufficient to *uote from the Tuason decision ane :that the la s operate e*uall% and uniforml% on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not bein$ different, both in the privile$es conferred and the liabilities imposed. 4avoritism and undue preference cannot be allo ed. 4or the principle is that e*ual protection and securit% shall be $iven to ever% person under circumstances hich, if not identical, are analo$ous. +f la be loo)ed upon in terms of burden or char$es, those that fall ithin a class should be treated in the same fashion, hatever restrictions cast on some in the $roup e*uall% bindin$ on the rest..C= 8e$islative bodies are allo ed to classif% the sub,ects of le$islation. +f the classification is reasonable, the la ma% operate onl% on some and not all of the people ithout violatin$ the e*ual protection clause. .C- The classification must, as an indispensable re*uisite, not be arbitrar%. To be valid, it must conform to the follo in$ re*uirementsD .A +t must be based on substantial distinctions. =A +t must be $ermane to the purposes of the la . -A +t must not be limited to e6istin$ conditions onl%. EA +t must appl% e*uall% to all members of the class. .CE +n the Court9s vie , there are no substantial distinctions bet een motels, inns, pension houses, hotels, lod$in$ houses or other similar establishments. B% definition, all are commercial establishments providin$ lod$in$ and usuall% meals and other services for the public. No reason e6ists for prohibitin$ motels and inns but not pension houses, hotels, lod$in$ houses or other similar establishments. The classification in the instant case is invalid as similar sub,ects are not similarl% treated, both as to ri$hts conferred and obli$ations imposed. +t is arbitrar% as it does not rest on substantial distinctions bearin$ a ,ust and fair relation to the purpose of the 4rdinance. The Court li)e ise cannot see the lo$ic for prohibitin$ the business and operation of motels in the ErmitaMalate area but not outside of this area. A no6ious establishment does not become an% less no6ious if located outside the area.

The standard : here omen are used as tools for entertainment: is also discriminator% as prostitution one of the hinted ills the 4rdinance aims to banishis not a profession e6clusive to omen. Both men and omen have an e*ual propensit% to en$a$e in prostitution. +t is not an% less $rave a sin hen men en$a$e in it. And h% ould the assumption that there is an on$oin$ immoral activit% appl% onl% hen omen are emplo%ed and be inapposite hen men are in harness< This discrimination based on $ender violates e*ual protection as it is not substantiall% related to important $overnment ob,ectives. .CF Thus, the discrimination is invalid. 4ailin$ the test of constitutionalit%, the &rdinance li)e ise failed to pass the test of consistenc% prevailin$ la s. C. $)e 4rdinance is repu*nant to *eneral la(sJ it is ultra vires The 4rdinance is in contravention of the Code as the latter merel% empo ers local $overnment units to re$ulate, and not prohibit, the establishments enumerated in "ection . thereof. The po er of the Cit% Council to re$ulate b% ordinances the establishment, operation, and maintenance of motels, hotels and other similar establishments is found in "ection EFG @aA E @ivA, hich provides thatD "ection EFG. Po ers, !uties, 4unctions and Compensation. @aA The san$$unian$ panlun$sod, as the le$islative bod% of the cit%, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the $eneral elfare of the cit% and its inhabitants pursuant to "ection .1 of this Code and in the proper e6ercise of the corporate po ers of the cit% as provided for under "ection == of this Code, and shallD . . . @EA Re$ulate activities relative to the use of land, buildin$s and structures promote the $eneral elfare and for said purpose shallD . . . @ivA Re$ulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lod$in$ houses, and other similar establishments, includin$ tourist $uides and transports . . . . 7hile its po er to re$ulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of an% entertainment or amusement facilities, and to prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment is provided under "ection EFG @aA E @viiA of the Code, hich reads as follo sD "ection EFG. Po ers, !uties, 4unctions and Compensation. @aA The san$$unian$ panlun$sod, as the le$islative bod% of the cit%, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the $eneral elfare of the cit% and its inhabitants pursuant to "ection .1 of this Code and in the proper e6ercise of the corporate po ers of the cit% as provided for under "ection == of this Code, and shallD . . . @EA Re$ulate activities relative to the use of land, buildin$s and structures promote the $eneral elfare and for said purpose shallD . . . @viiA Re$ulate the establishment, operation, and maintenance of an% entertainment or amusement facilities, includin$ theatrical performances, circuses, billiard pools, public dancin$ schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massa$e parlors, and other places for entertainment or amusement> re$ulate such other events or activities for amusement or entertainment, particularl% those hich tend to disturb the communit% or anno% the inhabitants, or re*uire the suspension or suppression of the same> or, prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment in order to protect the social and moral elfare of the communit%. ithin the cit% in order to ithin the cit% in order to ith

Clearl%, ith respect to cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lod$in$ houses, and other similar establishments, the onl% po er of the Cit% Council to le$islate relative thereto is to re$ulate them to promote the $eneral elfare. The Code still ithholds from cities the po er to suppress and prohibit alto$ether the establishment, operation and maintenance of such establishments. +t is ell to recall the rulin$s of the Court in 8(on* Sin* v. %ity o' Manila.C1 thatD The ord :re$ulate,: as used in subsection @lA, section =EEE of the Administrative Code, means and includes the po er to control, to $overn, and to restrain> but :re$ulate: should not be construed as s%non%mous ith :suppress: or :prohibit.: Conse*uentl%, under the po er to re$ulate laundries, the municipal authorities could ma)e proper police re$ulations as to the mode in hich the emplo%ment or business shall be e6ercised..C0 And in People v. 6s*uerra,.CG herein the Court nullified an ordinance of the Municipalit% of Tacloban hich prohibited the sellin$, $ivin$ and dispensin$ of li*uor ratiocinatin$ that the municipalit% is empo ered onl% to re$ulate the same and not prohibit. The Court therein declared thatD @AAs a $eneral rule hen a municipal corporation is specificall% $iven authorit% or po er to re$ulate or to license and re$ulate the li*uor traffic, po er to prohibit is impliedl% ithheld. .C/ These doctrines still hold contrar% to petitioners9 assertion ..C that the% upon Cit% Councils prohibitor% po ers. ere modified b% the Code vestin$

"imilarl%, the Cit% Council e6ercises re$ulator% po ers over public dancin$ schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massa$e parlors, and other places for entertainment or amusement as found in the first clause of "ection EFG @aA E @viiA. +ts po ers to re$ulate, suppress and suspend :such other events or activities for amusement or entertainment, particularl% those hich tend to disturb the communit% or anno% the inhabitants: and to :prohibit certain forms of amusement or entertainment in order to protect the social and moral elfare of the communit%: are stated in the second and third clauses, respectivel% of the same "ection. The several po ers of the Cit% Council as provided in "ection EFG @aA E @viiA of the Code, it is pertinent to emphasi3e, are separated b% semi-colons @>A, the use of hich indicates that the clauses in hich these po ers are set forth are independent of each other albeit closel% related to ,ustif% bein$ put to$ether in a sin$le enumeration or para$raph. ... These po ers, therefore, should not be confused, commin$led or consolidated as to create a con$lomerated and unified po er of re$ulation, suppression and prohibition...= The Con$ress une*uivocabl% specified the establishments and forms of amusement or entertainment sub,ect to re$ulation amon$ hich are beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lod$in$ houses, and other similar establishments @"ection EFG @aA E @ivAA, public dancin$ schools, public dance halls, sauna baths, massa$e parlors, and other places for entertainment or amusement @"ection EFG @aA E @viiAA. This enumeration therefore cannot be included as amon$ :other events or activities for amusement or entertainment, particularl% those hich tend to disturb the communit% or anno% the inhabitants: or :certain forms of amusement or entertainment: hich the Cit% Council ma% suspend, suppress or prohibit. The rule is that the Cit% Council has onl% such po ers as are e6pressl% $ranted to it and those hich are necessaril% implied or incidental to the e6ercise thereof. B% reason of its limited po ers and the nature thereof, said po ers are to be construed strictissimi 2uris and an% doubt or ambi$uit% arisin$ out of the terms used in $rantin$ said po ers must be construed a$ainst the Cit% Council. ..- Moreover, it is a $eneral rule in statutor% construction that the e6press mention of one person, thin$, or conse*uence is tantamount to an e6press e6clusion of all others. 6Fpressio unius est eFclusio alterium. This ma6im is based upon the rules of lo$ic and the natural or)in$s of human mind. +t is particularl% applicable in the construction of such statutes as create ne ri$hts or remedies, impose penalties or punishments, or other ise come under the rule of strict construction. ..E The ar$ument that the Cit% Council is empo ered to enact the 4rdinance b% virtue of the $eneral elfare clause of the Code and of Art. -, "ec. .G @))A of the Revised Charter of Manila is li)e ise ithout merit. &n the first point, the rulin$ of the Court in People v. 6s*uerra,..F is instructive. +t held thatD The po ers conferred upon a municipal council in the $eneral elfare clause, or section ==-G of the Revised Administrative Code, refers to matters not covered b% the other provisions of the same Code, and therefore it can not be applied to into6icatin$ li*uors, for the po er to re$ulate the sellin$, $ivin$ a a% and dispensin$ thereof is $ranted specificall% b% section ==E= @$A to municipal councils. To hold that, under the $eneral po er $ranted b% section ==-G, a municipal council ma% enact the

ordinance in *uestion, not ithstandin$ the provision of section ==E= @$A, ould be to ma)e the latter superfluous and nu$ator%, because the po er to prohibit, includes the po er to re$ulate, the sellin$, $ivin$ a a% and dispensin$ of into6icatin$ li*uors. &n the second point, it suffices to sa% that the Code bein$ a later e6pression of the le$islative ill must necessaril% prevail and override the earlier la , the Revised Charter of Manila. :e*is posteriores priores contrarias abro*ant, or later statute repeals prior ones hich are repu$nant thereto. As bet een t o la s on the same sub,ect matter, hich are irreconcilabl% inconsistent, that hich is passed later prevails, since it is the latest e6pression of le$islative ill...1 +f there is an inconsistenc% or repu$nance bet een t o statutes, both relatin$ to the same sub,ect matter, hich cannot be removed b% an% fair and reasonable method of interpretation, it is the latest e6pression of the le$islative ill hich must prevail and override the earlier. ..0 +mplied repeals are those hich ta)e place hen a subse*uentl% enacted la contains provisions contrar% to those of an e6istin$ la but no provisions e6pressl% repealin$ them. "uch repeals have been divided into t o $eneral classesD those hich occur here an act is so inconsistent or irreconcilable ith an e6istin$ prior act that onl% one of the t o can remain in force and those hich occur hen an act covers the hole sub,ect of an earlier act and is intended to be a substitute therefor. The validit% of such a repeal is sustained on the $round that the latest e6pression of the le$islative ill should prevail. ..G +n addition, "ection F-E@fA of the Code states that :All $eneral and special la s, acts, cit% charters, decrees, e6ecutive orders, proclamations and administrative re$ulations, or part or parts thereof hich are inconsistent ith an% of the provisions of this Code are hereb% repealed or modified accordin$l%.: Thus, submittin$ to petitioners9 interpretation that the Revised Charter of Manila empo ers the Cit% Council to prohibit motels, that portion of the Charter statin$ such must be considered repealed b% the Code as it is at variance ith the latter9s provisions $rantin$ the Cit% Council mere re$ulator% po ers. +t is ell to point out that petitioners also cannot see) cover under the $eneral elfare clause authori3in$ the abatement of nuisances ithout ,udicial proceedin$s. That tenet applies to a nuisance per se, or one hich affects the immediate safet% of persons and propert% and ma% be summaril% abated under the undefined la of necessit%. +t can not be said that motels are in,urious to the ri$hts of propert%, health or comfort of the communit%. +t is a le$itimate business. +f it be a nuisance per accidens it ma% be so proven in a hearin$ conducted for that purpose. A motel is not per se a nuisance arrantin$ its summar% abatement ithout ,udicial intervention.../ Notabl%, the Cit% Council as conferred po ers to prevent and prohibit certain activities and establishments in another section of the Code hich is reproduced as follo sD "ection EFG. Po ers, !uties, 4unctions and Compensation. @aA The san$$unian$ panlun$sod, as the le$islative bod% of the cit%, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the $eneral elfare of the cit% and its inhabitants pursuant to "ection .1 of this Code and in the proper e6ercise of the corporate po ers of the cit% as provided for under "ection == of this Code, and shallD @.A Approve ordinances and pass resolutions necessar% for an efficient and effective cit% $overnment, and in this connection, shallD . . . @vA Enact ordinances intended to prevent, suppress and impose appropriate penalties for habitual drun)enness in public places, va$ranc%, mendicanc%, prostitution, establishment and maintenance of houses of ill repute, $amblin$ and other prohibited $ames of chance, fraudulent devices and a%s to obtain mone% or propert%, dru$ addiction, maintenance of dru$ dens, dru$ pushin$, ,uvenile delin*uenc%, the printin$, distribution or e6hibition of obscene or porno$raphic materials or publications, and such other activities inimical to the elfare and morals of the inhabitants of the cit%> . . . +f it ere the intention of Con$ress to confer upon the Cit% Council the po er to prohibit the establishments enumerated in "ection . of the 4rdinance, it ould have so declared in uncertain terms b% addin$ them to the list of the matters it ma% prohibit under the above-*uoted "ection. The 4rdinance no vainl% attempts to lump these establishments ith houses of ill-repute and e6pand the Cit% Council9s po ers in the second

and third clauses of "ection EFG @aA E @viiA of the Code in an effort to overreach its prohibitor% po ers. +t is evident that these establishments ma% onl% be re$ulated in their establishment, operation and maintenance. +t is important to distin$uish the punishable activities from the establishments themselves. That these establishments are reco$ni3ed le$itimate enterprises can be $leaned from another "ection of the Code. "ection .-. under the Title on 8ocal 5overnment Ta6ation e6pressl% mentioned proprietors or operators of massa$e clinics, sauna, Tur)ish and " edish baths, hotels, motels and lod$in$ houses as amon$ the :contractors: defined in para$raph @hA thereof. The same "ection also defined :amusement: as a :pleasurable diversion and entertainment,: :s%non%mous to rela6ation, avocation, pastime or fun>: and :amusement places: to include :theaters, cinemas, concert halls, circuses and other places of amusement here one see)s admission to entertain oneself b% seein$ or vie in$ the sho or performances.: Thus, it can be inferred that the Code considers these establishments as le$itimate enterprises and activities. +t is ell to recall the ma6im reddendo sin*ula sin*ulis hich means that ords in different parts of a statute must be referred to their appropriate connection, $ivin$ to each in its place, its proper force and effect, and, if possible, renderin$ none of them useless or superfluous, even if strict $rammatical construction demands other ise. 8i)e ise, here ords under consideration appear in different sections or are idel% dispersed throu$hout an act the same principle applies. .=C Not onl% does the 4rdinance contravene the Code, it li)e ise runs counter to the provisions of P.!. E//. As correctl% ar$ued b% MT!C, the statute had alread% converted the residential Ermita-Malate area into a commercial area. The decree allo ed the establishment and operation of all )inds of commercial establishments e6cept arehouse or open stora$e depot, dump or %ard, motor repair shop, $asoline service station, li$ht industr% ith an% machiner% or funeral establishment. The rule is that for an ordinance to be valid and to have force and effect, it must not onl% be ithin the po ers of the council to enact but the same must not be in conflict ith or repu$nant to the $eneral la . .=. As succinctl% illustrated in Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Aut)orityD.== The re*uirement that the enactment must not violate e6istin$ la e6plains itself. 8ocal political subdivisions are able to le$islate onl% b% virtue of a valid dele$ation of le$islative po er from the national le$islature @e6cept onl% that the po er to create their o n sources of revenue and to lev% ta6es is conferred b% the Constitution itselfA. The% are mere a$ents vested ith hat is called the po er of subordinate le$islation. As dele$ates of the Con$ress, the local $overnment units cannot contravene but must obe% at all times the ill of their principal. +n the case before us, the enactment in *uestion, hich are merel% local in ori$in cannot prevail a$ainst the decree, hich has the force and effect of a statute..=Petitioners contend that the 4rdinance en,o%s the presumption of validit%. 7hile this ma% be the rule, it has alread% been held that althou$h the presumption is al a%s in favor of the validit% or reasonableness of the ordinance, such presumption must nevertheless be set aside hen the invalidit% or unreasonableness appears on the face of the ordinance itself or is established b% proper evidence. The e6ercise of police po er b% the local $overnment is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental la of the land, or an act of the le$islature, or unless it is a$ainst public polic% or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminatin$ or in dero$ation of a common ri$ht..=E %onclusion All considered, the 4rdinance invades fundamental personal and propert% ri$hts and impairs personal privile$es. +t is constitutionall% infirm. The 4rdinance contravenes statutes> it is discriminator% and unreasonable in its operation> it is not sufficientl% detailed and e6plicit that abuses ma% attend the enforcement of its sanctions. And not to be for$otten, the Cit% Council under the Code had no po er to enact the 4rdinance and is therefore ultra vires, null and void. Concededl%, the challen$ed 4rdinance as enacted ith the best of motives and shares the concern of the public for the cleansin$ of the Ermita-Malate area of its social sins. Police po er le$islation of such character deserves the full endorsement of the ,udiciar% e reiterate our support for it. But inspite of its virtuous aims, the enactment of the 4rdinance has no statutor% or constitutional authorit% to stand on. 8ocal le$islative bodies, in this case, the Cit% Council, cannot prohibit the operation of the enumerated establishments under "ection . thereof or order their transfer or conversion ithout infrin$in$ the constitutional $uarantees of due process and e*ual protection of la s not even under the $uise of police po er.

3HEREFORE, the Petition is hereb% !EN+E! and the decision of the Re$ional Trial Court declarin$ the 4rdinance void is A44+RME!. Costs a$ainst petitioners. SO OR#ERE#. 7avide, Jr., %.J., Puno, Guisumbin*, Sandoval-Gutierrez, %arpio, Austria-Martinez, %orona, %arpio-Morales, %alle2o, Sr., Azcuna, %)ico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ., concur Pan*aniban, J., in the result. Ynares- Santia*o, J., concur in the result onl%.
Foo.no.e0
.

!ated .. #anuar% .//F> #ollo, pp. 1-0!d. at 1E-0=.

ith anne6es.

The lo er court declared the 4rdinance to be null and void.

+n the case of Cotton Club Corporation, etc. v. ;on. Alfredo ". 8im, etc, et al. before RTC, Branch FF of Manila, doc)eted as Civil Case No. /--11FF., #ud$e ;ermo$enes R. 8i a$ declared the &rdinance void and unconstitutional. The defendants elevated the case to the Court of Appeals hich denied their petition on procedural $rounds in its !ecision dated =. Ma% =CC-. +t appears that defendants ;on. Alfredo ". 8im and the Cit% Council of Manila did not elevate the case before the Court. Entr% of #ud$ment of the CA !ecision as made on == April =CC-.
E F

#ollo, p. -0. !d. at. 0F> +t no !d. at -F-E0. !d. at E1. calls itself ;otel 'ictoria.

The principal authors of the 4rdinance areD ;ons. Bienvenido M. Abante, #r.> ;umberto B. Basco> Nestor C. Ponce, #r.> Ernesto A. Nieva> 4rancisco 5. 'arona, #r.> #hosep ?. 8ope3> Ma. Pa3 E. ;errera> 5erino A. Tolentino, #r> Ma. 8ourdes M. +sip> 4laviano 4. Concepcion, #r.> Ernesto B.P. Maceda, #r.> 'ictoriano A. Melende3> Ma. Cora3on R. Caballes> Bernardito C. An$> Roberto C. &campo> Ro$elio B. dela Pa3> Romeo 5. Rivera> Ale6ander ". Ricafort> Avelino ". Cailian> Bernardo !. Ra$asa> #oe% !. ;i3on> 8eonardo 8. An$at> and #ocel%n B. !a is.
/ .C

#ollo, p. G. RTC Records, pp. .C-... Para$raph @aA E @ivA, "ection EFG, Chapter - of the Code reads, thusD

..

.=

"ection EFG. Po ers, !uties, 4unctions and Compensation. @aA The san$$unian$ panlun$sod, as the le$islative bod% of the cit%, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the $eneral elfare of the cit% and its inhabitants pursuant to "ection .1 of this Code and in the proper e6ercise of the corporate po ers of the cit% as provided for under "ection == of this Code, and shallD . . . @EA Re$ulate activities relative to the use of land, buildin$s and structures elfare and for said purpose shallD . . .. @ivA Re$ulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lod$in$ houses, and other similar establishments, includin$ tourist $uides and transports> . . . Presidential !ecree No. E//> !ated =G #une ./0E> !eclarin$ Portions of the Ermita-Malate Area as Commercial Hones Certain Restrictions. +t reads in fullD
.-

ithin the cit% in order to promote the $eneral

ith

7;EREA", the $overnment is committed to the promotion and development of tourism in the countr%, particularl% in the Cit% of Manila hich is the hub of commercial and cultural activities in Manila Metropolitan Area>

7;EREA", certain portions of the districts of Ermita and Malate )no n as the Tourist Belt are still classified as Class :A: Residential Hones and Class :B: Residential Hones here hotels and other business establishments such as curio stores, souvenir shops, handicraft displa% centers and the li)e are not allo ed under the e6istin$ 3onin$ plan in the Cit% of Manila> 7;EREA", the presence of such establishments in the area ould not onl% serve as an attraction for tourists but are dollar earnin$ enterprises as ell, hich tourist areas all over the orld cannot do ithout> N&7, T;ERE4&RE, +, 4ER!+NAN! E. MARC&", President of the Philippines, b% virtue of the po ers vested in me under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed 4orces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation No. .CG., dated "eptember =., ./0=, and 5eneral &rder No. ., dated "eptember ==, ./0=, as amended, do hereb% order and decree the classification as a Commercial Hone of that portion of the Ermita-Malate area bounded b% Teodoro M. Bala , "r. "treet in the north> Taft Avenue in the east> 'ito Cru3 "treet in the south and Ro6as Boulevard in the est. PR&'+!E!, ;&7E'ER, That no permit shall be $ranted for the establishment of an% ne arehouse or open stora$e depot, dump or %ard, motor repair shop, $asoline service station, li$ht industr% ith an% machiner% or funeral establishment in these areas, and PR&'+!E!, 4(RT;ER, That for purposes of realt% ta6 assessment on properties situated therein, lands and buildin$s used e6clusivel% for residential purposes b% the o ners themselves shall remain assessed as residential properties. All la s, ordinances, orders, rules and re$ulations accordin$l%. This !ecree shall ta)e effect immediatel%. !one in the Cit% of Manila this =Gth da% of #une in the %ear of &ur 8ord, nineteen hundred and sevent%-four.
.E

hich are inconsistent

ith this !ecree are hereb% repealed or modified

RTC Records, pp. ..-.-. !d. at .FG-.0.. !d. at .1C. E. Phil. .C- @./=CA> see also "amson v. Ma%or of Bacolod Cit%, 5.R. No. 8-=G0EF, =- &ctober ./0E, 1C "CRA =10. RTC Records, p. .1.. Approved on .G #une ./E/. RTC Records, p. .1C. Supra note .G. !d. at .1E. !bid. !d. at .1F-.1/. !d. at GE. !d. at EF-. #ollo, pp. 1 and 0=. !d. at 1. !ated .= !ecember .//E> !d. at 0-. !d. at =. Supra note .-. #ollo, p. .-. !d. at ./C-=C.. !d. at .1, ./E, ./G.

.F

.1

.0

.G

./

=C

=.

==

=-

=E

=F

=1

=0

=G

=/

-C

-.

-=

--

-E

-F

!d. at ./, ==, =F-=1, .//. !d. at .FC-.GC.

-1

Tatel v. Municipalit% of 'irac, 5.R. No. EC=E-, .. March .//=, =C0 "CRA .F0, .1.> "olicitor 5eneral v. Metropolitan Manila Authorit%, 5.R. No. .C=0G=, .. !ecember .//., =CE "CRA G-0, GEF> Ma$ta,as v. Pr%ce Properties Corp., +nc., 5.R. No. ...C/0, =C #ul% .//E, =-E "CRA =FF, =1G-=10.
-0 -G

See ART. 0, par. @-A of the Civil Code

hich reads, thusD . . .

Administrative or e6ecutive acts, orders and re$ulations shall be valid onl% Constitution.
-/

hen the% are not contrar% to the la s or the

Ma$ta,as v. Pr%ce Properties Corp, +nc., 5.R. No. ...C/0, =C #ul% .//E, =-E "CRA =FF, =0C-=0.. !d. at =0-. Acebedo &ptical Compan%, +nc. v. Court of Appeals, -GF Phil. /F1, /1G-/1/ @=CCCA.

EC

E.

Metropolitan Manila !evt. Authorit% v. Bel-Air 'illa$e Asso., -GF Phil. FG1, 1C- @=CCCA, citin* "ections E1G @aA, EFG @aA, and EE0 @aA, Boo) +++, 8ocal 5overnment Code of .//..
E= E-

.1 C.#."., pp. F1=-F1F. Art. ++, !eclaration of principles and state policies, ./G0 const. !bid. Art. +++, Bill of Ri$hts, ./G0 Const. !bid. !d. at "ec. /> See also Cru3, +sa$ani A., Constitutional 8a /0 @.//GA.

EE

EF

E1

E0

EG

E/

Ermita-Malate ;otel and Motel &perators Association, +nc. v. Cit% Ma%or of Manila, =C Phil. GE/, G1C @./10A. See +n re 8ut)er, &)l. Cr., =0E P. =d 0G1, 0G/, 0/C. Supra note E- at ..FC-..F.. See "mith, Bell Q Co. v. Natividad, EC Phil. .-1, .EF @././A. Chemerins)%, Er in, Constitutional 8a !d. at F=--F=E. See Count% of "acramento v. 8e is, F=- (.". G--, GEC @.//GA. Chemerins)%, supra note F- at F=E. Principles And Policies, =nd Ed. F=- @=CC=A.

FC

F.

F=

F-

FE

FF

F1

8im v. Court of Appeals, E-F Phil. GF0, G1G @=CC=A> This is a related case involvin$ the same &rdinance challen$ed in this case. The Court denied the petition *uestionin$ the rit of prohibitor% preliminar% in,unction issued b% the RTC, en,oinin$ the closure of a certain establishment pursuant to the &rdinance.
F0 FG

;omeo ners9 Asso. of the Phil., +nc. v. Municipal Board of the Cit% of Manila, .-- Phil. /C-, /C0 @./1GA. Cru3, +sa$ani A., Constitutional 8a .CE @.//GA.

F/

See (.". v. Toribio, .F Phil. GF @./.CA> 4abie v. Cit% of Manila, =. Phil. EG1 @./.=A> Case v. Board of ;ealth, =E Phil. =F1 @./.-A.
1C 1.

Balacuit v. C4+ of A$usan del Norte, No. 8--GE=/, -C #une ./GG, .1- "CRA .G=, ./.-./-.

1=

Cru3, supra note F/ at F1. Ermita-Malate ;otel and Motel &perators Assoc. +nc. v. Cit% Ma%or of Manila, supra note E/. !d. at GFG-GF/. "ection EFG @aA . @vA, the Code. Catechism of the Catholic Church, !efinitive Edition, p. .C.> ECCE and 7ord Q 8ife Publications, !on Bosco Compound, Ma)ati. 8im v. Court of Appeals, supra note F0 at G10. Rubi v. Provincial Board -/ Phil. 11C @././A, as cited in Morfe v. Mutuc, .-C Phil. E.F @./1GA. Morfe v. Mutuc, .-C Phil. E.F, EEC @./1GA. ECG (.". F0=. See 8a rence v. Te6as, F-/ (.". FFG @=CC-A. Concerned Emplo%ee v. 5lenda Espiritu Ma%or, A.M. No. P-C=-.F1E, =- November =CCE, J. Tin$a, ponente. 8a rence v. Te6as, supra note 0C. Morfe v. Mutuc, supra note 1G at EE=. !d. at EE=-EE-, citin* 8as)i, 8ibert% in the Modern "tate, EE @./EEA. !d. at EEE-EEF, citin* Emerson, Nine #ustices in "earch of a !octrine, 1E Mich. 8a . Rev. =./, ==/ @./1FA. People v. 4a,ardo, et al., .CE Phil. EE-, EE0 @./FGA. !bid. citin* Arverne Ba% Const. Co. v. Thatcher @N.?.A ..0 A8R. ...C, ...1. Chemerins)%, supra note F- at 1.1. !d. at 1.0. =1C (.". -/-, E.F @./==A. !d. at E.--E.F. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Ne Chemerins)% , supra note F- at 1=--1=1. See 8ucas v. "outh Carolina Coastal Council, FCF (.". .CC- @.//=A. !bid. Chemerins)%, supra note F- at .11. Supra note G=. Cru3, supra note F/ at -G. People v. 4a,ardo, supra note 01 at EE-, EEG citin* Te s v. 7oolhiser @./--A -F= +... =.=, .GF N.E. G=0. !d. at EE1-EE0. ?or) Cit%, E-G (.". .CE @./0GA.

1-

1E

1F

11

10

1G

1/

0C

0.

0=

0-

0E

0F

01

00

0G

0/

GC

G.

G=

G-

GE

GF

G1

G0

GG

G/

/C

/.

!d. at EE0, citin* "chloss Poster Adv. Co., +nc. v. Cit% of Roc) ;ill, et al., = "E @=dA, pp. -/E--/F> People v. Na3ario, No. 8EE.E-, -. Au$ust ./GG, .1F "CRA .G1, ./F.
/=

/-

EC= (.". 1.. @./0.A. No. 8-EE.E-, -. Au$ust ./GG, .1F "CRA .G1, ./F. E/- (.". =.F @.//CA. Supra note E/. !e la Cru3, et al. v. ;on. Paras, et al., =CG Phil. E/C, FC- @./G-A. See +chon$ v. ;ernande3, .C. Phil. ..FF @./F0A.

/E

/F

/1

/0

/G

.1B Am #ur =d 00/ =// citin$ "tate of Missouri e6 rel. 5aines v. Canada, -CF (.". --0, F/ ". Ct. =-=, G- 8. Ed. =CG @./-GA, reh9$ denied, -CF (.". 101, F/ ". Ct. -F1, G- 8. Ed. E-0 @./-/A and mandate conformed to, -EE Mo. .=-G, .-. ".7. =d =.0 @./-/A.
//

.1B Am #ur =d 00/ =// citin$ Romer v. Evans, F.0 (.". 1=C, ..1 ". Ct. .1=C, .-E 8. Ed. =d GFF, .C/ Ed. 8a Rep. F-/, 0C 4air Empl. Prac. Cas. @BNAA ..GC, 1G Empl. Prac. !ec. @CC;A EEC.- @.//1A> 7al)er v. Board of "upervisors of Monroe Count%, ==E Miss. GC., G. "o. =d ==F @./FFA, cert. denied, -FC (.". GG0, 01 ". Ct. .E=, .CC 8. Ed. 0G= @./FFA> Preisler v. Calcaterra, -1= Mo. 11=, =E- ".7. =d 1= @./F.A.
.CC .C.

Supra note F= at .EF. NuJe3 v. "andi$anba%an, ./0 Phil. EC0 @./G=A. Cru3, supra note F/ at .=F. See People v. Ca%at, 1G Phil. .= @./-/A. See Crai$ v. Boren, E=/ (.". ./C @./01A. Supra note .0. !d. at .CG @./=CA. G. Phil. -- @./EGA. !d. at -G. #ollo, p. ./.

.C=

.C-

.CE

.CF

.C1

.C0

.CG

.C/

..C

RTC Records, p. EC/> The !ecision of the Re$ional Trial Court of Manila, Branch FF in the case of Cotton Club Corporation, +nc. v. ;on. Alfredo ". 8im, etc., et al., Civil Case No. /--11FF.> !ated =G #ul% .//-> Penned b% #ud$e ;ermo$enes R. 8i a$> Citin$ "ha , ;arr%, Punctuate it Ri$htT Everda% ;andboo)s .=F-.=1.
... ..=

!d. at ECG. Cit% of &3amis v. 8umapas, No. 8--C0=0, .F #ul% ./0F, 1F "CRA --, E=.

..-

4rancisco, 'icente #., "tatutor% Construction, "econd Edition .0= @./F/A> See Pepsi-Cola Bottlin$ Compan% of the Philippines, +nc. v. Municipalit% of Tanauan, 8e%te, et al., .1. Phil. F/., 1CF @./01A.
..E ..F

Supra note .C0 at --. A$palo, Ruben 4., "tatutor% Construction =/1 @./G1A. 4rancisco, supra note ..- at =0..

..1

..0

Cra ford, Earl T., The Construction of "tatutes ./1-./0 @./ECA> See Mecano v. Commission on Audit, 5.R. No. .C-/G=, .. !ecember .//=, =.1 "CRA FCC, FCF.
..G ../

See Estate of 5re$oria 4rancisco v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. /F=0/, =F #ul% .//., .// "CRA F/F, 1C.. 4rancisco, supra note ..- at .0G-.0/> See Bin$, et al. v. ;ernae3, etc., et al., ..E Phil. 0-C, 0-/ @./1=A.

.=C

.=.

Chua 8ao, etc., et al. v. Ra%mundo, etc., et al., .CE Phil. -C=, -C0 @./FGA. 5.R. No. .C=0G=, .. !ecember .//., =CE "CRA G-0. !d. at GE0. Balacuit v. C4+ of A$usan del Norte, supra note 1. at ./G-.//. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

.==

.=-

.=E

G.R. No. 122846

J&nu&-$ 2+, 2++9

3H TE L GHT CORPOR!T ON, T T!N UM CORPOR!T ON &n' ST!. MES! TOUR ST J #E(ELOPMENT CORPOR!T ON, Petitioners, vs. C TF OF M!N L!, -e,-e0en.e' 7$ #E C!STRO, M!FOR !LFRE#O S. L M, Respondent. !EC+"+&N T/n4&, J.: 7ith another cit% ordinance of Manila also principall% involvin$ the tourist district as sub,ect, the Court is confronted ane ith the incessant clash bet een $overnment po er and individual libert% in tandem ith the archet%pal tension bet een la and moralit%. +n %ity o' Manila v. :a*uio, Jr.,. the Court affirmed the nullification of a cit% ordinance barrin$ the operation of motels and inns, amon$ other establishments, ithin the Ermita-Malate area. The petition at bar assails a similarl%-motivated cit% ordinance that prohibits those same establishments from offerin$ short-time admission, as ell as pro-rated or : ash up: rates for such abbreviated sta%s. &ur earlier decision tested the cit% ordinance a$ainst our sacred constitutional ri$hts to libert%, due process and e*ual protection of la . The same parameters appl% to the present petition. This Petition= under Rule EF of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, hich see)s the reversal of the !ecision- in C.A.-5.R. ".P. No. ---.1 of the Court of Appeals, challen$es the validit% of Manila Cit% &rdinance No. 000E entitled, :An &rdinance Prohibitin$ "hort-Time Admission, "hort-Time Admission Rates, and 7ash-(p Rate "chemes in ;otels, Motels, +nns, 8od$in$ ;ouses, Pension ;ouses, and "imilar Establishments in the Cit% of Manila: @the &rdinanceA. +. The facts are as follo sD &n !ecember -, .//=, Cit% Ma%or Alfredo ". 8im @Ma%or 8imA si$ned into la is reproduced in full, hereunderD the &rdinance. E The &rdinance

"ECT+&N .. !eclaration of Polic%. +t is hereb% the declared polic% of the Cit% 5overnment to protect the best interest, health and elfare, and the moralit% of its constituents in $eneral and the %outh in particular. "EC. =. Title. This ordinance shall be )no n as :An &rdinance: prohibitin$ short time admission in hotels, motels, lod$in$ houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the Cit% of Manila. "EC. -. Pursuant to the above polic%, short-time admission and rate K sicL, ash-up rate or other similarl% concocted terms, are hereb% prohibited in hotels, motels, inns, lod$in$ houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the Cit% of Manila. "EC. E. !efinition of TermKsL. "hort-time admission shall mean admittance and char$in$ of room rate for less than t elve @.=A hours at an% $iven time or the rentin$ out of rooms more than t ice a da% or an%

other term that ma% be concocted b% o ners or mana$ers of said establishments but or ould bear the same meanin$.

ould mean the same

"EC. F. Penalt% Clause. An% person or corporation ho shall violate an% provision of this ordinance shall upon conviction thereof be punished b% a fine of 4ive Thousand @PF,CCC.CCA Pesos or imprisonment for a period of not e6ceedin$ one @.A %ear or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court> Provided, That in case of KaL ,uridical person, the president, the mana$er, or the persons in char$e of the operation thereof shall be liableD Provided, further, That in case of subse*uent conviction for the same offense, the business license of the $uilt% part% shall automaticall% be cancelled. "EC. 1. Repealin$ Clause. An% or all provisions of Cit% ordinances not consistent measure or an% portion hereof are hereb% deemed repealed. "EC. 0. Effectivit%. This ordinance shall ta)e effect immediatel% upon approval. Enacted b% the cit% Council of Manila at its re$ular session toda%, November .C, .//=. Approved b% ;is ;onor, the Ma%or on !ecember -, .//=. &n !ecember .F, .//=, the Malate Tourist and !evelopment Corporation @MT!CA filed a complaint for declarator% relief ith pra%er for a rit of preliminar% in,unction andOor temporar% restrainin$ order @ TR&A F ith the Re$ional Trial Court @RTCA of Manila, Branch / impleadin$ as defendant, herein respondent Cit% of Manila @the Cit%A represented b% Ma%or 8im.1 MT!C pra%ed that the &rdinance, insofar as it includes motels and inns as amon$ its prohibited establishments, be declared invalid and unconstitutional. MT!C claimed that as o ner and operator of the 'ictoria Court in Malate, Manila it as authori3ed b% Presidential !ecree @P.!.A No. =F/ to admit customers on a short time basis as ell as to char$e customers ash up rates for sta%s of onl% three hours. &n !ecember =., .//=, petitioners 7hite 8i$ht Corporation @78CA, Titanium Corporation @TCA and "ta. Mesa Tourist and !evelopment Corporation @"T!CA filed a motion to intervene and to admit attached complaintin-intervention0 on the $round that the &rdinance directl% affects their business interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila.G The three companies are components of the Anito 5roup of Companies hich o ns and operates several hotels and motels in Metro Manila. / &n !ecember =-, .//=, the RTC $ranted the motion to intervene. .C The RTC also notified the "olicitor 5eneral of the proceedin$s pursuant to then Rule 1E, "ection E of the Rules of Court. &n the same date, MT!C moved to ithdra as plaintiff... &n !ecember =G, .//=, the RTC $ranted MT!C9s motion to ithdra . .= The RTC issued a TR& on #anuar% .E, .//-, directin$ the Cit% to cease and desist from enforcin$ the &rdinance. .- The Cit% filed an Ans er dated #anuar% ==, .//- alle$in$ that the &rdinance is a le$itimate e6ercise of police po er. .E &n 4ebruar% G, .//-, the RTC issued a rit of preliminar% in,unction orderin$ the cit% to desist from the enforcement of the &rdinance..F A month later, on March G, .//-, the "olicitor 5eneral filed his Comment ar$uin$ that the &rdinance is constitutional. !urin$ the pre-trial conference, the 78C, TC and "T!C a$reed to submit the case for decision ithout trial as the case involved a purel% le$al *uestion..1 &n &ctober =C, .//-, the RTC rendered a decision declarin$ the &rdinance null and void. The dispositive portion of the decision readsD 7;ERE4&RE, in vie and void. of all the fore$oin$, K&Lrdinance No. 000E of the Cit% of Manila is hereb% declared null ith or contrar% to this

Accordin$l%, the preliminar% in,unction heretofor issued is hereb% made permanent. "& &R!ERE!..0 The RTC noted that the ordinance :stri)es at the personal libert% of the individual $uaranteed and ,ealousl% $uarded b% the Constitution.:.G Reference as made to the provisions of the Constitution encoura$in$ private enterprises and the incentive to needed investment, as ell as the ri$ht to operate economic

enterprises. 4inall%, from the observation that the illicit relationships the &rdinance sou$ht to dissuade could nonetheless be consummated b% simpl% pa%in$ for a .=-hour sta%, the RTC li)ened the la to the ordinance annulled in Ynot v. !ntermediate Appellate %ourt,./ here the le$itimate purpose of preventin$ indiscriminate slau$hter of carabaos as sou$ht to be effected throu$h an inter-province ban on the transport of carabaos and carabeef. The Cit% later filed a petition for revie on certiorari ith the "upreme Court.=C The petition as doc)eted as 5.R. No. ..=E0.. ;o ever in a resolution dated #anuar% =1, .//E, the Court treated the petition as a petition for certiorari and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. =. Before the Court of Appeals, the Cit% asserted that the &rdinance is a valid e6ercise of police po er pursuant to "ection EFG @EA@ivA of the 8ocal 5overnment Code hich confers on cities, amon$ other local $overnment units, the po erD KToL re$ulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lod$in$ houses and other similar establishments, includin$ tourist $uides and transports.== The &rdinance, it is ar$ued, is also a valid e6ercise of the po er of the Cit% under Article +++, "ection .G@))A of the Revised Manila Charter, thusD :to enact all ordinances it ma% deem necessar% and proper for the sanitation and safet%, the furtherance of the prosperit% and the promotion of the moralit%, peace, $ood order, comfort, convenience and $eneral elfare of the cit% and its inhabitants, and such others as be necessar% to carr% into effect and dischar$e the po ers and duties conferred b% this Chapter> and to fi6 penalties for the violation of ordinances hich shall not e6ceed t o hundred pesos fine or si6 months imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment for a sin$le offense.=Petitioners ar$ued that the &rdinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the ri$ht to privac% and the freedom of movement> it is an invalid e6ercise of police po er> and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionalit% of the &rdinance. =E 4irst, it held that the &rdinance did not violate the ri$ht to privac% or the freedom of movement, as it onl% penali3es the o ners or operators of establishments that admit individuals for short time sta%s. "econd, the virtuall% limitless reach of police po er is onl% constrained b% havin$ a la ful ob,ect obtained throu$h a la ful method. The la ful ob,ective of the &rdinance is satisfied since it aims to curb immoral activities. There is a la ful method since the establishments are still allo ed to operate. Third, the adverse effect on the establishments is ,ustified b% the ell-bein$ of its constituents in $eneral. 4inall%, as held in 6rmitaMalate Motel 4perators Association v. %ity Mayor o' Manila, libert% is re$ulated b% la . TC, 78C and "T!C come to this Court via petition for revie on certiorari. =F +n their petition and Memorandum, petitioners in essence repeat the assertions the% made before the Court of Appeals. The% contend that the assailed &rdinance is an invalid e6ercise of police po er. ++. 7e must address the threshold issue of petitionersI standin$. Petitioners alle$e that as o ners of establishments offerin$ : ash-up: rates, their business is bein$ unla full% interfered ith b% the &rdinance. ;o ever, petitioners also alle$e that the e*ual protection ri$hts of their clients are also bein$ interfered ith. Thus, the cru6 of the matter is hether or not these establishments have the re*uisite standin$ to plead for protection of their patrons9 e*ual protection ri$hts. "tandin$ or locus standi is the abilit% of a part% to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the la or action challen$ed to support that part%9s participation in the case. More importantl%, the doctrine of standin$ is built on the principle of separation of po ers, =1 sparin$ as it does unnecessar% interference or invalidation b% the ,udicial branch of the actions rendered b% its co-e*ual branches of $overnment. The re*uirement of standin$ is a core component of the ,udicial s%stem derived directl% from the Constitution.=0 The constitutional component of standin$ doctrine incorporates concepts hich concededl%

are not susceptible of precise definition.=G +n this ,urisdiction, the e6tanc% of :a direct and personal interest: presents the most obvious cause, as ell as the standard test for a petitioner9s standin$. =/ +n a similar vein, the (nited "tates "upreme Court revie ed and elaborated on the meanin$ of the three constitutional standin$ re*uirements of in,ur%, causation, and redressabilit% in Allen v. 0ri*)t.-C Nonetheless, the $eneral rules on standin$ admit of several e6ceptions such as the overbreadth doctrine, ta6pa%er suits, third part% standin$ and, especiall% in the Philippines, the doctrine of transcendental importance.-. 4or this particular set of facts, the concept of third part% standin$ as an e6ception and the overbreadth doctrine are appropriate. +n Po(ers v. 4)io,-= the (nited "tates "upreme Court rote thatD :7e have reco$ni3ed the ri$ht of liti$ants to brin$ actions on behalf of third parties, provided three important criteria are satisfiedD the liti$ant must have suffered an Uin,ur%-in-fact,I thus $ivin$ him or her a :sufficientl% concrete interest: in the outcome of the issue in dispute> the liti$ant must have a close relation to the third part%> and there must e6ist some hindrance to the third part%9s abilit% to protect his or her o n interests.: -;erein, it is clear that the business interests of the petitioners are li)e ise in,ured b% the &rdinance. The% rel% on the patrona$e of their customers for their continued viabilit% hich appears to be threatened b% the enforcement of the &rdinance. The relative silence in constitutional liti$ation of such special interest $roups in our nation such as the American Civil 8iberties (nion in the (nited "tates ma% also be construed as a hindrance for customers to brin$ suit. -E American ,urisprudence is replete ith e6amples here parties-in-interest ere allo ed standin$ to advocate or invo)e the fundamental due process or e*ual protection claims of other persons or classes of persons in,ured b% state action. +n Gris(old v. %onnecticut,-F the (nited "tates "upreme Court held that ph%sicians had standin$ to challen$e a reproductive health statute that ould penali3e them as accessories as ell as to plead the constitutional protections available to their patients. The Court held thatD :The ri$hts of husband and ife, pressed here, are li)el% to be diluted or adversel% affected unless those ri$hts are considered in a suit involvin$ those ho have this )ind of confidential relation to them.: -1 An even more analo$ous e6ample ma% be found in %rai* v. +oren,-0 herein the (nited "tates "upreme Court held that a licensed bevera$e vendor has standin$ to raise the e*ual protection claim of a male customer challen$in$ a statutor% scheme prohibitin$ the sale of beer to males under the a$e of =. and to females under the a$e of .G. The (nited "tates ;i$h Court e6plained that the vendors had standin$ :b% actin$ as advocates of the ri$hts of third parties ho see) access to their mar)et or function.: -G Assumin$ ar*uendo that petitioners do not have a relationship ith their patrons for the former to assert the ri$hts of the latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes into pla%. +n overbreadth anal%sis, challen$ers to $overnment action are in effect permitted to raise the ri$hts of third parties. 5enerall% applied to statutes infrin$in$ on the freedom of speech, the overbreadth doctrine applies hen a statute needlessl% restrains even constitutionall% $uaranteed ri$hts.-/ +n this case, the petitioners claim that the &rdinance ma)es a s eepin$ intrusion into the ri$ht to libert% of their clients. 7e can see that based on the alle$ations in the petition, the &rdinance suffers from overbreadth. 7e thus reco$ni3e that the petitioners have a ri$ht to assert the constitutional ri$hts of their clients to patroni3e their establishments for a : ash-rate: time frame. +++. To students of ,urisprudence, the facts of this case ill recall to mind not onl% the recent %ity o' Manila rulin$, but our ./10 decision in 6rmita-Malate Hotel and Motel 4perations Association, !nc., v. Hon. %ity Mayor o' Manila.EC 6rmita-Malate concerned the Cit% ordinance re*uirin$ patrons to fill up a prescribed form statin$ personal information such as name, $ender, nationalit%, a$e, address and occupation before the% could be admitted to a motel, hotel or lod$in$ house. This earlier ordinance as precisel% enacted to minimi3e certain practices deemed harmful to public morals. A purpose similar to the annulled ordinance in %ity o' Manila hich sou$ht a blan)et ban on motels, inns and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate area. ;o ever, the constitutionalit% of the ordinance in 6rmita-Malate as sustained b% the Court. The common thread that runs throu$h those decisions and the case at bar $oes be%ond the sin$ularit% of the localities covered under the respective ordinances. All three ordinances ere enacted ith a vie of re$ulatin$ public morals includin$ particular illicit activit% in transient lod$in$ establishments. This could be described as the middle case, herein there is no holesale ban on motels and hotels but the services

offered b% these establishments have been severel% restricted. At its core, this is another case about the e6tent to hich the "tate can intrude into and re$ulate the lives of its citi3ens. The test of a valid ordinance is ell established. A lon$ line of decisions includin$ %ity o' Manila has held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not onl% be ithin the corporate po ers of the local $overnment unit to enact and pass accordin$ to the procedure prescribed b% la , it must also conform to the follo in$ substantive re*uirementsD @.A must not contravene the Constitution or an% statute> @=A must not be unfair or oppressive> @-A must not be partial or discriminator%> @EA must not prohibit but ma% re$ulate trade> @FA must be $eneral and consistent ith public polic%> and @1A must not be unreasonable. E. The &rdinance prohibits t o specific and distinct business practices, namel% ash rate admissions and rentin$ out a room more than t ice a da%. The ban is evidentl% sou$ht to be rooted in the police po er as conferred on local $overnment units b% the 8ocal 5overnment Code throu$h such implements as the $eneral elfare clause. A. Police po er, hile incapable of an e6act definition, has been purposel% veiled in $eneral terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all e6i$encies and provide enou$h room for an efficient and fle6ible response as the conditions arrant. E= Police po er is based upon the concept of necessit% of the "tate and its correspondin$ ri$ht to protect itself and its people. E- Police po er has been used as ,ustification for numerous and varied actions b% the "tate. These ran$e from the re$ulation of dance halls, EE movie theaters,EF $as stationsE1 and coc)pits.E0 The a esome scope of police po er is best demonstrated b% the fact that in its hundred or so %ears of presence in our nationIs le$al s%stem, its use has rarel% been denied. The apparent $oal of the &rdinance is to minimi3e if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit se6, prostitution, dru$ use and ali)e. These $oals, b% themselves, are unimpeachable and certainl% fall ithin the ambit of the police po er of the "tate. ?et the desirabilit% of these ends do not sanctif% an% and all means for their achievement. Those means must ali$n ith the Constitution, and our emer$in$ sophisticated anal%sis of its $uarantees to the people. The Bill of Ri$hts stands as a rebu)e to the seductive theor% of Macchiavelli, and, sometimes even, the political ma,orities animated b% his c%nicism. Even as e desi$n the precedents that establish the frame or) for anal%sis of due process or e*ual protection *uestions, the courts are naturall% inhibited b% a due deference to the co-e*ual branches of $overnment as the% e6ercise their political functions. But hen e are compelled to nullif% e6ecutive or le$islative actions, %et another form of caution emer$es. +f the Court ere animated b% the same passin$ fancies or turbulent emotions that motivate man% political decisions, ,udicial inte$rit% is compromised b% an% perception that the ,udiciar% is merel% the third political branch of $overnment. 7e derive our respect and $ood standin$ in the annals of histor% b% actin$ as ,udicious and neutral arbiters of the rule of la , and there is no surer a% to that end than throu$h the development of ri$orous and sophisticated le$al standards throu$h hich the courts anal%3e the most fundamental and far-reachin$ constitutional *uestions of the da%. B. The primar% constitutional *uestion that confronts us is one of due process, as $uaranteed under "ection ., Article +++ of the Constitution. !ue process evades a precise definition. EG The purpose of the $uarant% is to prevent arbitrar% $overnmental encroachment a$ainst the life, libert% and propert% of individuals. The due process $uarant% serves as a protection a$ainst arbitrar% re$ulation or sei3ure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected b% the $uarant% insofar as their propert% is concerned. The due process $uarant% has traditionall% been interpreted as imposin$ t o related but distinct restrictions on $overnment, :procedural due process: and :substantive due process.: Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the $overnment must follo before it deprives a person of life, libert%, or propert%. E/ Procedural due process concerns itself ith $overnment action adherin$ to the established process hen it ma)es an intrusion into the private sphere. E6amples ran$e from the form of notice $iven to the level of formalit% of a hearin$. +f due process ere confined solel% to its procedural aspects, there ould arise absurd situation of arbitrar% $overnment action, provided the proper formalities are follo ed. "ubstantive due process completes the protection envisioned b% the due process clause. +t in*uires hether the $overnment has sufficient ,ustification for deprivin$ a person of life, libert%, or propert%. FC

The *uestion of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields of la , has reflected d%namism in pro$ressive le$al thou$ht tied ith the e6panded acceptance of fundamental freedoms. Police po er, traditionall% a esome as it ma% be, is no confronted ith a more ri$orous level of anal%sis before it can be upheld. The vitalit% thou$h of constitutional due process has not been predicated on the fre*uenc% ith hich it has been utili3ed to achieve a liberal result for, after all, the libertarian ends should sometimes %ield to the prero$atives of the "tate. +nstead, the due process clause has ac*uired potenc% because of the sophisticated methodolo$% that has emer$ed to determine the proper metes and bounds for its application. C. The $eneral test of the validit% of an ordinance on substantive due process $rounds is best tested hen assessed ith the evolved footnote E test laid do n b% the (.". "upreme Court in (.". v. Carolene Products.F. 4ootnote E of the Carolene Products case ac)no led$ed that the ,udiciar% ould defer to the le$islature unless there is a discrimination a$ainst a :discrete and insular: minorit% or infrin$ement of a :fundamental ri$ht.:F= Conse*uentl%, t o standards of ,udicial revie ere establishedD strict scrutin% for la s dealin$ ith freedom of the mind or restrictin$ the political process, and the rational basis standard of revie for economic le$islation. A third standard, denominated as hei$htened or immediate scrutin%, as later adopted b% the (.". "upreme Court for evaluatin$ classifications based on $enderF- and le$itimac%.FE +mmediate scrutin% as adopted b% the (.". "upreme Court in Crai$,FF after the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed. F1 7hile the test ma% have first been articulated in e*ual protection anal%sis, it has in the (nited "tates since been applied in all substantive due process cases as ell. 7e ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainl% in anal%sis of e*ual protection challen$es. F0 (sin$ the rational basis e6amination, la s or ordinances are upheld if the% rationall% further a le$itimate $overnmental interest.FG (nder intermediate revie , $overnmental interest is e6tensivel% e6amined and the availabilit% of less restrictive measures is considered. F/ Appl%in$ strict scrutin%, the focus is on the presence of compellin$, rather than substantial, $overnmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achievin$ that interest. +n terms of ,udicial revie of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutin% refers to the standard for determinin$ the *ualit% and the amount of $overnmental interest brou$ht to ,ustif% the re$ulation of fundamental freedoms. 1C "trict scrutin% is used toda% to test the validit% of la s dealin$ ith the re$ulation of speech, $ender, or race as ell as other fundamental ri$hts as e6pansion from its earlier applications to e*ual protection. 1. The (nited "tates "upreme Court has e6panded the scope of strict scrutin% to protect fundamental ri$hts such as suffra$e,1= ,udicial access1- and interstate travel.1E +f e ere to ta)e the m%opic vie that an &rdinance should be anal%3ed strictl% as to its effect onl% on the petitioners at bar, then it ould seem that the onl% restraint imposed b% the la hich e are capacitated to act upon is the in,ur% to propert% sustained b% the petitioners, an in,ur% that ould arrant the application of the most deferential standard P the rational basis test. ?et as earlier stated, e reco$ni3e the capacit% of the petitioners to invo)e as ell the constitutional ri$hts of their patrons P those persons ho ould be deprived of availin$ short time access or ash-up rates to the lod$in$ establishments in *uestion. 'ie ed c%nicall%, one mi$ht sa% that the infrin$ed ri$hts of these customers ere are trivial since the% seem shorn of political conse*uence. Concededl%, these are not the sort of cherished ri$hts that, hen proscribed, ould impel the people to tear up their cedulas. "till, the Bill of Ri$hts does not shelter $ravitas alone. +ndeed, it is those :trivial: %et fundamental freedoms P hich the people refle6ivel% e6ercise an% da% ithout the impairin$ a areness of their constitutional conse*uence P that accuratel% reflect the de$ree of libert% en,o%ed b% the people. 8ibert%, as inte$rall% incorporated as a fundamental ri$ht in the Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-st%le enumeration of hat ma% or hat ma% not be done> but rather an atmosphere of freedom here the people do not feel labored under a Bi$ Brother presence as the% interact ith each other, their societ% and nature, in a manner innatel% understood b% them as inherent, ithout doin$ harm or in,ur% to others. !. The ri$hts at sta)e herein fall ithin the same fundamental ri$hts to libert% v. ;on. 8a$uio, Jr. 7e e6pounded on that most primordial of ri$hts, thusD hich e upheld in Cit% of Manila

8ibert% as $uaranteed b% the Constitution as defined b% #ustice Malcolm to include :the ri$ht to e6ist and the ri$ht to be free from arbitrar% restraint or servitude. The term cannot be d arfed into mere freedom from ph%sical restraint of the person of the citi3en, but is deemed to embrace the ri$ht of man to en,o% the facilities ith hich he has been endo ed b% his Creator, sub,ect onl% to such restraint as are necessar% for the common elfare.:K1FL +n accordance ith this case, the ri$hts of the citi3en to be free to use his faculties in all la ful a%s> to live and or) here he ill> to earn his livelihood b% an% la ful callin$> and to pursue an% avocation are all deemed embraced in the concept of libert%.K 11L The (.". "upreme Court in the case of #ot) v. +oard o' #e*ents, sou$ht to clarif% the meanin$ of :libert%.: +t saidD 7hile the Court has not attempted to define ith e6actness the libert% . . . $uaranteed Kb% the 4ifth and 4ourteenth AmendmentsL, the term denotes not merel% freedom from bodil% restraint but also the ri$ht of the individual to contract, to en$a$e in an% of the common occupations of life, to ac*uire useful )no led$e, to marr%, establish a home and brin$ up children, to orship 5od accordin$ to the dictates of his o n conscience, and $enerall% to en,o% those privile$es lon$ reco$ni3ed . . . as essential to the orderl% pursuit of happiness b% free men. +n a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meanin$ of :libert%: must be broad indeed.10 KCitations omittedL +t cannot be denied that the primar% animus behind the ordinance is the curtailment of se6ual behavior. The Cit% asserts before this Court that the sub,ect establishments :have $ained notoriet% as venue of Uprostitution, adulter% and fornicationsI in Manila since the% Uprovide the necessar% atmosphere for clandestine entr%, presence and e6it and thus became the Uideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-see)ers.I: 1G 7hether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that le$itimate se6ual behavior amon$ illin$ married or consentin$ sin$le adults hich is constitutionall% protected 1/ ill be curtailed as ell, as it as in the Cit% of Manila case. &ur holdin$ therein retains si$nificance for our purposesD The concept of libert% compels respect for the individual hose claim to privac% and interference demands respect. As the case of Mor'e v. Mutuc, borro in$ the ords of 8as)i, so ver% aptl% statedD Man is one amon$ man%, obstinatel% refusin$ reduction to unit%. ;is separateness, his isolation, are indefeasible> indeed, the% are so fundamental that the% are the basis on hich his civic obli$ations are built. ;e cannot abandon the conse*uences of his isolation, hich are, broadl% spea)in$, that his e6perience is private, and the ill built out of that e6perience personal to himself. +f he surrenders his ill to others, he surrenders himself. +f his ill is set b% the ill of others, he ceases to be a master of himself. + cannot believe that a man no lon$er a master of himself is in an% real sense free. +ndeed, the ri$ht to privac% as a constitutional ri$ht as reco$ni3ed in Mor'e, the invasion of hich should be ,ustified b% a compellin$ state interest. Mor'e accorded reco$nition to the ri$ht to privac% independentl% of its identification ith libert%> in itself it is full% deservin$ of constitutional protection. 5overnmental po ers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life of the citi3en. 0C 7e cannot discount other le$itimate activities hich the &rdinance ould proscribe or impair. There are ver% le$itimate uses for a ash rate or rentin$ the room out for more than t ice a da%. Entire families are )no n to choose pass the time in a motel or hotel hilst the po er is momentaril% out in their homes. +n transit passen$ers ho ish to ash up and rest bet een trips have a le$itimate purpose for abbreviated sta%s in motels or hotels. +ndeed an% person or $roups of persons in need of comfortable private spaces for a span of a fe hours ith purposes other than havin$ se6 or usin$ ille$al dru$s can le$itimatel% loo) to sta%in$ in a motel or hotel as a convenient alternative. E. That the &rdinance prevents the la ful uses of a ash rate deprivin$ patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in ith another constitutional re*uisite for the le$itimac% of the &rdinance as a police po er measure. +t must appear that the interests of the public $enerall%, as distin$uished from those of a particular class, re*uire an interference ith private ri$hts and the means must be reasonabl% necessar% for the accomplishment of the purpose and not undul% oppressive of private ri$hts.0. +t must also be evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private ri$hts can or). More importantl%, a reasonable relation must e6ist bet een the purposes of the measure and the means emplo%ed for its accomplishment, for even under the $uise of

protectin$ the public interest, personal ri$hts and those pertainin$ to private propert% to be arbitraril% invaded.0=

ill not be permitted

8ac)in$ a concurrence of these re*uisites, the police measure shall be struc) do n as an arbitrar% intrusion into private ri$hts. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, the e6ercise of police po er is sub,ect to ,udicial revie hen life, libert% or propert% is affected.0- ;o ever, this is not in an% a% meant to ta)e it a a% from the vastness of "tate police po er hose e6ercise en,o%s the presumption of validit%. 0E "imilar to the Comelec resolution re*uirin$ ne spapers to donate advertisin$ space to candidates, this &rdinance is a blunt and heav% instrument.0F The &rdinance ma)es no distinction bet een places fre*uented b% patrons en$a$ed in illicit activities and patrons en$a$ed in le$itimate actions. Thus it prevents le$itimate use of places here illicit activities are rare or even unheard of. A plain readin$ of section - of the &rdinance sho s it ma)es no classification of places of lod$in$, thus deems them all susceptible to illicit patrona$e and sub,ect them ithout e6ception to the un,ustified prohibition. The Court has professed its deep sentiment and tenderness of the Ermita-Malate area, its lon$time home, 01 and it is s)eptical of those ho ish to depict our capital cit% P the Pearl of the &rient P as a modern-da% "odom or 5omorrah for the Third 7orld set. Those still steeped in Nic) #oa*uin-dreams of the $randeur of &ld Manila ill have to accept that Manila li)e all evolvin$ bi$ cities, ill have its problems. (rban deca% is a fact of me$a cities such as Manila, and vice is a common problem confronted b% the modern metropolis herever in the orld. The solution to such perceived deca% is not to prevent le$itimate businesses from offerin$ a le$itimate product. Rather, cities revive themselves b% offerin$ incentives for ne businesses to sprout up thus attractin$ the d%namism of individuals that ould brin$ a ne $randeur to Manila. The behavior hich the &rdinance see)s to curtail is in fact alread% prohibited and could in fact be diminished simpl% b% appl%in$ e6istin$ la s. 8ess intrusive measures such as curbin$ the proliferation of prostitutes and dru$ dealers throu$h active police or) ould be more effective in easin$ the situation. "o ould the strict enforcement of e6istin$ la s and re$ulations penali3in$ prostitution and dru$ use. These measures ould have minimal intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other le$itimate merchants. 4urther, it is apparent that the &rdinance can easil% be circumvented b% merel% pa%in$ the hole da% rate ithout an% hindrance to those en$a$ed in illicit activities. Moreover, dru$ dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect : ash rates: from their clientele b% char$in$ their customers a portion of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments. +'. 7e reiterate that individual ri$hts ma% be adversel% affected onl% to the e6tent that ma% fairl% be re*uired b% the le$itimate demands of public interest or public elfare. The "tate is a leviathan that must be restrained from needlessl% intrudin$ into the lives of its citi3ens. ;o ever ell-intentioned the &rdinance ma% be, it is in effect an arbitrar% and himsical intrusion into the ri$hts of the establishments as ell as their patrons. The &rdinance needlessl% restrains the operation of the businesses of the petitioners as ell as restrictin$ the ri$hts of their patrons ithout sufficient ,ustification. The &rdinance rashl% e*uates ash rates and rentin$ out a room more than t ice a da% ith immoralit% ithout accommodatin$ innocuous intentions. The promotion of public elfare and a sense of moralit% amon$ citi3ens deserves the full endorsement of the ,udiciar% provided that such measures do not trample ri$hts this Court is s orn to protect. 00 The notion that the promotion of public moralit% is a function of the "tate is as old as Aristotle. 0G The advancement of moral relativism as a school of philosoph% does not de-le$itimi3e the role of moralit% in la , even if it ma% foster ider debate on hich particular behavior to penali3e. +t is conceivable that a societ% ith relativel% little shared moralit% amon$ its citi3ens could be functional so lon$ as the pursuit of sharpl% variant moral perspectives %ields an ade*uate accommodation of different interests. 0/ To be candid about it, the oft-*uoted American ma6im that :%ou cannot le$islate moralit%: is ultimatel% ille$itimate as a matter of la , since as e6plained b% Calabresi, that phrase is more accuratel% interpreted as meanin$ that efforts to le$islate moralit% ill fail if the% are idel% at variance ith public attitudes about ri$ht and ron$.GC &ur penal la s, for one, are founded on a$e-old moral traditions, and as lon$ as there are idel% accepted distinctions bet een ri$ht and ron$, the% ill remain so oriented. ?et the continuin$ pro$ression of the human stor% has seen not onl% the acceptance of the ri$ht- ron$ distinction, but also the advent of fundamental liberties as the )e% to the en,o%ment of life to the fullest. &ur democrac% is distin$uished from non-free societies not ith an% more e6tensive elaboration on our part of

hat is moral and immoral, but from our reco$nition that the individual libert% to ma)e the choices in our lives is innate, and protected b% the "tate. +ndependent and fair-minded ,ud$es themselves are under a moral dut% to uphold the Constitution as the embodiment of the rule of la , b% reason of their e6pression of consent to do so hen the% ta)e the oath of office, and because the% are entrusted b% the people to uphold the la .G. Even as the implementation of moral norms remains an indispensable complement to $overnance, that prero$ative is hardl% absolute, especiall% in the face of the norms of due process of libert%. And hile the tension ma% often be left to the courts to relieve, it is possible for the $overnment to avoid the constitutional conflict b% emplo%in$ more ,udicious, less drastic means to promote moralit%. 3HEREFORE, the Petition is GR!NTE#. The !ecision of the Court of Appeals is RE(ERSE#, and the !ecision of the Re$ional Trial Court of Manila, Branch /, is RE NST!TE#. &rdinance No. 000E is hereb% declared (NC&N"T+T(T+&NA8. No pronouncement as to costs. "& &R!ERE!. #!NTE O. T NG! Associate #ustice
Foo.no.e0
.

5.R. ..G.=0, .= April =CCF, EFF "CRA -CG. "ee rollo, pp. E-E..

+d. at E=-F/. Penned b% Associate #ustice #aime M. 8antin, concurred in b% Associate #ustices Ricardo P. 5alve3 @later, "olicitor5eneralA and Antonio P. "olano.
E

+d. at E1. +d. at 1=-1/. +d. at EF-E1. +d. at 0C-00. +d. at E0.

+d. +d. +d. at EG. +d. at G.. +d. at G=-G-. +d. at GE-//. +d. at .CE-.CF. +d. at E/. +d. at F=.

.C

..

.=

.-

.E

.F

.1

.0

.G

+d. at .=C. No. 8-0EEF0, =C March ./G0, .EG "CRA 1F/. #ollo, pp. .=/-.EF.

./

=C

=.

+d. at .FG. +d. at F-. +d. +d. at E--F/. +d. at E-EC. Allen v. 0ri*)t, E1G (.". 0-0 @./GEA. Const., Art. '+++ , "ec. F, "anla)as v. E6ecutive "ecretar% #eyes, E11 Phil. EG= @=CCEA.

==

=-

=E

=F

=1

=0

=G

5ladstone, Realtors v. 'illa$e of Bell ood, EE. (.". /., .CC, // ".Ct. .1C., .1CG, 1C 8.Ed.=d 11 @./0/A.

"ee 7omin*o v. %ara*ue, 5.R. No. .1.C1F, .F April =CCF, EF1 "CRA EFC. "ee also Macasiano v. National ;ousin$ Authorit%, 5.R. No. .C0/=., . #ul% .//-, ==E "CRA =-1.
=/ -C

E1G (.". 0-0 @./GEA.

-.

"upra note =/. E// (.". ECC @.//.A. +d. at p E.C-E...

-=

--

"ee Belse% McCo an ;eilman, The Ri$hts of &thersD Protection and Advocac% &r$ani3ations Associational "tandin$ to "ue, .F0 (. Pa. 8. Rev. =-0, for a $eneral discussion on advocac% $roups.
-E -F

-G. (.". E0/@./1FA. +d. at EG..

-1

-0

E=/ (.". ./C @./01A. +d. at ./E.

-G

Chave3 v. Comelec, 5.R. No. .1=000, -. Au$ust =CCE, E-0 "CRA E.F> Adion$ v. Comelec, 5.R. No. .C-/F1, -. March .//=, =C0 "CRA 0.=.
-/ EC

.=0 Phil. -C1 @./10A.

Cit% of Manila v. 8a$uio, Jr., supra note .> Tatel v. Municipalit% of 'irac, 5.R. No. EC=E-, .. March .//=, =C0 "CRA .F0, .1.> "olicitor 5eneral v. Metropolitan Manila Authorit%, 5.R. No. .C=0G=, .. !ecember .//., =CE "CRA G-0, GEF> Ma$ta,as v. Pr%ce Properties Corp., +nc., 5.R. No. ...C/0, =C #ul% .//E, =-E "CRA =FF, =1G-=10.
E. E=

Ermita-Malate ;otel and Motel &perators Association, +nc. v. Cit% Ma%or of Manila, .=0 Phil. -C1 @./10A.

JMM Promotion and Mana*ement !nc. v. %ourt o' Appeals , -=/ Phil. G0, /E @.//1A citin$ #ubi v. Provincial +oard o' Mindoro, -/ Phil. 11C @././A.
EEE

9.S. v. #odri*uez, -G Phil. 0F/. People v. %)an, 1F Phil. 1.. @./-GA. Javier v. 6arns)a(, 1E Phil. 1=1 @./-0A. Pedro v. Provincial +oard o' #izal, F1 Phil. .=- @./-.A. "ee (.". v. 8in$ "u 4an, .C Phil. .CE @./CGA> +nsular 5overnment v. 8in$ "u 4an, .F Phil. FG @./.CA. 8ope3 v. !irector of 8ands, E0 Phil. =-, -= @./=EA.

EF

E1

E0

EG

E/

"ee Cit% of Manila v. ;on. 8a$uio, Jr., supra note . at --C citin$ C;EMER+N"B?, ER7+N, C&N"T+T(T+&NA8 8A7 PR+NC+P8E" AN! P&8+C+E", =nd Ed. F=- @=CC=A.
FC F.

-CE (.". .EE @./-GA. +d, at .F=. %rai* v. +oren, E=/ (.". ./C @./01A. %lar- v. Jeter, EG1 (.". EF1 @./GGA. E=/ (.". ./C @./01A. ECE (.". 0. @./0.A.

F=

F-

FE

FF

F1

%entral +an- 6mployeeKs Association v. +an*-o Sentral n* Pilipinas, EG0 Phil. F-. @=CCEA> Association o' Small :ando(ners in t)e P)ilippines v. Secretary o' A*rarian #e'orm, 5.R. Nos. 0G0E=, 0/-.C, 0/0EE, and 0/000, #ul% .E, ./G/, .0F "CRA -E-> +n Ermita-Malate, supra note . at -=E, the Court in fact notedD :if the libert% involved ere freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validit% of $overnment acts is much more ri$orous and e6actin$, but here the libert% curtailed affects hat are at the most ri$hts of propert%, the permissible scope of re$ulator% measures is ider.:
F0 FG

%entral +an- 6mployeeKs Association v. +an*-o Sentral n* Pilipinas , supra note F0.

F/

+d. Mendo3a, J., Concurrin$ &pinion in 6strada v. Sandi*anbayan, 5.R. No. .EGF1C, ./ November =CC., -1/ "CRA -/E.

1C

1.

+d. +us) v. Gore, F-. (.". /G @=CCCA. +oddie v. %onnecticut, EC. (.". -0. @./0.A. as

1=

1-

S)apiro v. $)ompson , -/E (.". 1.G @./1/A. +t has been opined b% Chemerins)% that the use of the e*ual protection clause to avoid the use of substantive due process since the latter fell into disfavor in the (nited "tates. "ee Er in Chemerins)%, Constitutional 8a , Principles and Policies @=nd ed. =CC=A.
1E 1F

Morfe v. Mutuc, .-C Phil. E.F @./1GA.

11

+d. at EEC. %ity o' Manila v. :a*uio, Jr., supra note . at --1---0. #ollo, p. =FG.

10

1G

:Motel patrons ho are sin$le and unmarried ma% invo)e this ri$ht to autonom% to consummate their bonds in intimate se6ual conduct ithin the motel9s premises V be it stressed that their consensual se6ual behavior does not contravene an% fundamental state polic% as contained in the Constitution. @"ee Concerned Emplo%ee v. 5lenda Espiritu Ma%or, A.M. No. P-C=-.F1E, =November =CCEA Adults have a ri$ht to choose to for$e such relationships ith others in the confines of their o n private lives and still retain their di$nit% as free persons. The libert% protected b% the Constitution allo s persons the ri$ht to ma)e this choice. Their ri$ht to libert% under the due process clause $ives them the full ri$ht to en$a$e in their conduct ithout intervention of the $overnment, as lon$ as the% do not run afoul of the la . 8ibert% should be the rule and restraint the e6ception.
1/

8ibert% in the constitutional sense not onl% means freedom from unla ful $overnment restraint> it must include privac% as ell, if it is to be a repositor% of freedom. The ri$ht to be let alone is the be$innin$ of all freedom V it is the most comprehensive of ri$hts and the ri$ht most valued b% civili3ed men.: Cit% of Manila v. ;on. 8a$uio, Jr. supra note . at --0---G.
0C

Cit% of Manila v. 8a$uio, #r., supra note . at --G---/.

Metro Manila !evelopment Authorit% v. 'iron Transportation Co., 5.R. Nos. .0C1F1 and .0C1F0, .F Au$ust =CC0, F-C "CRA -E..
0. 0=

(.". v. Toribio, .F Phil. GF @./.CA. .-C Phil. E.F @./1GA.

0-

Carlos "uperdru$ v. !"7!, 5.R. No. .11E/E, #une =/, =CC0, Alala%an v. National Po er Corporation, =E Phil. .0= @./1GA> (.". v. "alaveria, -/ Phil. .C= @./.GA.
0E 0F

Philippine Press +nstitute v. Comelec, -.E Phil. .-. @.//FA. "upra note ..

01

Cit% of Manila v. ;on. 8a$uio, Jr., supra note .> !e 8a Cru3, et al. v. ;on. Paras, et al., =CG Phil. E/C @./G-A> Ermita-Malate ;otel and Motel &perations Association, +nc. v. Cit% Ma%or of Manila, supra note E=.
00

:The end of the state is not mere life> it is, rather, a $ood *ualit% of life.: Therefore an% state : hich is trul% so called, and is not merel% one in name, must devote itself to the end of encoura$in$ $oodness. &ther ise, a political association sin)s into a mere allianceN: The la :should be a rule of life such as ill ma)e the members of a KstateL $ood and ,ust.: &ther ise it :becomes a mere covenant P or @in the phrase of the "ophist 8%cophronA Ua $uarantor of menIs ri$hts a$ainst one another.I: Politics ++./.1-G..=GC -.-.=GCbii> cited in Hambur*er, M., Morals and 8a D The 5ro th of AristotleIs 8e$al Theor% @./F. ed.A, p. .0G.
0G 0/

Green(alt, 8., Conflicts of 8a

and Moralit% @./G/ ed.A, at -G.

"teven 5., Render (nto Caesar that hich is Caesars, and unto 5od that hich is 5odIs, -. ;arv. #.8. Q Pub. Pol9% E/F. ;e cites the e6ample of the failed T entieth @<A Amendment to the (.". Constitution, hich prohibited the sale and consumption of li*uor, here it as clear that the "tate cannot ,ustl% and successfull% re$ulate consumption of alcohol, hen hu$e portions of the population en$a$e in its consumption.
GC

"ee also Posner, #ic)ard H., The Problematics of Moral And 8e$al Theor%, The Bel)nap Press of ;arvard (niversit% Press @=CC=A. ;e ritesD . . . ;olmes arned lon$ a$o of the pitfalls of misunderstandin$ la b% ta)in$ its moral vocabular% too seriousl%. A bi$ part of le$al education consists of sho in$ students ho to s)irt those pitfalls. The la uses moral terms in part because of its ori$in, in part to be impressive, in part to spea) a lan$ua$e that the lait%, to hom the commands of the la are addressed, is more li)el% to understand P and in part, because there is a considerable overlap bet een la and moralit%. The overlap, ho ever, is too limited to ,ustif% tr%in$ to ali$n these t o s%stems of social control @the sort of pro,ect that +slamic nations such as +ran, Pa)istan, and Af$hanistan have been en$a$ed in of lateA. +t is not a scandal hen the la to pronounce it out of phase ith current moral feelin$. +f often is, and for $ood practical reasons @in particular, the la is a fl% heel, limitin$ the effects of ide s in$s in public opinionA. 7hen people ma)e that criticism Vas man% do of the la s, still found on the statute boo)s of man% states, punishin$ homose6ual relationsV hat the% mean is that the la neither is supported b% public opinion nor serves an% temporal purpose, even that of stabilit%, that it is merel% a vesti$e, an empt% s%mbol.
G.

"ee +urton, S., #ud$in$ in 5ood 4aith, @.//= ed.A, at =.G.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT EN BANC

G.R. No. 13364+ No;e67e- 2*, 2++* RO#OLFO S. "ELTR!N, 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, OUR L!#F OF F!T M! "LOO# "!N1, FELF G. MOS!LE, 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, MOTHER SE!TON "LOO# "!N1K PEOPLELS "LOO# "!N1, NC.K M!R ! ( CTOR ! T. ( TO, M.#., 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, !(ENUE "LOO# "!N1K JESUS M. G!RC !, M.#., 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, HOLF RE#EEMER "LOO# "!N1, !L"ERT L. L!P T!N, 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, "LUE CROSS "LOO# TR!NSFUS ON SER( CESK E#G!R#O R. RO#!S, M.#., 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, RECOR# "LOO# "!N1, /n .:e/- /n'/;/'u&2 5&,&5/./e0 &n' 9o&n' /n 7e:&29 o9 PH L PP NE !SSOC !T ON OF "LOO# "!N1S, Petitioners, vs. THE SECRET!RF OF HE!LTH, Respondent. 6 ------------------------------------------------ 6 G.R. No. 133661 #OCTORSL "LOO# CENTER, Petitioner, vs. #EP!RTMENT OF HE!LTH, Respondent. 6 --------------------------------------------- 6 G.R. No. 139147 RO#OLFO S. "ELTR!N, 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, OUR L!#F OF F!T M! "LOO# "!N1, FELF G. MOS!LE, 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, MOTHER SE!TON "LOO# "!N1K PEOPLELS "LOO# "!N1, NC.K M!R ! ( CTOR ! T. ( TO, M.#., 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, !(ENUE "LOO# "!N1K JESUS M. G!RC !, M.#., 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, HOLF RE#EEMER "LOO# "!N1, !L"ERT L. L!P T!N, 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, "LUE CROSS "LOO# TR!NSFUS ON SER( CESK E#G!R#O R. RO#!S, M.#., 'o/n4 7u0/ne00 un'e- .:e n&6e &n' 0.$2e, RECOR# "LOO# "!N1, /n .:e/- n'/;/'u&2 5&,&5/./e0 &n' 9o&n' /n 7e:&29 o9 PH L PP NE !SSOC !T ON OF "LOO# "!N1S, Petitioners, vs. THE SECRET!RF OF HE!LTH, Respondent. !EC+"+&N !)CUN!, J.8 Before this Court are petitions assailin$ primaril% the constitutionalit% of "ection 0 of Republic Act No. 00./, other ise )no n as the :National Blood "ervices Act of .//E,: and the validit% of Administrative &rder @A.&.A No. /, series of .//F or the Rules and Re$ulations +mplementin$ Republic Act No. 00./. 5.R. No. .--1EC,. entitled :Rodolfo ". Beltran, doin$ business under the name and st%le, &ur 8ad% of 4atima Blood Ban), et al., vs. The "ecretar% of ;ealth: and 5.R. No. .--11., = entitled :!octors Blood Ban) Center vs. !epartment of ;ealth: are petitions for certiorari and mandamus, respectivel%, see)in$ the annulment of the follo in$D @.A "ection 0 of Republic Act No. 00./> and, @=A Administrative &rder @A.&.A No. /, series of .//F. Both petitions li)e ise pra% for the issuance of a rit of prohibitor% in,unction en,oinin$ the "ecretar% of ;ealth from implementin$ and enforcin$ the aforementioned la and its +mplementin$ Rules and

Re$ulations> and, for a mandator% in,unction orderin$ and commandin$ the "ecretar% of ;ealth to $rant, issue or rene petitionersI license to operate free standin$ blood ban)s @4"BBA. The above cases ere consolidated in a resolution of the Court 6n +anc dated #une =, .//G.-

5.R. No. .-/.E0,E entitled :Rodolfo ". Beltran, doin$ business under the name and st%le, &ur 8ad% of 4atima Blood Ban), et al., vs. The "ecretar% of ;ealth,: on the other hand, is a petition to sho cause h% respondent "ecretar% of ;ealth should not be held in contempt of court. This case as ori$inall% assi$ned to the Third !ivision of this Court and later consolidated .--1EC and .--11. in a resolution dated Au$ust E, .///. F ith 5.R. Nos.

Petitioners comprise the ma,orit% of the Board of !irectors of the Philippine Association of Blood Ban)s, a dul% re$istered non-stoc) and non-profit association composed of free standin$ blood ban)s. Public respondent "ecretar% of ;ealth is bein$ sued in his capacit% as the public official directl% involved and char$ed ith the enforcement and implementation of the la in *uestion. The facts of the case are as follo sD Republic Act No. 00./ or the National Blood "ervices Act of .//E Act see)s to provide as enacted into la on April =, .//E. The

an ade*uate suppl% of safe blood b% promotin$ voluntar% blood donation and b% re$ulatin$ blood ban)s in the countr%. +t as approved b% then President 4idel '. Ramos on Ma% .F, .//E and as subse*uentl% published in the &fficial 5a3ette on Au$ust .G, .//E. The la too) effect on Au$ust =-, .//E. &n April =G, .//F, Administrative &rder No. /, "eries of .//F, constitutin$ the +mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations of said la as promul$ated b% respondent "ecretar% of the !epartment of ;ealth @!&;A. 1 "ection 0 of R.A. 00./
0

providesD

MSe5./on 7. P:&0e-ou. o9 Co66e-5/&2 "2oo' "&n?0 - All commercial blood ban)s shall be phased-out over a period of t o @=A %ears after the effectivit% of this Act, e6tendable to a ma6imum period of t o @=A %ears b% the "ecretar%.: "ection =- of Administrative &rder No. / providesD :Se5./on 23. P-o5e00 o9 P:&0/n4 Ou.. -- The !epartment shall effect the phasin$-out of all commercial blood ban)s over a period of t o @=A %ears, e6tendible for a ma6imum period of t o @=A %ears after the effectivit% of R.A. 00./. The decision to e6tend shall be based on the result of a careful stud% and revie of the blood suppl% and demand and public safet%.: G Blood ban)in$ and blood transfusion services in the countr% have been arran$ed in four @EA cate$oriesD blood centers run b% the Philippine National Red Cross @PNRCA, $overnment-run blood services, private hospital blood ban)s, and commercial blood services. ?ears prior to the passa$e of the National Blood "ervices Act of .//E, petitioners have alread% been operatin$ commercial blood ban)s under Republic Act No. .F.0, entitled :An Act Re$ulatin$ the Collection, Processin$ and "ale of ;uman Blood, and the Establishment and &peration of Blood Ban)s and Blood Processin$ 8aboratories.: The la , hich as enacted on #une .1, ./F1, allo ed the establishment and operation b% licensed ph%sicians of blood ban)s and blood processin$ laboratories. The Bureau of Research and 8aboratories @BR8A as created in ./FG and as $iven the po er to re$ulate clinical laboratories in ./11 under Republic Act No. E1GG. +n ./0., the 8icensure "ection as created ithin the BR8. +t as $iven the dut% to enforce the licensure re*uirements for blood ban)s as ell as clinical laboratories. !ue to this development, Administrative &rder No. .F1, "eries of ./0., as issued. The ne rules and re$ulations tri$$ered a stricter enforcement of the Blood Ban)in$ 8a , hich as characteri3ed b% fre*uent spot chec)s, immediate suspension and communication of such suspensions to hospitals, a more s%stematic record)eepin$ and fre*uent communication ith blood ban)s throu$h monthl% information bulletins. (nfortunatel%, b% the ./GCIs, financial difficulties constrained the BR8 to reduce the fre*uenc% of its supervisor% visits to the blood ban)s./

Mean hile, in the international scene, concern for the safet% of blood and blood products intensified hen the dreaded disease Acute +mmune !eficienc% "%ndrome @A+!"A as first described in ./0/. +n ./GC, the +nternational "ociet% of Blood Transfusion @+"BTA formulated the Code of Ethics for Blood !onation and Transfusion. +n ./G=, the first case of transfusion-associated A+!" as described in an infant. ;ence, the +"BT drafted in ./GE, a model for a national blood polic% outlinin$ certain principles that should be ta)en into consideration. B% ./GF, the +"BT had disseminated $uidelines re*uirin$ A+!" testin$ of blood and blood products for transfusion..C +n ./G/, another revision of the Blood Ban)in$ 5uidelines as made. The !&; issued Administrative &rder No. F0, "eries of ./G/, hich classified ban)s into primar%, secondar% and tertiar% dependin$ on the services the% provided. The standards ere ad,usted accordin$ to this classification. 4or instance, floor area re*uirements varied accordin$ to classification level. The ne $uidelines li)e ise re*uired ;epatitis B and ;+' testin$, and that the blood ban) be headed b% a patholo$ist or a hematolo$ist. .. +n .//=, the !&; issued Administrative &rder No. ..G-A institutionali3in$ the National Blood "ervices Pro$ram @NB"PA. The BR8 as desi$nated as the central office primaril% responsible for the NB"P. The pro$ram paved the a% for the creation of a committee that ill implement the policies of the pro$ram and the formation of the Re$ional Blood Councils. +n Au$ust .//=, "enate Bill No. .C.., entitled :An Act Promotin$ 'oluntar% Blood !onation, Providin$ for an Ade*uate "uppl% of "afe Blood, Re$ulatin$ Blood Ban)s and Providin$ Penalties for 'iolations Thereof, and for other Purposes: as introduced in the "enate. .= Mean hile, in the ;ouse of Representatives, ;ouse Bills No. -GE, FE1, 0GC and ./0G ere bein$ deliberated to address the issue of safet% of the Philippine blood ban) s%stem. "ubse*uentl%, the "enate and ;ouse Bills ere referred to the appropriate committees and subse*uentl% consolidated. .+n #anuar% of .//E, the Ne Tropical Medicine 4oundation, ith the assistance of the (.". A$enc% for +nternational !evelopment @("A+!A released its final report of a stud% on the Philippine blood ban)in$ s%stem entitled :Pro2ect to 6valuate t)e Sa'ety o' t)e P)ilippine +lood +an-in* System .: +t as revealed that of the blood units collected in .//=, 1E.E S ere supplied b% commercial blood ban)s, .E.FS b% the PNRC, .-.0S b% $overnment hospital-based blood ban)s, and 0.ES b% private hospital-based blood ban)s. !urin$ the time the stud% as made, there ere onl% t ent%-four @=EA re$istered or licensed free-standin$ or commercial blood ban)s in the countr%. ;ence, ith these numbers in mind, the stud% deduced that each commercial blood ban) produces five times more blood than the Red Cross and fifteen times more than the $overnment-run blood ban)s. The stud%, therefore, sho ed that the Philippines heavil% relied on commercial sources of blood. The stud% li)e ise revealed that //.1S of the donors of commercial blood ban)s and 00.CS of the donors of private-hospital based blood ban)s are paid donors. Paid donors are those ho receive remuneration for donatin$ their blood. Blood donors of the PNRC and $overnment-run hospitals, on the other hand, are mostl% voluntar%. .E +t as further found, amon$ other thin$s, that blood sold b% persons to blood commercial ban)s are three times more li)el% to have an% of the four @EA tested infections or blood transfusion transmissible diseases, namel%, malaria, s%philis, ;epatitis B and Ac*uired +mmune !eficienc% "%ndrome @A+!"A than those donated to PNRC..F Commercial blood ban)s $ive paid donors var%in$ rates around PFC to P.FC, and because of this arran$ement, man% of these donors are poor, and often the% are students, ho need cash immediatel%. "ince the% need the mone%, these donors are not usuall% honest about their medical or social histor%. Thus, blood from health%, voluntar% donors ho $ive their true medical and social histor% are about three times much safer than blood from paid donors..1 7hat the stud% also found alarmin$ is that man% 4ilipino doctors are not %et full% trained on the specific indications for blood component transfusion. The% are not a are of the lac) of blood suppl% and do not feel the need to ad,ust their practices and use of blood and blood products. +t also does not matter to them here the blood comes from..0 &n Au$ust =-, .//E, the National Blood "ervices Act providin$ for the phase out of commercial blood ban)s too) effect. &n April =G, .//F, Administrative &rder No. /, "eries of .//F, constitutin$ the +mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations of said la as promul$ated b% !&;.

The phase-out period as e6tended for t o %ears b% the !&; pursuant to "ection 0 of Republic Act No. 00./ and "ection =- of its +mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations. Pursuant to said Act, all commercial blood ban)s should have been phased out b% Ma% =G, .//G. ;ence, petitioners ere $ranted b% the "ecretar% of ;ealth their licenses to open and operate a blood ban) onl% until Ma% =0, .//G. &n Ma% =C, .//G, prior to the e6piration of the licenses $ranted to petitioners, the% filed a petition for certiorari ith application for the issuance of a rit of preliminar% in,unction or temporar% restrainin$ order under Rule 1F of the Rules of Court assailin$ the constitutionalit% and validit% of the aforementioned Act and its +mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations. The case as entitled :Rodolfo ". Beltran, doin$ business under the name and st%le, &ur 8ad% of 4atima Blood Ban),: doc)eted as 5.R. No. .--1EC. &n #une ., .//G, petitioners filed an Amended Petition for Certiorari ith Pra%er for +ssuance of a Temporar% Restrainin$ &rder, rit of preliminar% mandator% in,unction andOor status 3uo ante order..G +n the aforementioned petition, petitioners assail the constitutionalit% of the *uestioned le$al provisions, namel%, "ection 0 of Republic Act No. 00./ and "ection =- of Administrative &rder No. /, "eries of .//F, on the follo in$ $roundsD ./ .. The *uestioned le$al provisions of the National +lood Services Act and its !mplementin* #ules violate the e*ual protection clause for irrationall% discriminatin$ a$ainst free standin$ blood ban)s in a manner hich is not $ermane to the purpose of the la > =. The *uestioned provisions of the National +lood Services Act and its !mplementin* #ules represent undue dele$ation if not outri$ht abdication of the police po er of the state> and, -. The *uestioned provisions of the National +lood Services Act and its !mplementin* #ules are un arranted deprivation of personal libert%. &n Ma% ==, .//G, the !octors Blood Center filed a similar petition for mandamus ith a pra%er for the issuance of a temporar% restrainin$ order, preliminar% prohibitor% and mandator% in,unction before this Court entitled :!octors Blood Center vs. !epartment of ;ealth,: doc)eted as 5.R. No. .--11.. =C This as consolidated ith 5.R. No. .--1EC. =. "imilarl%, the petition attac)ed the constitutionalit% of Republic Act No. 00./ and its implementin$ rules and re$ulations, thus, pra%in$ for the issuance of a license to operate commercial blood ban)s be%ond Ma% =0, .//G. "pecificall%, ith re$ard to Republic Act No. 00./, the petition submitted the follo in$ *uestions == for resolutionD .. 7as it passed in the e6ercise of police po er, and =. !oes it not amount to deprivation of propert% as it a valid e6ercise of such po er<

ithout due process<

-. !oes it not unla full% impair the obli$ation of contracts< E. 7ith the commercial blood ban)s bein$ abolished and ith no read% machiner% to deliver the same suppl% and services, does R.A. 00./ trul% serve the public elfare< &n #une =, .//G, this Court issued a Resolution directin$ respondent !&; to file a consolidated comment. +n the same Resolution, the Court issued a temporar% restrainin$ order @TR&A for respondent to cease and desist from implementin$ and enforcin$ "ection 0 of Republic Act No. 00./ and its implementin$ rules and re$ulations until further orders from the Court. =&n Au$ust =1, .//G, respondent "ecretar% of ;ealth filed a Consolidated Comment on the petitions for certiorari and mandamus in 5.R. Nos. .--1EC and .--11., ith opposition to the issuance of a temporar% restrainin$ order.=E +n the Consolidated Comment, respondent "ecretar% of ;ealth submitted that blood from commercial blood ban)s is unsafe and therefore the "tate, in the e6ercise of its police po er, can close do n commercial blood ban)s to protect the public. ;e cited the record of deliberations on "enate Bill No. ..C. hich later became Republic Act No. 00./, and the sponsorship speech of "enator &rlando Mercado.

The rationale for the closure of these commercial blood ban)s can be found in the deliberations of "enate Bill No. .C.., e6cerpts of hich are *uoted belo D Sen&.o- Me-5&'o8 + am providin$ over a period of t o %ears to phase out all commercial blood ban)s. "o that in the end, the ne section ould have a provision that statesD :A88 C&MMERC+A8 B8&&! BANB" ";A88 BE P;A"E! &(T &'ER A PER+&! &4 T7& ?EAR" A4TER T;E E44ECT+'+T? &4 T;+" ACT. B8&&! ";A88 BE C&88ECTE! 4R&M '&8(NTAR? !&N&R" &N8? AN! T;E "ER'+CE 4EE T& BE C;AR5E! 4&R E'ER? B8&&! PR&!(CT +""(E! ";A88 BE 8+M+TE! T& T;E NECE""AR? EMPEN"E" ENTA+8E! +N C&88ECT+N5 AN! PR&CE""+N5 &4 B8&&!. T;E "ER'+CE 4EE ";A88 BE MA!E (N+4&RM T;R&(5; 5(+!E8+NE" T& BE "ET B? T;E !EPARTMENT&4 ;EA8T;.: + am supportin$ Mr. President, the findin$ of a stud% called :Pro,ect to Evaluate the "afet% of the Philippine Blood Ban)in$ "%stem.: This has been ta)en note of. This is a stud% done ith the assistance of the ("A+! b% doctors under the Ne Tropical Medicine 4oundation in Alaban$. Part of the lon$-term measures proposed b% this particular stud% is to improve la s, outla bu%in$ and sellin$ of blood and le$all% define $ood manufacturin$ processes for blood. This $oes to the ver% heart of m% amendment hich see)s to put into la the principle that blood should not be sub,ect of commerce of man. T:e P-e0/'/n4 O99/5e- @Sen&.o- !Cu/noA8 7hat does the sponsor sa%< Sen&.o- 3e778 Mr. President, ,ust for clarit%, + ould li)e to find out ho the 5entleman defines a commercial blood ban). + am at a loss at times hat a commercial blood ban) reall% is. Sen&.o- Me-5&'o8 7e have a definition, + believe, in the measure, Mr. President. T:e P-e0/'/n4 O99/5e- @Sen&.o- !Cu/noA8 +t is a business here profit is considered.

Sen&.o- Me-5&'o8 +f the Chairman of the Committee ould accept it, e can put a provision on "ection -, a definition of a commercial blood ban), hich, as defined in this la , e6ists for profit and en$a$es in the bu%in$ and sellin$ of blood or its components. Sen&.o- 3e778 That is a $ood description, Mr. President. N Sen&.o- Me-5&'o8 + refer, Mr. President, to a letter ritten b% !r. #aime 5alve3-Tan, the Chief of "taff, (ndersecretar% of ;ealth, to the $ood Chairperson of the Committee on ;ealth. +n recommendation No. E, he sa%sD :The need to phase out all commercial blood ban)s ithin a t o-%ear period ill $ive the !epartment of ;ealth enou$h time to build up $overnmentIs capabilit% to provide an ade*uate suppl% of blood for the needs of the nation...the use of blood for transfusion is a medical service and not a sale of commodit%.: Ta)in$ into consideration the e6perience of the National Bidne% +nstitute, hich has succeeded in ma)in$ the hospital .CC percent dependent on voluntar% blood donation, here is a success stor% of a hospital that does not bu% blood. All those ho are operated on and need blood have to convince their relatives or have to $et volunteers ho ould donate bloodN +f e $ive the responsibilit% of the testin$ of blood to those commercial blood ban)s, the% because it ill protect their profit. ill cut corners

+n the first place, the people ho sell their blood are the people ho are normall% in the hi$h-ris) cate$or%. "o e should stop the s%stem of sellin$ and bu%in$ blood so that e can $o into a national voluntar% blood pro$ram. +t has been said here in this report, and + *uoteD

:7h% is bu%in$ and sellin$ of blood not safe< This is not safe because a donor ho e6pects pa%ment for his blood ill not tell the truth about his illnesses and ill den% an% ris)% social behavior such as se6ual promiscuit% hich increases the ris) of havin$ s%philis or A+!" or abuse of intravenous addictive dru$s. 8aborator% tests are of limited value and ill not detect earl% infections. 8aborator% tests are re*uired onl% for four diseases in the Philippines. There are other blood transmissible diseases e do not %et screen for and there could be others here there are no tests available %et. A blood ban) o ner e6pectin$ to $ain profit from sellin$ blood ill also tr% his best to limit his e6penses. (suall% he tries to increase his profit b% bu%in$ cheaper rea$ents or test )its, hirin$ cheaper manpo er or s)ippin$ some tests alto$ether. ;e ma% also tr% to sell blood even thou$h these have infections in them. Because there is no e6istin$ s%stem of counterchec)in$ these, the blood ban) o ner can usuall% $et a a% ith man% unethical practices. The e6perience of 5erman%, Mr. President is illustrative of this issue. The reason h% contaminated blood as sold as that there ere corners cut b% commercial blood ban)s in the testin$ process. The% ere protectin$ their profits.=F The sponsorship speech of "enator Mercado further elucidated his stand on the issueD N Sen&.o- Me-5&'o8 Toda%, across the countr%, hundreds of povert%-stric)en, sic)l% and ea) 4ilipinos, ho, unemplo%ed, ithout hope and ithout mone% to bu% the ne6t meal, ill al) into a commercial blood ban), e6tend their arms and plead that their blood be bou$ht. The% ill lie about their a$e, their medical histor%. The% ill lie about hen the% last sold their blood. 4or doin$ this, the% ill receive close to a hundred pesos. This ma% tide them over for the ne6t fe da%s. &f course, until the ne6t bloodlettin$. This same blood ill travel to the posh cit% hospitals and urbane medical centers. This same blood ill no be bou$ht b% the rich at a price over FCCS of the value for hich it as sold. Bet een this bu%in$ and sellin$, obviousl%, someone has made a ver% fast buc). Ever% doctor has handled at least one transfusion-related disease in an other ise normal patient. Patients come in for minor sur$er% of the hand or hatever and the% leave ith hepatitis B. A patient comes in for an appendectom% and he leaves ith malaria. The orst ni$htmareD A patient comes in for a Caesarian section and leaves ith A+!". 7e do not e6pect $ood blood from donors ho sell their blood because of povert%. The humane dimension of blood transfusion is not in the act of receivin$ blood, but in the act of $ivin$ itN 4or %ears, our people have been at the merc% of commercial blood ban)s that lobb% their interests amon$ medical technolo$ists, hospital administrators and sometimes even ph%sicians so that a proactive s%stem for collection of blood from health% donors becomes difficult, tedious and unre ardin$. The !epartment of ;ealth has never institutionali3ed a comprehensive national pro$ram for safe blood and for voluntar% blood donation even if this is a serious public health concern and has fallen for the linen of commercial blood ban)ers, hoo), line and sin)er because it is more convenient to tell the patient to bu% blood. Commercial blood ban)s hold us hosta$e to their threat that if e are to close them do n, there ill be no blood suppl%. This is true if the 5overnment does not step in to ensure that safe suppl% of blood. 7e cannot allo commercial interest $roups to dictate polic% on hat is and hat should be a humanitarian effort. This cannot and ill never or) because their interest in blood donation is merel% monetar%. 7e cannot e6pect commercial blood ban)s to ta)e the lead in voluntar% blood donation. &nl% the 5overnment can do it, and the 5overnment must do it.:=1 &n Ma% F, .///, petitioners filed a Motion for +ssuance of E6panded Temporar% Restrainin$ &rder for the Court to order respondent "ecretar% of ;ealth to cease and desist from announcin$ the closure of commercial blood ban)s, compellin$ the public to source the needed blood from voluntar% donors onl%, and committin$ similar acts :that ill ultimatel% cause the shutdo n of petitionersI blood ban)s.: =0

&n #ul% G, .///, respondent "ecretar% filed his Comment andOor &pposition to the above motion statin$ that he has not ordered the closure of commercial blood ban)s on account of the Temporar% Restrainin$ &rder @TR&A issued on #une =, .//G b% the Court. +n compliance ith the TR&, !&; had li)e ise ceased to distribute the health advisor% leaflets, posters and fl%ers to the public hich state that :blood ban)s are closed or ill be closed.: Accordin$ to respondent "ecretar%, the same ere printed and circulated in anticipation of the closure of the commercial blood ban)s in accordance ith R.A. No. 00./, and ere printed and circulated prior to the issuance of the TR&. =G &n #ul% .F, .///, petitioners in 5.R. No. .--1EC filed a Petition to "ho Cause 7h% Public Respondent "hould Not be ;eld in Contempt of Court, doc)eted as 5.R. No. .-/.E0, citin$ public respondentIs illful disobedience of or resistance to the restrainin$ order issued b% the Court in the said case. Petitioners alle$ed that respondentIs act constitutes circumvention of the temporar% restrainin$ order and a moc)er% of the authorit% of the Court and the orderl% administration of ,ustice. =/ Petitioners added that despite the issuance of the temporar% restrainin$ order in 5.R. No. .--1EC, respondent, in his effort to stri)e do n the e6istence of commercial blood ban)s, disseminated misleadin$ information under the $uise of health advisories, press releases, leaflets, brochures and fl%ers statin$, amon$ others, that :this %ear K.//GL all commercial blood ban)s ill be closed b% =0 Ma%. Those ho need blood ill have to rel% on $overnment blood ban)s.: -C Petitioners further claimed that respondent "ecretar% of ;ealth announced in a press conference durin$ the Blood !onorIs 7ee) that commercial blood ban)s are :ille$al and dan$erous: and that the% :are at the moment protected b% a restrainin$ order on the basis that their commercial interest is more important than the lives of the people.: These ere all posted in bulletin boards and other conspicuous places in all $overnment hospitals as ell as other medical and health centers. -. +n respondent "ecretar%Is Comment to the Petition to "ho Cause 7h% Public Respondent "hould Not Be ;eld in Contempt of Court, dated #anuar% -, =CCC, it as e6plained that nothin$ as issued b% the department orderin$ the closure of commercial blood ban)s. The sub,ect health advisor% leaflets pertainin$ to said closure pursuant to Republic Act No. 00./ ere printed and circulated prior to the CourtIs issuance of a temporar% restrainin$ order on #une =., .//G. -= Public respondent further claimed that the primar% purpose of the information campai$n as :to promote the importance and safet% of voluntar% blood donation and to educate the public about the ha3ards of patroni3in$ blood supplies from commercial blood ban)s.: -- +n doin$ so, he as merel% performin$ his re$ular functions and duties as the "ecretar% of ;ealth to protect the health and elfare of the public. Moreover, the !&; is the main proponent of the voluntar% blood donation pro$ram espoused b% Republic Act No. 00./, particularl% "ection E thereof hich provides that, in order to ensure the ade*uate suppl% of human blood, voluntar% blood donation shall be promoted throu$h public education, promotion in schools, professional education, establishment of blood services net or), and (al-in* blood donors. ;ence, b% authorit% of the la , respondent "ecretar% contends that he has the dut% to promote the pro$ram of voluntar% blood donation. Certainl%, his act of encoura$in$ the public to donate blood voluntaril% and educatin$ the people on the ris)s associated ith blood comin$ from a paid donor promotes $eneral health and elfare and hich should be $iven more importance than the commercial businesses of petitioners. -E &n #ul% =/, .///, interposin$ personal and substantial interest in the case as ta6pa%ers and citi3ens, a Petition-in-+ntervention as filed inter,ectin$ the same ar$uments and issues as laid do n b% petitioners in 5.R. No. .--1EC and .--11., namel%, the unconstitutionalit% of the Acts, and, the issuance of a rit of prohibitor% in,unction. The intervenors are the immediate relatives of individuals ho had died alle$edl% because of shorta$e of blood suppl% at a critical time. -F The intervenors contended that Republic Act No. 00./ constitutes undue dele$ation of le$islative po ers and un arranted deprivation of personal libert%. -1 +n a resolution, dated "eptember 0, .///, and ithout $ivin$ due course to the aforementioned petition, the Court $ranted the Motion for +ntervention that as filed b% the above intervenors on Au$ust /, .///. +n his Comment to the petition-in-intervention, respondent "ecretar% of ;ealth stated that the sale of blood is contrar% to the spirit and letter of the Act that :blood donation is a humanitarian act: and :blood transfusion is a professional medical service and not a sale of commodit% @"ection =KaL and KbL of Republic Act No. 00./A. The act of sellin$ blood or char$in$ fees other than those allo ed b% la is even penali3ed under "ection .=.:-0

Thus, in vie of these, the Court is no tas)ed to pass upon the constitutionalit% of "ection 0 of Republic Act No. 00./ or the National Blood "ervices Act of .//E and its +mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations. +n resolvin$ the controvers%, this Court deems it necessar% to address the issues andOor *uestions raised b% petitioners concernin$ the constitutionalit% of the aforesaid Act in 5.R. No. .--1EC and .--11. as summari3ed hereunderD + 7;ET;ER &R N&T "ECT+&N 0 &4 R.A. 00./ C&N"T+T(TE" (N!(E !E8E5AT+&N &4 8E5+"8AT+'E P&7ER> ++ 7;ET;ER &R N&T "ECT+&N 0 &4 R.A. 00./ AN! +T" +MP8EMENT+N5 R(8E" AN! RE5(8AT+&N" '+&8ATE T;E E2(A8 PR&TECT+&N C8A("E> +++ 7;ET;ER &R N&T "ECT+&N 0 &4 R.A. 00./ AN! +T" +MP8EMENT+N5 R(8E" AN! RE5(8AT+&N" '+&8ATE T;E N&N-+MPA+RMENT C8A("E> +' 7;ET;ER &R N&T "ECT+&N 0 &4 R.A. 00./ AN! +T" +MP8EMENT+N5 R(8E" AN! RE5(8AT+&N" C&N"T+T(TE !EPR+'AT+&N &4 PER"&NA8 8+BERT? AN! PR&PERT?> ' 7;ET;ER &R N&T R.A. 00./ +" A 'A8+! EMERC+"E &4 P&8+CE P&7ER> and, '+ 7;ET;ER &R N&T "ECT+&N 0 &4 R.A. 00./ AN! +T" +MP8EMENT+N5 R(8E" AN! RE5(8AT+&N" TR(8? "ER'E P(B8+C 7E84ARE. As to the first $round upon hich the constitutionalit% of the Act is bein$ challen$ed, it is the contention of petitioners that the phase out of commercial or free standin$ blood ban)s is unconstitutional because it is an improper and un arranted dele$ation of le$islative po er. Accordin$ to petitioners, the Act as incomplete hen it as passed b% the 8e$islature, and the latter failed to fi6 a standard to hich the "ecretar% of ;ealth must conform in the performance of his functions. Petitioners also contend that the t o-%ear e6tension period that ma% be $ranted b% the "ecretar% of ;ealth for the phasin$ out of commercial blood ban)s pursuant to "ection 0 of the Act constrained the "ecretar% to le$islate, thus constitutin$ undue dele$ation of le$islative po er. +n testin$ hether a statute constitutes an undue dele$ation of le$islative po er or not, it is usual to in*uire hether the statute as complete in all its terms and provisions hen it left the hands of the 8e$islature so that nothin$ as left to the ,ud$ment of the administrative bod% or an% other appointee or dele$ate of the 8e$islature.-G E6cept as to matters of detail that ma% be left to be filled in b% rules and re$ulations to be adopted or promul$ated b% e6ecutive officers and administrative boards, an act of the 8e$islature, as a $eneral rule, is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not la% do n an% rule or definite standard b% hich the administrative board ma% be $uided in the e6ercise of the discretionar% po ers dele$ated to it. -/ Republic Act No. 00./ or the National Blood "ervices Act of .//E is complete in itself. +t is clear from the provisions of the Act that the 8e$islature intended primaril% to safe$uard the health of the people and has mandated several measures to attain this ob,ective. &ne of these is the phase out of commercial blood ban)s in the countr%. The la has sufficientl% provided a definite standard for the $uidance of the "ecretar% of ;ealth in carr%in$ out its provisions, that is, the promotion of public health b% providin$ a safe and ade*uate suppl% of blood throu$h voluntar% blood donation. B% its provisions, it has conferred the po er and authorit% to the "ecretar% of ;ealth as to its e6ecution, to be e6ercised under and in pursuance of the la .

Con$ress ma% validl% dele$ate to administrative a$encies the authorit% to promul$ate rules and re$ulations to implement a $iven le$islation and effectuate its policies. EC The "ecretar% of ;ealth has been $iven, under Republic Act No. 00./, broad po ers to e6ecute the provisions of said Act. "ection .. of the Act statesD :"EC. ... Rules and Re$ulations. P The implementation of the provisions of the Act shall be in accordance ith the rules and re$ulations to be promul$ated b% the "ecretar%, ithin si6t% @1CA da%s from the approval hereofN: This is hat respondent "ecretar% e6actl% did hen !&;, b% virtue of the administrative bod%Is authorit% and e6pertise in the matter, came out ith Administrative &rder No./, series of .//F or the Rules and Re$ulations +mplementin$ Republic Act No. 00./. Administrative &rder. No. / effectivel% filled in the details of the la for its proper implementation. "pecificall%, "ection =- of Administrative &rder No. / provides that the phase-out period for commercial blood ban)s shall be e6tended for another t o %ears until Ma% =G, .//G :based on the result of a careful stud% and revie of the blood suppl% and demand and public safet%.: This po er to ascertain the e6istence of facts and conditions upon hich the "ecretar% ma% effect a period of e6tension for said phase-out can be dele$ated b% Con$ress. The true distinction bet een the po er to ma)e la s and discretion as to its e6ecution is illustrated b% the fact that the dele$ation of po er to ma)e the la , hich necessaril% involves a discretion as to hat it shall be, and conferrin$ an authorit% or discretion as to its e6ecution, to be e6ercised under and in pursuance of the la . The first cannot be done> to the latter no valid ob,ection can be made. E. +n this re$ard, the "ecretar% did not $o be%ond the po ers $ranted to him b% the Act period as e6tended in accordance ith the Act as laid out in "ection = thereofD hen said phase-out

:"ECT+&N =. !eclaration of Polic% P +n order to promote public health, it is hereb% declared the polic% of the stateD aA to promote and encoura$e voluntar% blood donation b% the citi3enr% and to instill public consciousness of the principle that blood donation is a humanitarian act> bA to la% do n the le$al principle that the provision of blood for transfusion is a medical service and not a sale of commodit%> cA to provide for ade*uate, safe, affordable and e*uitable distribution of blood suppl% and blood products> dA to inform the public of the need for voluntar% blood donation to curb the ha3ards caused b% the commercial sale of blood> eA to teach the benefits and rationale of voluntar% blood donation in the e6istin$ health sub,ects of the formal education s%stem in all public and private schools as ell as the non-formal s%stem> fA to mobili3e all sectors of the communit% to participate in mechanisms for voluntar% and non-profit collection of blood> $A to mandate the !epartment of ;ealth to establish and or$ani3e a National Blood Transfusion "ervice Net or) in order to rationali3e and improve the provision of ade*uate and safe suppl% of blood> hA to provide for ade*uate assistance to institutions promotin$ voluntar% blood donation and providin$ nonprofit blood services, either throu$h a s%stem of reimbursement for costs from patients ho can afford to pa%, or donations from $overnmental and non-$overnmental entities> iA to re*uire all blood collection units and blood ban)sOcenters to operate on a non-profit basis> ,A to establish scientific and professional standards for the operation of blood collection units and blood ban)sOcenters in the Philippines> )A to re$ulate and ensure the safet% of all activities related to the collection, stora$e and ban)in$ of blood> and,

lA to re*uire up$radin$ of blood ban)sOcenters to include preventive services and education to control spread of blood transfusion transmissible diseases.: Petitioners also assert that the la and its implementin$ rules and re$ulations violate the e*ual protection clause enshrined in the Constitution because it undul% discriminates a$ainst commercial or free standin$ blood ban)s in a manner that is not $ermane to the purpose of the la . E= 7hat ma% be re$arded as a denial of the e*ual protection of the la s is a *uestion not al a%s easil% determined. No rule that ill cover ever% case can be formulated. Class le$islation, discriminatin$ a$ainst some and favorin$ others is prohibited but classification on a reasonable basis and not made arbitraril% or capriciousl% is permitted. The classification, ho ever, to be reasonableD @aA must be based on substantial distinctions hich ma)e real differences> @bA must be $ermane to the purpose of the la > @cA must not be limited to e6istin$ conditions onl%> and, @dA must appl% e*uall% to each member of the class. ERepublic Act No. 00./ or The National Blood "ervices Act of .//E, as enacted for the promotion of public health and elfare. +n the aforementioned stud% conducted b% the Ne Tropical Medicine 4oundation, it as revealed that the Philippine blood ban)in$ s%stem is disturbin$l% primitive and unsafe, and ith its current condition, the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria, A+!", ;epatitis B and s%philis chiefl% from blood transfusion is unavoidable. The situation becomes more distressin$ as the stud% sho ed that almost 0CS of the blood suppl% in the countr% is sourced from paid blood donors ho are three times ris)ier than voluntar% blood donors because the% are unli)el% to disclose their medical or social histor% durin$ the blood screenin$.EE The above stud% led to the passa$e of Republic Act No. 00./, to instill public consciousness of the importance and benefits of voluntar% blood donation, safe blood suppl% and proper blood collection from health% donors. To do this, the 8e$islature decided to order the phase out of commercial blood ban)s to improve the Philippine blood ban)in$ s%stem, to re$ulate the suppl% and proper collection of safe blood, and so as not to derail the implementation of the voluntar% blood donation pro$ram of the $overnment. +n lieu of commercial blood ban)s, non-profit blood ban)s or blood centers, in strict adherence to professional and scientific standards to be established b% the !&;, shall be set in place. EF Based on the fore$oin$, the 8e$islature never intended for the la to create a situation in hich un,ustifiable discrimination and ine*ualit% shall be allo ed. To effectuate its polic%, a classification as made bet een nonprofit blood ban)sOcenters and commercial blood ban)s. 7e deem the classification to be valid and reasonable for the follo in$ reasonsD &ne, it as based on substantial distinctions. The former operates for purel% humanitarian reasons and as a medical service hile the latter is motivated b% profit. Also, hile the former holl% encoura$es voluntar% blood donation, the latter treats blood as a sale of commodit%. T o, the classification, and the conse*uent phase out of commercial blood ban)s is $ermane to the purpose of the la , that is, to provide the nation ith an ade*uate suppl% of safe blood b% promotin$ voluntar% blood donation and treatin$ blood transfusion as a humanitarian or medical service rather than a commodit%. This necessaril% involves the phase out of commercial blood ban)s based on the fact that the% operate as a business enterprise, and the% source their blood suppl% from paid blood donors ho are considered unsafe compared to voluntar% blood donors as sho n b% the ("A+!-sponsored stud% on the Philippine blood ban)in$ s%stem. Three, the 8e$islature intended for the $eneral application of the la . +ts enactment as not solel% to address the peculiar circumstances of the situation nor as it intended to appl% onl% to the e6istin$ conditions. 8astl%, the la applies e*uall% to all commercial blood ban)s ithout e6ception.

;avin$ said that, this Court comes to the in*uir% as to valid e6ercise of police po er.

hether or not Republic Act No. 00./ constitutes a

The promotion of public health is a fundamental obli$ation of the "tate. The health of the people is a primordial $overnmental concern. Basicall%, the National Blood "ervices Act as enacted in the e6ercise of the "tateIs police po er in order to promote and preserve public health and safet%.

Police po er of the state is validl% e6ercised if @aA the interest of the public $enerall%, as distin$uished from those of a particular class, re*uires the interference of the "tate> and, @bA the means emplo%ed are reasonabl% necessar% to the attainment of the ob,ective sou$ht to be accomplished and not undul% oppressive upon individuals.E1 +n the earlier discussion, the Court has mentioned of the avo ed polic% of the la for the protection of public health b% ensurin$ an ade*uate suppl% of safe blood in the countr% throu$h voluntar% blood donation. Attainin$ this ob,ective re*uires the interference of the "tate $iven the disturbin$ condition of the Philippine blood ban)in$ s%stem. +n servin$ the interest of the public, and to $ive meanin$ to the purpose of the la , the 8e$islature deemed it necessar% to phase out commercial blood ban)s. This action ma% seriousl% affect the o ners and operators, as ell as the emplo%ees, of commercial blood ban)s but their interests must $ive a% to serve a hi$her end for the interest of the public. The Court finds that the National Blood "ervices Act is a valid e6ercise of the "tateIs police po er. Therefore, the 8e$islature, under the circumstances, adopted a course of action that is both necessar% and reasonable for the common $ood. Police po er is the "tate authorit% to enact le$islation that ma% interfere ith personal libert% or propert% in order to promote the $eneral elfare. E0 +t is in this re$ard that the Court finds the related $rounds andOor issues raised b% petitioners, namel%, deprivation of personal libert% and propert%, and violation of the non-impairment clause, to be unmeritorious. Petitioners are of the opinion that the Act is unconstitutional and void because it infrin$es on the freedom of choice of an individual in connection to hat he ants to do ith his blood hich should be outside the domain of "tate intervention. Additionall%, and in relation to the issue of classification, petitioners asseverate that, indeed, under the Civil Code, the human bod% and its or$ans li)e the heart, the )idne% and the liver are outside the commerce of man but this cannot be made to appl% to human blood because the latter can be replenished b% the bod%. To treat human blood e*uall% as the human or$ans ould constitute invalid classification. EG Petitioners li)e ise claim that the phase out of the commercial blood ban)s ill be disadvanta$eous to them as it ill affect their businesses and e6istin$ contracts ith hospitals and other health institutions, hence "ection 0 of the Act should be struc) do n because it violates the non-impairment clause provided b% the Constitution. As stated above, the "tate, in order to promote the $eneral elfare, ma% interfere ith personal libert%, ith propert%, and ith business and occupations. Thus, persons ma% be sub,ected to certain )inds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the $eneral elfare of the "tate and to this fundamental aim of $overnment, the ri$hts of the individual ma% be subordinated. E/ Moreover, in the case of P)ilippine Association o' Service 6Fporters, !nc. v. 7rilon, FC settled is the rule that the non-impairment clause of the Constitution must %ield to the loftier purposes tar$eted b% the $overnment. The ri$ht $ranted b% this provision must submit to the demands and necessities of the "tateIs po er of re$ulation. 7hile the Court understands the $rave implications of "ection 0 of the la in *uestion, the concern of the 5overnment in this case, ho ever, is not necessaril% to maintain profits of business firms. +n the ordinar% se*uence of events, it is profits that suffer as a result of $overnment re$ulation. 4urthermore, the freedom to contract is not absolute> all contracts and all ri$hts are sub,ect to the police po er of the "tate and not onl% ma% re$ulations hich affect them be established b% the "tate, but all such re$ulations must be sub,ect to chan$e from time to time, as the $eneral ell-bein$ of the communit% ma% re*uire, or as the circumstances ma% chan$e, or as e6perience ma% demonstrate the necessit%. F. This doctrine as reiterated in the case of Bda. de Genuino v. %ourt o' A*rarian #elationsF= here the Court held that individual ri$hts to contract and to propert% have to $ive a% to police po er e6ercised for public elfare. As for determinin$ hether or not the shutdo n of commercial blood ban)s ill trul% serve the $eneral public considerin$ the shorta$e of blood suppl% in the countr% as proffered b% petitioners, e maintain that the isdom of the 8e$islature in the la ful e6ercise of its po er to enact la s cannot be in*uired into b% the Court. !oin$ so ould be in dero$ation of the principle of separation of po ers. F-

That, under the circumstances, proper re$ulation of all blood ban)s ithout distinction in order to achieve the ob,ective of the la as contended b% petitioners is, of course, possible> but, this ould be ar$uin$ on hat the la may be or s)ould be and not hat the la is. Bet een is and ou*)t there is a far cr%. The isdom and propriet% of le$islation is not for this Court to pass upon. FE 4inall%, ith re$ard to the petition for contempt in 5.R. No. .-/.E0, on the other hand, the Court finds respondent "ecretar% of ;ealthIs e6planation satisfactor%. The statements in the fl%ers and posters ere not aimed at influencin$ or threatenin$ the Court in decidin$ in favor of the constitutionalit% of the la . Contempt of court presupposes a contumacious attitude, a floutin$ or arro$ant belli$erence in defiance of the court.FF There is nothin$ contemptuous about the statements and information contained in the health advisor% that ere distributed b% !&; before the TR& as issued b% this Court orderin$ the former to cease and desist from distributin$ the same. +n sum, the Court has been unable to find an% constitutional infirmit% in the *uestioned provisions of the National Blood "ervices Act of .//E and its +mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations. The fundamental criterion is that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionalit% of a statute. Ever% la has in its favor the presumption of constitutionalit%. 4or a la to be nullified, it must be sho n that there is a clear and une*uivocal breach of the Constitution. The $round for nullit% must be clear and be%ond reasonable doubt. F1 Those ho petition this Court to declare a la , or parts thereof, unconstitutional must clearl% establish the basis therefor. &ther ise, the petition must fail. Based on the $rounds raised b% petitioners to challen$e the constitutionalit% of the National Blood "ervices Act of .//E and its +mplementin$ Rules and Re$ulations, the Court finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionalit% of the la . As to hether the Act constitutes a ise le$islation, considerin$ the issues bein$ raised b% petitioners, is for Con$ress to determine. F0 3HEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders ,ud$ment as follo sD .. +n 5.R. Nos. .--1EC and .--11., the Court UPHOL#S THE (!L # TF of "ection 0 of Republic Act No. 00./, other ise )no n as the National Blood "ervices Act of .//E, and Administrative &rder No. /, "eries of .//F or the Rules and Re$ulations +mplementin$ Republic Act No. 00./. The petitions are # SM SSE#. Conse*uentl%, the Temporar% Restrainin$ &rder issued b% this Court on #une =, .//G, is L FTE#. =. +n 5.R. No. .-/.E0, the petition see)in$ to cite the "ecretar% of ;ealth in contempt of court is #EN E# for lac) of merit. No costs. SO OR#ERE#. !#OLFO S. !)CUN!
Foo.no.e0 Petition for %ertiorari ith Pra%er for the +ssuance of 7rit of Preliminar% Prohibitor% +n,unction or Temporar% Restrainin$ &rder, dated Ma% =C, .//G, and later an Amended Petition, dated #une ., .//G under Rule 1F of the Rules of Court.
.

Petition for Mandamus ith Pra%er for the +ssuance of Temporar% Restrainin$ &rder, Preliminar% Prohibitor% and Mandator% +n,unction, dated Ma% ==, .//G.
= -

Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. .C1> Rollo @5.R. No. .--11.A, p. 1/. Petition, dated #ul% .F, .///. Rollo @5.R. No. .-/.E0A, p. -E. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, pp. 0-G. Anne6 :5: of Petition, Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. 0/.

Anne6 :;: of Petition, Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. G1. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, pp. E=-E-. !d. at E1-E0. !d. at E-. Rollo @5.R. No. .--11.A, p. //. !d. at .CC. !d. at E/-F.. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. F/. !d. !d. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. ..=. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. .=C. Rollo @5.R. No..--11.A, p. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. .C1. Rollo @5.R. No..--11.A, pp. 0-G. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, pp. .C0-.CG. Rollo @5.R. No. .--11.A, p. /G. Record of the "enate, 'ol. +', No. F/, pp. =G1-=G0> rollo @5.R. No .--11.A, pp...F-.=C. Record of the "enate, 'olume ., No. .-, pp. E-E-E-1> rollo @5.R. No. .--11.A, pp. .=.-.=-. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, pp. ==0-=-=. !d. at pp. EC1-ECG. Rollo @5.R. No. .-/.E0A, p. /. Rollo @5.R. No. .-/.E0A, pp. F-1> Anne6es :A: to :C--,: pp. .E---. Rollo @5.R. No. .-/.E0A, p. 1. !d. at E/-FC. !d. at FC. !d. at FC-F.. !d. at E-F-E/F. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, pp. E10-E1G. Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, pp. 1GF-1G1. See 9nited States v. An* $an* Ho, E- Phil. . @./==A. People v. Bera, 1F Phil F1 @./-0A.

.C

..

.=

.-

.E

.F

.1

.0

.G

./

=C

=.

==

=-

=E

=F

=1

=0

=G

=/

-C

-.

-=

--

-E

-F

-1

-0

-G

-/

EC

Bda. de Pineda v. PeLa, 5.R. No. F011F, #ul% =, .//C, .G0 "CRA ==.

!d. citin* %incinnati, 0. H M.#. %o. v. %linton %ounty %omrs, . &hio "t., 00, GG @.GF=A.> %ruz v. Youn*ber*, F1 Phil. =-E @./-.A.
E. E=

Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, p. .=C> Rollo @5.R. No..--11.A, p. .CF. People v. Bera, supra.

E-

A 4inal Report on the Pro,ect to Evaluate the "afet% of the Philippine Blood Ban)in$ "%stem conducted on "eptember =G, .//P #anuar% .F, .//E, Rollo @5.R. No. .--1ECA, Anne6 :A,: p. E..
EE EF

Rollo @5.R. No..--11.A, pp. ..F-.=E.

7epartment o' 6ducation, %ulture and Sports "76%S& and 7irector o' %enter 'or 6ducational Measurement v. #oberto #ey %. San 7ie*o and Jud*e $eresita 7izon-%apulon*, 5.R. No. G/F0=, !ecember =., ./G/, .GC "CRA F--.
E1 E0

Pita v. %ourt o' Appeals, 5.R. No. GCGC1, &ctober F, ./G/, .0G "CRA -1=. Rollo @5.R. No..--11.A, p. .=. Patalin*)u* v. %ourt o' Appeals, 5.R. No. .CE0G1, #anuar% =0, .//E, ==/ "CRA FFE. No. 8-G./FG, #une -C, ./GG, .1- "CRA -G1. 4n*sia-o v. Gamboa, G1 Phil. FC @./FCA. No. 8-=FC-F, 4ebruar% =1, ./1G, == "CRA 0/=. Misolas v. Pan*a, 5.R. No. G--E., #anuar% -C, .//C, .G. "CRA 1EG. People v. Bera, supra. People v. Maceda, 5.R. Nos. G/F/.-/1, Au$ust .-, .//C, .GG "CRA F-=.

EG

E/

FC

F.

F=

F-

FE

FF

+asco v. P)ilippine Amusements and Gamin* %orporation "PAG%4#&, 5.R. No. /.1E/, Ma% .E, .//., ./0 "CRA F=, citin* Peralta v. %omelec, G= "CRA -C.> Yu %on* 6n* v. $rinidad, E0 Phil -G0.
F1 F0

+asco v. PAG%4#, supra.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 1482+8

#e5e67e- 1*, 2++4

CENTR!L "!N1 Dno< "&n4?o Sen.-&2 n4 P/2/,/n&0E EMPLOFEES !SSOC !T ON, NC., petitioner, vs. "!NG1O SENTR!L NG P L P N!S &n' .:e EGECUT (E SECRET!RF, respondents. !EC+"+&N PUNO, J.8 Can a provision of la , initiall% valid, become 0u70eCuen.2$ unconstitutional, on the $round that its 5on./nue' o,e-&./on ould violate the e*ual protection of the la < 7e hold that ith the passa$e of the subse*uent la s amendin$ the charter of seven @0A other $overnmental financial institutions @54+sA, the continued operation of the last proviso of "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of Republic Act @R.A.A No. 01F-, constitutes invidious discrimination on the 2,994 -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 of the +an*-o Sentral n* Pilipinas @B"PA. . T:e C&0e 4irst the facts. &n #ul% -, .//-, R.A. No. 01F- @the Ne the Philippines, and created a ne B"P. Central Ban) ActA too) effect. +t abolished the old Central Ban) of

&n #une G, =CC., almost e/4:. $e&-0 &9.e- the effectivit% of R.A. No. 01F-, petitioner Central Ban) @no B"PA Emplo%ees Association, +nc., filed a petition for prohibition a$ainst B"P and the E6ecutive "ecretar% of the &ffice of the President, to restrain respondents from further implementin$ the last proviso in "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of R.A. No. 01F-, on the $round that it is unconstitutional. Article ++, "ection .F@cA of R.A. No. 01F- providesD "ection .F. 6Fercise o' Aut)ority - +n the e6ercise of its authorit%, the Monetar% Board shallD 666 666 666

@cA establish a human resource mana$ement s%stem hich shall $overn the selection, hirin$, appointment, transfer, promotion, or dismissal of all personnel. "uch s%stem shall aim to establish professionalism and e6cellence at all levels of the +an*-o Sentral in accordance ith sound principles of mana$ement. A compensation structure, based on ,ob evaluation studies and a$e surve%s and sub,ect to the Board9s approval, shall be instituted as an inte$ral component of the +an*-o SentralIs human resource development pro$ramD Provided, That the Monetar% Board shall ma)e its o n s%stem conform as closel% as possible ith the principles provided for under Republic Act No. 10FG K"alar% "tandardi3ation ActL. )rovided, however, T:&. 5o6,en0&./on &n' <&4e 0.-u5.u-e o9 e6,2o$ee0 <:o0e ,o0/./on0 9&22 un'e- 0&2&-$ 4-&'e 19 &n' 7e2o< 0:&22 7e /n &55o-'&n5e </.: .:e -&.e0 ,-e05-/7e' un'e- Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8. Kemp)asis suppliedL The .:-u0. o9 ,e././one-B0 5:&22en4e is that the above proviso ma)es an un5on0./.u./on&2 5u. bet een t o classes of emplo%ees in the B"P, vizD @.A the B"P o99/5e-0 or those e6empted from the covera$e of the

"alar% "tandardi3ation 8a @""8A @e6empt classA> and @=A the -&n?-&n'-9/2e @"alar% 5rade K"5L ./ and belo A, or those not e6empted from the covera$e of the ""8 @non-e6empt classA. +t is contended that this classification is :a classic case of class le$islation,: alle$edl% not based on substantial distinctions hich ma)e real differences, but solel% on the "5 of the B"P personnel9s position. Petitioner also claims that it is not $ermane to the purposes of "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of R.A. No. 01F-, the most important of hich is to establish professionalism and e6cellence &. &22 2e;e20 in the B"P.. Petitioner offers the follo in$ sub-set of ar$umentsD a. the le$islative histor% of R.A. No. 01F- sho s that the *uestioned proviso does not appear in the ori$inal and amended versions of ;ouse Bill No. 0C-0, nor in the ori$inal version of "enate Bill No. .=-F> = b. sub,ectin$ the compensation of the B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees to the rate prescribed b% the ""8 actuall% defeats the purpose of the la - of establishin$ professionalism and e6cellence &. &22 2e;e20 in the B"P> E @emp)asis suppliedA c. the assailed proviso as the product of amendments introduced durin$ the deliberation of "enate Bill No. .=-F, ithout sho in$ its relevance to the ob,ectives of the la , and even admitted b% one senator as discriminator% a$ainst lo -salaried emplo%ees of the B"P> F d. 5"+", 8BP, !BP and """ personnel are all e6empted from the covera$e of the ""8> thus ithin the class of ran)-and-file personnel of $overnment financial institutions @54+sA, the B"P ran)-and-file are also discriminated upon>1 and e. the assailed proviso has caused the demorali3ation amon$ the B"P ran)-and-file and resulted in the $ross disparit% bet een their compensation and that of the B"P officers9. 0 +n sum, ,e././one- ,o0/.0 that the classification is not reasonable but arbitrar% and capricious, and violates the e*ual protection clause of the Constitution. G Petitioner also stressesD @aA that R.A. No. 01F- has a separabilit% clause, hich ill allo the declaration of the unconstitutionalit% of the proviso in *uestion ithout affectin$ the other provisions> and @bA the ur$enc% and propriet% of the petition, as some 2,994 "SP -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 have been ,-e>u'/5e' 0/n5e 1994 hen the proviso as implemented. Petitioner concludes thatD @.A since the ine*uitable proviso has no force and effect of la , respondents9 implementation of such amounts to lac) of ,urisdiction> and @=A it has no appeal nor an% other plain, speed% and ade*uate remed% in the ordinar% course e6cept throu$h this petition for prohibition, hich this Court should ta)e co$ni3ance of, considerin$ the transcendental importance of the le$al issue involved. / Respondent "SP, in its comment,.C contends that the provision does not violate the e*ual protection clause and can stand the constitutional test, provided it is construed in harmon% ith other provisions of the same la , such as :fiscal and administrative autonom% of B"P,: and the mandate of the Monetar% Board to :establish professionalism and e6cellence at all levels in accordance ith sound principles of mana$ement.: The So2/5/.o- Gene-&2, on behalf of respondent E6ecutive "ecretar%, also defends the validit% of the provision. 2uite simplisticall%, he ar$ues that the classification is based on actual and real differentiation, even as it adheres to the enunciated polic% of R.A. No. 01F- to establish professionalism and e6cellence ithin the B"P sub,ect to prevailin$ la s and policies of the national $overnment. .. . 00ue Thus, the 0o2e - albeit si$nificant - /00ue to be resolved in this case is hether the last para$raph of "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of R.A. No. 01F-, runs afoul of the constitutional mandate that :No person shall be. . . denied the e*ual protection of the la s.:.= . Ru2/n4 !. UN#ER THE PRESENT ST!N#!R#S OF E%U!L PROTECT ON, SECT ON 1*D5E, !RT CLE OF R.!. NO. 76*3 S (!L #.

#urisprudential standards for e*ual protection challen$es indubitabl% sho that the classification created b% the *uestioned proviso, on its face and in its operation, bears no constitutional infirmities. +t is settled in constitutional la that the :e*ual protection: clause does not prevent the 8e$islature from establishin$ classes of individuals or ob,ects upon hich different rules shall operate - so lon$ as the classification is not unreasonable. As held in (/5.o-/&no ;. E2/H&2'e Ro,e 3o-?e-0B Un/on,.- and reiterated in a lon$ line of casesD.E The $uarant% of e*ual protection of the la s is not a $uarant% of e*ualit% in the application of the la s upon all citi3ens of the state. +t is not, therefore, a re*uirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition a$ainst ine*ualit%, that ever% man, oman and child should be affected ali)e b% a statute. E*ualit% of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merel% as such, but on persons accordin$ to the circumstances surroundin$ them. +t $uarantees e*ualit%, not identit% of ri$hts. The Constitution does not re*uire that thin$s hich are different in fact be treated in la as thou$h the% ere the same. The e*ual protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to thin$s that are different. +t does not prohibit le$islation hich is limited either in the ob,ect to hich it is directed or b% the territor% ithin hich it is to operate. The e*ual protection of the la s clause of the Constitution allo s classification. Classification in la , as in the other departments of )no led$e or practice, is the $roupin$ of thin$s in speculation or practice because the% a$ree ith one another in certain particulars. A la is not invalid because of simple ine*ualit%. The ver% idea of classification is that of ine*ualit%, so that it $oes ithout sa%in$ that the mere fact of ine*ualit% in no manner determines the matter of constitutionalit%. All that is re*uired of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, hich means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions hich ma)e for real differences, that it must be $ermane to the purpose of the la > that it must not be limited to e6istin$ conditions onl%> and that it must appl% e*uall% to each member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpabl% arbitrar%. +n the e6ercise of its po er to ma)e classifications for the purpose of enactin$ la s over matters ithin its ,urisdiction, the state is reco$ni3ed as en,o%in$ a ide ran$e of discretion. +t is not necessar% that the classification be based on scientific or mar)ed differences of thin$s or in their relation. Neither is it necessar% that the classification be made ith mathematical nicet%. ;ence, le$islative classification ma% in man% cases properl% rest on narro distinctions, for the e*ual protection $uarant% does not preclude the le$islature from reco$ni3in$ de$rees of evil or harm, and le$islation is addressed to evils as the% ma% appear. @ citations omittedA Con$ress is allo ed a ide lee a% in providin$ for a valid classification. .F The e*ual protection clause is not infrin$ed b% le$islation hich applies onl% to those persons fallin$ ithin a specified class. .1 +f the $roupin$s are characteri3ed b% substantial distinctions that ma)e real differences, one class ma% be treated and re$ulated differentl% from another..0 The classification must also be $ermane to the purpose of the la and must appl% to all those belon$in$ to the same class. .G +n the case at bar, it is clear in the le$islative deliberations that the e6emption of officers @"5 =C and aboveA from the ""8 as intended to address the B"P9s lac) of competitiveness in terms of attractin$ competent officers and e6ecutives. +t as not intended to discriminate a$ainst the ran)-and-file. +f the end-result did in fact lead to a disparit% of treatment bet een the officers and the ran)-and-file in terms of salaries and benefits, the discrimination or distinction has a rational basis and is not palpabl%, purel%, and entirel% arbitrar% in the le$islative sense. ./ That the provision as a product of amendments introduced durin$ the deliberation of the "enate Bill does not detract from its validit%. As earl% as ./E0 and reiterated in subse*uent cases, =C this Court has subscribed to the conclusiveness of an enrolled bill to refuse invalidatin$ a provision of la , on the $round that the bill from hich it ori$inated contained no such provision and as merel% inserted b% the bicameral conference committee of both ;ouses. Moreover, it is a fundamental and familiar teachin$ that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionalit% of a statute. =. An act of the le$islature, approved b% the e6ecutive, is presumed to be ithin constitutional limitations.== To ,ustif% the nullification of a la , there must be a clear and une*uivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and e*uivocal breach. =-

B. T;E ENACTMENT, ;&7E'ER, &4 "(B"E2(ENT 8A7" EMEMPT+N5 A88 &T;ER RANB-AN!-4+8E EMP8&?EE" &4 54+s 4R&M T;E ""8 - REN!ER" T;E C&NT+N(E! APP8+CAT+&N &4 T;E C;A88EN5E! PR&'+"+&N A '+&8AT+&N &4 T;E E2(A8 PR&TECT+&N C8A("E. 7hile R.A. No. 01F- started as a valid measure ell ithin the le$islature9s po er, e hold that the en&5.6en. o9 0u70eCuen. 2&<0 e=e6,./n4 &22 -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 o9 o.:e- GF 0 2ee5:e' &22 ;&2/'/.$ ou. o9 .:e 5:&22en4e' proviso. 1. T:e 5on5e,. o9 -e2&./;e 5on0./.u./on&2/.$. The constitutionalit% of a statute cannot, in ever% instance, be determined b% a mere comparison of its provisions ith applicable provisions of the Constitution, since the statute ma% be constitutionall% valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. =E A statute valid at one time ma% become void at another time because of &2.e-e' 5/-5u60.&n5e0.=F Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrar% or confiscator%, its validit%, even thou$h affirmed b% a former ad,udication, is open to in*uir% and investi$ation in the li$ht of 5:&n4e' 5on'/./on0.=1 !emonstrative of this doctrine is (e-non P&-? Re&2.$ ;. C/.$ o9 Moun. (e-non,=0 here the Court of Appeals of Ne ?or) declared as unreasonable and arbitrar% a 3onin$ ordinance hich placed the plaintiff9s propert% in a residential district, althou$h it as located in the center of a business area. 8ater amendments to the ordinance then prohibited the use of the propert% e6cept for par)in$ and stora$e of automobiles, and service station ithin a par)in$ area. The Court found the ordinance to constitute an invasion of propert% ri$hts hich as contrar% to constitutional due process. +t ruledD 7hile the common council has the un*uestioned ri$ht to enact 3onin$ la s respectin$ the use of propert% in accordance ith a ell-considered and comprehensive plan desi$ned to promote public health, safet% and $eneral elfare, such po er is sub,ect to the constitutional limitation that it ma% not be e6erted arbitraril% or unreasonabl% and this is so henever the 3onin$ ordinance precludes the use of the propert% for an% purpose for hich it is reasonabl% adapted. "$ .:e 0&6e .o?en, &n o-'/n&n5e ;&2/' <:en &'o,.e' </22 ne;e-.:e2e00 7e 0.-/5?en 'o<n &0 /n;&2/' <:en, &. & 2&.e- ./6e, /.0 o,e-&./on un'e- 5:&n4e' 5on'/./on0 ,-o;e0 5on9/05&.o-$ such, for instance, as hen the $reater part of its value is destro%ed, for hich the courts ill afford relief in an appropriate case.=G @citations omitted, emp)asis suppliedA n .:e P:/2/,,/ne 0e../n4, this Court declared the continued enforcement of a valid la as unconstitutional as a conse*uence of 0/4n/9/5&n. 5:&n4e0 in circumstances. Ru..e- ;. E0.e7&n=/ upheld the constitutionalit% of the moratorium la - its enactment and operation bein$ a valid e6ercise b% the "tate of its police po er-C - but also ruled that the 5on./nue' en9o-5e6en. o9 .:e o.:e-</0e ;&2/' 2&< <ou2' 7e un-e&0on&72e &n' o,,-e00/;e. +t noted the 0u70eCuen. 5:&n4e0 in the countr%9s business, industr% and a$riculture. Thus, the la as set aside because its continued operation ould be $rossl% discriminator% and lead to the oppression of the creditors. The landmar) rulin$ statesD -. The *uestion no to be determined is, is the period of e/4:. D8E $e&-0 hich Republic Act No. -E= $rants to debtors of a monetar% obli$ation contracted before the last $lobal ar and ho is a ar sufferer ith a claim dul% approved b% the Philippine 7ar !ama$e Commission reasonable under the present circumstances< +t should be noted that Republic Act No. -E= onl% e6tends relief to debtors of pre ar obli$ations ho suffered from the rava$es of the last ar and ho filed a claim for their losses ith the Philippine 7ar !ama$e Commission. +t is therein provided that said obli$ation shall not be due and demandable for a period of ei$ht @GA %ears from and after settlement of the claim filed b% the debtor ith said Commission. The purpose of the la is to afford to pre ar debtors an opportunit% to rehabilitate themselves b% $ivin$ them a reasonable time ithin hich to pa% their pre ar debts so as to prevent them from bein$ victimi3ed b% their creditors. 7hile it is admitted in said la that since liberation conditions have $raduall% returned to normal, this is not so ith re$ard to those ho have suffered the rava$es of ar and so it as therein declared as a polic% that as to them the debt moratorium should be continued in force @"ection .A.

But e should not lose si$ht of the fact that these obli$ations had been pendin$ since ./EF as a result of the issuance of E6ecutive &rders Nos. =F and -= and at present their enforcement is still inhibited because of the enactment of Republic Act No. -E= and ould continue to be unenforceable durin$ the ei$ht-%ear period $ranted to pre ar debtors to afford them an opportunit% to rehabilitate themselves, hich in plain lan$ua$e means that the creditors ould have to observe a vi$il of at least t elve @.=A %ears before the% could effect a li*uidation of their investment datin$ as far bac) as ./E.. his period seems to us unreasonable, if not oppressive. 7hile the purpose of Con$ress is plausible, and should be commended, the relief accorded or)s in,ustice to creditors ho are practicall% left at the merc% of the debtors. Their hope to effect collection becomes e6tremel% remote, more so if the credits are unsecured. And the in,ustice is more patent hen, under the la , the debtor is not even re*uired to pa% interest durin$ the operation of the relief, unli)e similar statutes in the (nited "tates. 666 666 666

+n the face of the fore$oin$ observations, and consistent ith hat e believe to be as the onl% course dictated b% ,ustice, fairness and ri$hteousness, e feel that the onl% a% open to us under .:e ,-e0en. 5/-5u60.&n5e0 /0 .o 'e52&-e .:&. .:e 5on./nue' o,e-&./on &n' en9o-5e6en. o9 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 342 &. .:e ,-e0en. ./6e /0 un-e&0on&72e &n' o,,-e00/;e, &n' 0:ou2' no. 7e ,-o2on4e' & 6/nu.e 2on4e-, &n', .:e-e9o-e, .:e 0&6e 0:ou2' 7e 'e52&-e' nu22 &n' ;o/' &n' </.:ou. e99e5.. @emp)asis supplied, citations omittedA 2. !,,2/5&7/2/.$ o9 .:e eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 52&u0e. n .:e -e&26 o9 eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on, the (.". case of !.2&n./5 Co&0. L/ne R. Co. ;. ;e$-= is illuminatin$. The "upreme Court of 4lorida ruled a$ainst the continued application of statutes authori3in$ the recover% of double dama$es plus attorne%9s fees a$ainst railroad companies, for animals )illed on unfenced railroad ri$ht of a% ithout proof of ne$li$ence. Competitive motor carriers, thou$h creatin$ $reater ha3ards, ere not sub,ected to similar liabilit% because the% ere no. $e. /n e=/0.en5e hen the statutes ere enacted. The Court ruled that the statutes became invalid as den%in$ :e*ual protection of the la ,: in vie of 5:&n4e' 5on'/./on0 0/n5e .:e/- en&5.6en.. +n another (.". case, Lou/0;/22e J N.R. Co. ;. F&u2?ne-,-- the Court of Appeals of Bentuc)% declared unconstitutional a provision of a statute hich imposed a dut% upon a railroad compan% of provin$ that it as free from ne$li$ence in the )illin$ or in,ur% of cattle b% its en$ine or cars. T:/0, no.</.:0.&n'/n4 .:&. .:e 5on0./.u./on&2/.$ o9 .:e 0.&.u.e, en&5.e' /n 1893, :&' 7een ,-e;/ou02$ 0u0.&/ne' . Ruled the CourtD The constitutionalit% of such le$islation as sustained because it applied to all similar corporations and had for its ob,ect the safet% of persons on a train and the protection of propert%N. &f course, there ere no automobiles in those da%s. The 0u70eCuen. inau$uration and development of transportation b% motor vehicles on the public hi$h a%s b% common carriers of frei$ht and passen$ers created even $reater ris)s to the safet% of occupants of the vehicles and of dan$er of in,ur% and death of domestic animals. ?et, under the la the operators of that mode of competitive transportation are not sub,ect to the same e6traordinar% le$al responsibilit% for )illin$ such animals on the public roads as are railroad companies for )illin$ them on their private ri$hts of a%. The "upreme Court, spea)in$ throu$h #ustice Brandeis in Nashville, C. Q "t. 8. R%. Co. v. 7alters, =/E (.". ECF, FF ".Ct. EG1, EGG, 0/ 8.Ed. /E/, stated, :! 0.&.u.e ;&2/' <:en en&5.e' 6&$ 7e5o6e /n;&2/' 7$ 5:&n4e /n .:e 5on'/./on0 .o <:/5: /. /0 &,,2/e'. The police po er is sub,ect to the constitutional limitation that it ma% not be e6erted arbitraril% or unreasonabl%.: A number of prior opinions of that court are cited in support of the statement. The "tate of 4lorida for man% %ears had a statute, 4.".A. W -F1.C. et se*. imposin$ e6traordinar% and special duties upon railroad companies, amon$ hich as that a railroad compan% as liable for double dama$es and an attorne%9s fee for )illin$ livestoc) b% a train ithout the o ner havin$ to prove an% act of ne$li$ence on the part of the carrier in the operation of its train. +n Atlantic Coast 8ine Railroad Co. v. +ve%, it as held that the chan$ed conditions brou$ht about b% motor vehicle transportation rendered the statute unconstitutional since if a common carrier b% motor vehicle had )illed the same animal, the o ner ould have been re*uired to prove ne$li$ence in the operation of its e*uipment. "aid the court, :This certainl% is not e*ual protection of the la .: -E @emp)asis suppliedA E5:oe0 o9 .:e0e -u2/n40 -e0on&.e /n ou- 5&0e 2&<, viz/

KCLourts are not confined to the lan$ua$e of the statute under challen$e in determinin$ hether that statute has an% discriminator% effect. ! 0.&.u.e non'/05-/6/n&.o-$ on /.0 9&5e 6&$ 7e 4-o002$ '/05-/6/n&.o-$ /n /.0 o,e-&./on. Thou$h the la itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, %et, if it is applied and administered b% public authorit% ith an evil e%e and une*ual hand, so as practicall% to ma)e un,ust and ille$al discriminations bet een persons in similar circumstances, material to their ri$hts, the denial of e*ual ,ustice is still ithin the prohibition of the Constitution.-F @emp)asis supplied, citations omittedA K7Le see no '/99e-en5e 7e.<een & 2&< <:/5: 'en/e0 eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on &n' & 2&< <:/5: ,e-6/.0 o9 0u5: 'en/&2. A la ma% appear to be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, %et, if it permits of un,ust and ille$al discrimination, it is ithin the constitutional prohibitionN.. +n other ords, statutes ma% be ad,ud$ed unconstitutional because of their effect in operationN. +f a la has the effect of den%in$ the e*ual protection of the la it is unconstitutional. N. -1 @emp)asis supplied, citations omitted 3. En&5.6en. o9 R.!. No0. 79+7 N 8282 N 8289 N 8291 N 8*23 N 8763 N 93+2 O 5on0eCuen./&2 un5on0./.u./on&2/.$ o9 5:&22en4e' proviso. Accordin$ to petitioner, the last proviso of "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of R.A. No. 01F- is also violative of the e*ual protection clause because after it as enacted, the charters of the 5"+", 8BP, !BP and """ ere also amended, but the personnel of the latter 54+s ere all e6empted from the covera$e of the ""8. -0 Thus, ithin the class of ran)-and-file personnel of 54+s, the B"P ran)-and-file are also discriminated upon. +ndeed, e ta)e ,udicial notice that after the ne B"P charter as enacted in .//-, Con$ress also undertoo) the amendment of the charters of the 5"+", 8BP, !BP and """, and three other 54+s, from .//F to =CCE, vizD .. R.A. No. 0/C0 @.//FA for 8and Ban) of the Philippines @8BPA> =. R.A. No. G=G= @.//0A for "ocial "ecurit% "%stem @"""A> -. R.A. No. G=G/ @.//0A for "mall Business 5uarantee and 4inance Corporation, @"B54CA> E. R.A. No. G=/. @.//0A for 5overnment "ervice +nsurance "%stem @5"+"A> F. R.A. No. GF=- @.//GA for !evelopment Ban) of the Philippines @!BPA> 1. R.A. No. G01- @=CCCA for ;ome 5uarant% Corporation @;5CA> -G and 0. R.A. No. /-C= @=CCEA for Philippine !eposit +nsurance Corporation @P!+CA. +t is note orth%, as petitioner points out, .:&. .:e 0u70eCuen. 5:&-.e-0 o9 .:e 0e;en o.:e- GF 0 0:&-e .:/0 5o66on proviso8 a blan)et e6emption of &22 .:e/- e6,2o$ee0 from the covera$e of the ""8, e6pressl% or impliedl%, as illustrated belo D 1. L"P DR.!. No. 79+7E "ection .C. "ection /C of KR.A. No. -GEEL is hereb% amended to read as follo sD "ection /C. Personnel. 666 666 666

All positions in the Ban) shall be $overned b% a compensation, position classification s%stem and *ualification standards approved b% the Ban)9s Board of !irectors based on a comprehensive ,ob anal%sis and audit of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable ith the prevailin$ compensation plans in the private sector and shall be sub,ect to periodic revie b% the Board no more than once ever% t o @=A %ears ithout pre,udice to %earl% merit revie s or increases based on productivit% and profitabilit%. T:e "&n? 0:&22 .:e-e9o-e 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 e=/0./n4 2&<0, -u2e0 &n' -e4u2&./on0 on 5o6,en0&./on, ,o0/./on 52&00/9/5&./on &n'

Cu&2/9/5&./on 0.&n'&-'0. +t shall ho ever endeavor to ma)e its s%stem conform as closel% as possible ith the principles under Republic Act No. 10FG. @ emp)asis suppliedA 666 2. SSS DR.!. No. 8282E "ection .. KAmendin$ R.A. No. ..1., "ection -@cALD 666 666 666 666 666

@cAThe Commission, upon the recommendation of the """ President, shall appoint an actuar% and such other personnel as ma% KbeL deemed necessar%> fi6 their reasonable compensation, allo ances and other benefits> prescribe their duties and establish such methods and procedures as ma% be necessar% to insure the efficient, honest and economical administration of the provisions and purposes of this ActD Provided, )o(ever, That the personnel of the """ belo the ran) of 'ice President shall be appointed b% the """ PresidentD Provided, 'urt)er, That the personnel appointed b% the """ President, e6cept those belo the ran) of assistant mana$er, shall be sub,ect to the confirmation b% the Commission> Provided 'urt)er, That the personnel of the """ shall be selected onl% from civil service eli$ibles and be sub,ect to civil service rules and re$ulationsD Provided, 'inally, T:&. .:e SSS 0:&22 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 .:e ,-o;/0/on0 o9 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8 &n' Re,u72/5 !5. No. 743+. @emp)asis suppliedA 3. S"GFC DR.!. No. 8289E "ection G. KAmendin$ R.A. No. 1/00, "ection ..LD 666 666 666

The "mall Business 5uarantee and 4inance Corporation shallD 666 666 666

@eA no.</.:0.&n'/n4 .:e ,-o;/0/on0 o9 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8, &n' Co6,en0&./on C/-5u2&No. 1+, 0e-/e0 o9 1989 issued b% the !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ement, .:e "o&-' o9 #/-e5.o-0 o9 S"GFC 0:&22 :&;e .:e &u.:o-/.$ .o e=.en' .o .:e e6,2o$ee0 &n' ,e-0onne2 .:e-eo9 .:e &22o<&n5e &n' 9-/n4e 7ene9/.0 0/6/2&- .o .:o0e e=.en'e' .o &n' 5u--en.2$ en>o$e' 7$ .:e e6,2o$ee0 &n' ,e-0onne2 o9 o.:e- 4o;e-n6en. 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0. @emp)ases suppliedA 4. GS S DR.!. No. 8291E "ection .. KAmendin$ "ection E-@dAL. 666 666 666

"ec. E-. Po(ers and unctions o' t)e +oard o' $rustees. - The Board of Trustees shall have the follo in$ po ers and functionsD 666 666 666

@dA upon the recommendation of the President and 5eneral Mana$er, to approve the 5"+"9 or$ani3ational and administrative structures and staffin$ pattern, and to establish, fi6, revie , revise and ad,ust the appropriate compensation pac)a$e for the officers and emplo%ees of the 5"+" ith reasonable allo ances, incentives, bonuses, privile$es and other benefits as ma% be necessar% or proper for the effective mana$ement, operation and administration of the GS S, <:/5: 0:&22 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8, o.:e-</0e ?no<n &0 .:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&< &n' Re,u72/5 !5. No. 743+, o.:e-</0e ?no<n &0 .:e !..-/./on L&<. @emp)asis suppliedA 666 666 666

*. #"P DR.!. No. 8*23E "ection 1. KAmendin$ E.&. No. G., "ection .-LD "ection .-. 4t)er 4''icers and 6mployees. - The Board of !irectors shall provide for an or$ani3ation and staff of officers and emplo%ees of the Ban) and upon recommendation of the President of the Ban), fi6 their remunerations and other emoluments. All positions in the Ban) shall be $overned b% the compensation, position classification s%stem and *ualification standards approved b% the Board of !irectors based on a comprehensive ,ob anal%sis of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable ith the prevailin$ compensation plans in the private sector and shall be sub,ect to periodic revie b% the Board of !irectors once ever% t o @=A %ears, ithout pre,udice to %earl% merit or increases based on the Ban)9s productivit% and profitabilit%. T:e "&n? 0:&22, .:e-e9o-e, 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 e=/0./n4 2&<0, -u2e0, &n' -e4u2&./on0 on 5o6,en0&./on, ,o0/./on 52&00/9/5&./on &n' Cu&2/9/5&./on 0.&n'&-'0. T:e "&n? 0:&22 :o<e;e-, en'e&;o- .o 6&?e /.0 0$0.e6 5on9o-6 &0 52o0e2$ &0 ,o00/72e </.: .:e ,-/n5/,2e0 un'e- Co6,en0&./on &n' Po0/./on C2&00/9/5&./on !5. o9 1989 DRe,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8, &0 &6en'e'E. @emp)asis suppliedA 6. HGC DR.!. No. 8763E "ection /. Po(ers, unctions and 7uties o' t)e +oard o' 7irectors . - The Board shall have the follo in$ po ers, functions and dutiesD 666 666 666

@eA To create offices or positions necessar% for the efficient mana$ement, operation and administration of the CorporationD Provided, That all positions in the ;ome 5uarant% Corporation @;5CA shall be $overned b% a compensation and position classification s%stem and *ualifications standards approved b% the Corporation9s Board of !irectors based on a comprehensive ,ob anal%sis and audit of actual duties and responsibilitiesD Provided, 'urt)er, T:&. .:e 5o6,en0&./on ,2&n 0:&22 7e 5o6,&-&72e </.: .:e ,-e;&/2/n4 5o6,en0&./on ,2&n0 /n .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o- &n' <:/5: 0:&22 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8, o.:e-</0e ?no<n &0 .:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&<, &n' 9-o6 o.:e- 2&<0, -u2e0 &n' -e4u2&./on0 on 0&2&-/e0 &n' 5o6,en0&./on0K and to establish a Provident 4und and determine the Corporation9s and the emplo%ee9s contributions to the 4und> @emp)asis suppliedA 666 7. P# C DR.!. No. 93+2E "ection =. "ection = of KRepublic Act No. -F/., as amendedL is hereb% further amended to readD 666 -. 666 666 666 666 666 666 666

A compensation structure, based on ,ob evaluation studies and a$e surve%s and sub,ect to the Board9s approval, shall be instituted as an inte$ral component of the Corporation9s human resource development pro$ramD Provided, That all positions in the Corporation shall be $overned b% a compensation, position classification s%stem and *ualification standards approved b% the Board based on a comprehensive ,ob anal%sis and audit of actual duties and responsibilities. T:e 5o6,en0&./on ,2&n 0:&22 7e 5o6,&-&72e </.: .:e ,-e;&/2/n4 5o6,en0&./on ,2&n0 o9 o.:e4o;e-n6en. 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0 and shall be sub,ect to revie b% the Board no more than once ever% t o @=A %ears ithout pre,udice to %earl% merit revie s or increases based on productivit% and profitabilit%. T:e Co-,o-&./on 0:&22 .:e-e9o-e 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 e=/0./n4 2&<0, -u2e0 &n' -e4u2&./on0 on 5o6,en0&./on, ,o0/./on 52&00/9/5&./on &n' Cu&2/9/5&./on 0.&n'&-'0. +t shall ho ever endeavor to ma)e its s%stem conform as closel% as possible ith the principles under Republic Act No. 10FG, as amended. @emp)ases suppliedA

T:u0, e2e;en $e&-0 &9.e- .:e &6en'6en. o9 .:e "SP 5:&-.e-, .:e -&n?-&n'-9/2e o9 0e;en o.:e- GF 0 <e-e 4-&n.e' .:e e=e6,./on .:&. <&0 0,e5/9/5&22$ 'en/e' .o .:e -&n?-&n'-9/2e o9 .:e "SP. And as if to add insult to petitioner9s in,ur%, even the "ecurities and E6chan$e Commission @"ECA as $ranted the same blan)et e6emption from the ""8 in =CCCT-/ The prior vie on the constitutionalit% of R.A. No. 01F- as 5on9/ne' .o &n e;&2u&./on o9 /.0 52&00/9/5&./on 7e.<een .:e -&n?-&n'-9/2e &n' .:e o99/5e-0 o9 .:e "SP, found reasonable because there ere substantial distinctions that made real differences bet een the t o classes. T:e &7o;e-6en./one' 0u70eCuen. en&5.6en.0, :o<e;e-, 5on0./.u.e 0/4n/9/5&n. 5:&n4e0 /n 5/-5u60.&n5e .:&. 5on0/'e-&72$ &2.e- .:e -e&0on&7/2/.$ o9 .:e 5on./nue' o,e-&./on o9 .:e 2&0. proviso o9 Se5./on 1*D5E, !-./52e o9 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 76*3, .:e-e7$ e=,o0/n4 .:e proviso .o 6o-e 0e-/ou0 05-u./n$. This time, the scrutin% relates to the constitutionalit% of the classification - albeit made indirectl% as a conse*uence of the passa$e of ei$ht other la s - 7e.<een .:e -&n?-&n'-9/2e o9 .:e "SP &n' .:e 0e;en o.:e- GF 0. The classification must not onl% be reasonable, 7u. 6u0. &20o &,,2$ eCu&22$ .o &22 6e67e-0 o9 .:e 52&00. The proviso ma% be fair on its face and impartial in appearance 7u. /. 5&nno. 7e 4-o002$ '/05-/6/n&.o-$ /n /.0 o,e-&./on , so as practicall% to ma)e un,ust distinctions bet een persons ho are ithout differences. EC "tated differentl%, the second level of in*uir% deals ith the follo in$ *uestionsD 5iven that Con$ress chose to e6empt other 54+s @aside the B"PA from the covera$e of the ""8, can the e6clusion of the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the B"P stand constitutional scrutin% in the li$ht of the fact that Con$ress did not e6clude the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the other 54+s< +s Con$ress9 po er to classif% so unbridled as to sanction une*ual and discriminator% treatment, simpl% because the ine*uit% manifested itself, not instantl% throu$h a sin$le overt act, but $raduall% and pro$ressivel%, throu$h seven separate acts of Con$ress< +s the ri$ht to e*ual protection of the la bounded in time and space thatD @aA the ri$ht can onl% be invo)ed a$ainst a classification made directl% and deliberatel%, as opposed to a discrimination that arises indirectl%, or as a conse*uence of several other acts> and @bA is the le$al anal%sis confined to determinin$ the validit% ithin the parameters of the statute or ordinance @ here the inclusion or e6clusion is articulatedA, thereb% proscribin$ an% evaluation vis-N-vis the $roupin$, or the lac) thereof, amon$ several similar enactments made over a period of time< +n this 0e5on' 2e;e2 of scrutin%, the ine*ualit% of treatment cannot be ,ustified on the mere assertion that each e6emption @$ranted to the seven other 54+sA rests :on a polic% determination b% the le$islature.: !22 2e4/02&./;e en&5.6en.0 ne5e00&-/2$ -e0. on & ,o2/5$ 'e.e-6/n&./on - even those that have been declared to contravene the Constitution. 'eril%, if this could serve as a ma$ic and to sustain the validit% of a statute, then no due process and e*ual protection challen$es ould ever prosper. There is nothin$ inherentl% sacrosanct in a polic% determination made b% Con$ress or b% the E6ecutive> it cannot run riot and overrun the ramparts of protection of the Constitution. +n fine, the :polic% determination: ar$ument ma% support the ine*ualit% of treatment bet een the ran)-andfile and the officers of the B"P, but it cannot ,ustif% the ine*ualit% of treatment bet een B"P ran)-and-file and other 54+s9 ho are similarl% situated. +t fails to appreciate that hat is at issue in the 0e5on' 2e;e2 o9 05-u./n$ is not the 'e52&-e' polic% of each la per se, but .:e o,,-e00/;e -e0u2.0 o9 Con4-e00B /n5on0/0.en. &n' uneCu&2 ,o2/5$ to ards the B"P ran)-and-file and those of the seven other 54+s. At bottom, the second challen$e to the constitutionalit% of "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of Republic Act No. 01F- /0 ,-e6/0e' ,-e5/0e2$ on .:e /--&./on&2 '/05-/6/n&.o-$ ,o2/5$ &'o,.e' 7$ Con4-e00 /n /.0 .-e&.6en. o9 ,e-0on0 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e'. +n the field of e*ual protection, the $uarantee that :no person shall be N denied the e*ual protection of the la s: includes the prohibition a$ainst enactin$ la s that allo invidious discrimination, '/-e5.2$ o- /n'/-e5.2$. +f a la has the effect of den%in$ the e*ual protection of the la , or permits such denial, it is unconstitutional. E. +t is a$ainst this standard that the disparate treatment of the B"P ran)-and-file from the other 54+s cannot stand ,udicial scrutin%. 4or as re$ards the e6emption from the covera$e of the ""8, there e6ist no substantial distinctions so as to differentiate, the B"P ran)-and-file from the other ran)-and-file of the seven 54+s. &n the contrar%, ou- 2e4&2 :/0.o-$ 0:o<0 .:&. GF 0 :&;e 2on4 7een -e5o4n/He' &0 5o6,-/0/n4 one '/0./n5. 52&00, 0e,&-&.e 9-o6 o.:e- 4o;e-n6en.&2 en././e0. "e9o-e .:e SSL, Presidential !ecree @P.#.E No. 98* D1976E declared it as a "tate polic% @.A to provide e*ual pa% for substantiall% e*ual or), and @=A to base differences in pa% upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and *ualification re*uirements of the positions. P.!. No. /GF as passed to address disparities in pa% amon$ similar or comparable positions hich had $iven rise to dissension amon$ $overnment emplo%ees. "u. e;en .:en, GF 0 &n' 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' &n'Io- 5on.-o22e'

5o-,o-&./on0 DGOCC0E <e-e &2-e&'$ /'en./9/e' &0 & '/0./n5. 52&00 &6on4 4o;e-n6en. e6,2o$ee0. Thus, "ection = also provided, :KtLhat not ithstandin$ a standardi3ed salar% s%stem established for all emplo%ees, additional financial incentives ma% be established b% $overnment corporation and financial institutions for their emplo%ees to be supported full% from their corporate funds and for such technical positions as ma% be approved b% the President in critical $overnment a$encies.: E= The same favored treatment is made for the 54+s and the 5&CCs under the ""8. "ection -@bA provides that one of the principles $overnin$ the Compensation and Position Classification "%stem of the 5overnment is thatD :KbLasic compensation for all personnel in the $overnment and $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations and financial institutions shall $enerall% be comparable ith those in the private sector doin$ comparable or), and must be in accordance ith prevailin$ la s on minimum a$es.: Thus, the B"P and all other 54+s and 5&CCs ere under the unified Compensation and Position Classification "%stem of the ""8,E- but rates of pa% under the ""8 ere determined on the basis of, amon$ others, prevailin$ rates in the private sector for comparable or). Notabl%, the Compensation and Position Classification "%stem as to be $overned b% the follo in$ principlesD @aA ,ust and e*uitable a$es, ith the ratio of compensation bet een pa% distinctions maintained at e*uitable levels> EE and @bA basic compensation $enerall% comparable ith the private sector, in accordance ith prevailin$ la s on minimum a$es. EF Also, the !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ement as directed to use, as $uide for preparin$ the +nde6 of &ccupational "ervices, the Benchmar) Position "chedule, and the follo in$ factorsD E1 @.A the education and e6perience re*uired to perform the duties and responsibilities of the positions> @=A the nature and comple6it% of the @-A the )ind of supervision received> @EA mental andOor ph%sical strain re*uired in the completion of the @FA nature and e6tent of internal and e6ternal relationships> @1A )ind of supervision e6ercised> @0A decision-ma)in$ responsibilit%> @GA responsibilit% for accurac% of records and reports> @/A accountabilit% for funds, properties and e*uipment> and @.CA hardship, ha3ard and personal ris) involved in the ,ob. The Benchmar) Position "chedule enumerates the position titles that fall ithin "alar% 5rades . to =C. or)> or) to be performed>

Clearl%, under R.A. No. 10FG, the ran)-and-file of all 54+s ere similarl% situated in all aspects pertainin$ to compensation and position classification, in consonance ith "ection F, Article +M-B of the .//0 Constitution.E0 T:en 5&6e .:e en&5.6en. o9 .:e &6en'e' 5:&-.e- o9 .:e "SP, implicitl% e6emptin$ the Monetar% Board from the ""8 b% $ivin$ it e6press authorit% to determine and institute its o n compensation and a$e structure. ;o ever, emplo%ees hose positions fall under "5 ./ and belo ere specificall% limited to the rates prescribed under the ""8. Su70eCuen. &6en'6en.0 .o .:e 5:&-.e-0 o9 o.:e- GF 0 9o22o<e'. "i$nificantl%, each $overnment financial institution @54+A as not onl% e6pressl% authori3ed to determine and institute its o n compensation and a$e structure, 7u. &20o e=,2/5/.2$ e=e6,.e' - </.:ou. '/0./n5./on &0 .o 0&2&-$ 4-&'e o- ,o0/./on - &22 e6,2o$ee0 o9 .:e GF 9-o6 .:e SSL. +t has been proffered that le$islative deliberations ,ustif% the $rant or ithdra al of e6emption from the ""8, based on the perceived need :to 'ul'ill t)e mandate o' t)e institution concerned considerin*, amon* ot)ers, t)at/ "5& t)e G4%% or G ! is essentially proprietary in c)aracterJ ">& t)e G4%% or G ! is in direct

competition (it) t)eir KsicL counterparts in t)e private sector, not only in terms o' t)e provisions o' *oods or services, but also in terms o' )irin* and retainin* competent personnelJ and "@& t)e G4%% or G ! are or (ere KsicL eFperiencin* di''iculties 'illin* up plantilla positions (it) competent personnel and;or retainin* t)ese personnel. $)e need 'or t)e scope o' eFemption necessarily varies (it) t)e particular circumstances o' eac) institution, and t)e correspondin* variance in t)e bene'its received by t)e employees is merely incidental.: The fra$ilit% of this ar$ument is manifest. 4irst, the B"P is the 5en.-&2 6one.&-$ &u.:o-/.$,EG and the 7&n?e- o9 .:e 4o;e-n6en. &n' &22 /.0 ,o2/./5&2 0u7'/;/0/on0. E/ +t has the sole po er and authorit% to issue currenc%>FC provide polic% directions in the areas of mone%, ban)in$, and credit> and supervise ban)s and re$ulate finance companies and non-ban) financial institutions performin$ *uasi-ban)in$ functions, /n52u'/n4 .:e e=e6,.e' GF 0.F. ;ence, the ar$ument that the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the seven 54+s ere e6empted because of the importance of their institution9s mandate cannot stand an% more than an empt% sac) can stand. "econd, it is certainl% misleadin$ to sa% that : t)e need 'or t)e scope o' eFemption necessarily varies (it) t)e particular circumstances o' eac) institution.1 No here in the deliberations is there a co$ent basis for the e6clusion of the B"P ran)-and-file from the e6emption hich as $ranted to the ran)-and-file of the other 54+s and the "EC. As point in fact, the B"P and the seven 54+s are similarl% situated in so far as Con$ress deemed it necessar% for these institutions to be e6empted from the ""8. True, the ""8-e6emption of the B"P and the seven 54+s as $ranted in the amended charters of each 54+, enacted separatel% and over a period of time. But it bears emphasis that, hile each 54+ has a mandate different and distinct from that of another, the deliberations sho that the raison dIOtre of the ""8-e6emption as ineFtricably lin-ed to and 'or t)e most part based on factors common to the ei$ht 54+s, i.e., @.A the pivotal role the% pla% in the econom%> @=A the necessit% of hirin$ and retainin$ *ualified and effective personnel to carr% out the 54+9s mandate> and @-A the reco$nition that the compensation pac)a$e of these 54+s is not competitive, and fall substantiall% belo industr% standards. Considerin$ further that @aA the B"P as the first 54+ $ranted ""8 e6emption> and @bA the subse*uent e6emptions of other 54+s did not distin$uish bet een the officers and the ran)-and-file> it is patent that .:e 52&00/9/5&./on 6&'e 7e.<een .:e "SP -&n?-&n'-9/2e &n' .:o0e o9 .:e o.:e- 0e;en GF 0 as inadvertent, and N&T intended, i.e., it as not based on an% substantial distinction vis-X-vis the particular circumstances of each 54+. Moreover, the e6emption $ranted to t o 54+s ma)es e6press reference to allo(ance and 'rin*e bene'its similar to t)ose eFtended to and currently en2oyed by t)e employees and personnel o' ot)er G !s,F= underscorin$ that 54+s are a particular class ithin the realm of $overnment entities. +t is precisel% this unpremeditated discrepanc% in treatment of the ran)-and-file of the B"P - made manifest and $larin$ ith each and ever% conse*uential $rant of blan)et e6emption from the ""8 to the other 54+s that cannot be rationali3ed or ,ustified. Even more so, hen the "EC - hich is not a 54+ - as $iven leave to have a compensation plan that :shall be comparable ith the prevailin$ compensation plan in the KB"PL and other K54+sL,:F- then $ranted a blan)et e6emption from the ""8, and its ran)-and-file endo ed a more preferred treatment than the ran)-and-file of the B"P. The violation to the e*ual protection clause becomes even more pronounced hen e are faced ith this undeniable truthD that if Con$ress had enacted a la for the sole purpose of e6emptin$ the ei$ht 54+s from the covera$e of the ""8, the e6clusion of the B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees ould have been devoid of an% substantial or material basis. +t bears no moment, therefore, that the unla ful discrimination as not a direct result arisin$ from one la . :Nemo potest 'acere per alium 3uod non potest 'acere per directum.1 No one is allo ed to do indirectl% hat he is prohibited to do directl%. +t has also been proffered that :similarities alone are not sufficient to support the conclusion that ran)-andfile emplo%ees of the B"P ma% be lumped to$ether ith similar emplo%ees of the other 5&CCs for purposes of compensation, position classification and *ualification standards. The fact that certain persons have some attributes in common does not automaticall% ma)e them members of the same class ith respect to a le$islative classification.: Cited is the rulin$ in Jo:n0on ;. Ro7/n0onDFE :this findin$ of similarit% i$nores that a common characteristic shared b% beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries ali)e, is not sufficient to invalidate a statute hen other characteristics peculiar to onl% one $roup rationall% e6plain the statute9s different treatment of the t o $roups.: The reference to #ohnson is inapropos. +n #ohnson, the (" Court sustained the validit% of the classification as there ere Cu&n./.&./;e &n' Cu&2/.&./;e '/0./n5./on0, e=,-e002$ -e5o4n/He' 7$ Con4-e00, <:/5: 9o-6e' & -&./on&2 7&0/0 9o- .:e 52&00/9/5&./on limitin$ educational benefits to militar% service veterans as a means of helpin$ them read,ust to civilian life. The Court listed the peculiar characteristics as follo sD

4irst, the disruption caused b% militar% service is *uantitativel% $reater than that caused b% alternative civilian service. A conscientious ob,ector performin$ alternative service is obli$ated to or) for t o %ears. "ervice in the Armed 4orces, on the other hand, involves a si6-%ear commitmentN 666 666 666

"econd, the disruptions suffered b% militar% veterans and alternative service performers are *ualitativel% different. Militar% veterans suffer a far $reater loss of personal freedom durin$ their service careers. (prooted from civilian life, the militar% veteran becomes part of the militar% establishment, sub,ect to its discipline and potentiall% ha3ardous dut%. Con$ress as acutel% a are of the peculiar disabilities caused b% militar% service, in conse*uence of hich militar% servicemen have a special need for read,ustment benefitsN FF @citations omittedA +n the case at bar, it is precisel% the fact that &0 -e4&-'0 .:e e=e6,./on 9-o6 .:e SSL, .:e-e &-e no 5:&-&5.e-/0./50 ,e5u2/&- on2$ .o .:e 0e;en GF 0 o- .:e/- -&n?-&n'-9/2e 0o &0 .o >u0./9$ .:e e=e6,./on <:/5: "SP -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 <e-e 'en/e' @not to mention the anomal% of the "EC $ettin$ oneA. The distinction made b% the la is not onl% superficial, F1 but also arbitrar%. +t is not based on substantial distinctions that ma)e real differences bet een the B"P ran)-and-file and the seven other 54+s. Moreover, the issue in this case is not - as the dissentin$ opinion of Mme. #ustice Carpio-Morales ould put it - hether :bein$ an emplo%ee of a 5&CC or 54+ is reasonable and sufficient basis for e6emption: from R.A. No. 10FG. . /0 Con4-e00 /.0e29 .:&. '/0./n4u/0:e' .:e GF 0 9-o6 o.:e- 4o;e-n6en. &4en5/e0, not once but ei$ht times, throu$h the enactment of R.A. Nos. 01F-, 0/C0, G=G=, G=G/, G=/., GF=-, G01-, and /-C=. These la s ma% have created a :preferred sub-class ithin $overnment emplo%ees,: but the present challen$e is not directed at the isdom of these la s. Rather, it is a le$al conundrum involvin$ the e6ercise of le$islative po er, the validit% of hich must be measured not onl% b% loo)in$ at the specific e6ercise in and by itsel' @R.A. No. 01F-A, but also as to the le*al e''ects brou$ht about b% seven separate e6ercises albeit indirectl% and ithout intent. Thus, even if petitioner had not alle$ed :a comparable chan$e in the factual milieu as re$ards the compensation, position classification and *ualification standards of the emplo%ees of the B"P @ hether of the e6ecutive level or of the ran)-and-fileA since the enactment of the ne Central Ban) Act: is of no moment. +n GS!S v. Montesclaros,F0 this Court resolved the issue of constitutionalit% not ithstandin$ that claimant had manifested that she as no lon$er interested in pursuin$ the case, and even hen the constitutionalit% of the said provision as not s*uarel% raised as an issue, because the issue involved not onl% the claimant but also others similarl% situated and hose claims 5"+" ould also den% based on the challen$ed proviso. The Court held that social ,ustice and public interest demanded the resolution of the constitutionalit% of the proviso. And so it is ith the challen$ed proviso in the case at bar. +t bears stressin$ that the e6emption from the ""8 is a M,-/;/2e4eM full% ithin the le$islative prero$ative to $ive or den%. ;o ever, its subse*uent $rant to the ran)-and-file of the seven other 54+s and continued denial to the B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees breached the latter9s ri$ht to e*ual protection. +n other ords, hile the $rantin$ of a privile$e per se is a matter of polic% e6clusivel% ithin the domain and prero$ative of Con$ress, t)e validity or le*ality o' t)e eFercise of this prero$ative is sub,ect to ,udicial revie . FG "o hen the distinction made is superficial, and not based on substantial distinctions that ma)e real differences bet een those included and e6cluded, it becomes a matter of arbitrariness that this Court has the dut% and the po er to correct.F/ As held in the (nited Bin$dom case of Hoo,e- ;. Se5-e.&-$ o9 S.&.e 9o- 3o-? &n' Pen0/on0,1C once the "tate has chosen to confer benefits, :discrimination: contrar% to la ma% occur here favorable treatment alread% afforded to one $roup is refused to another, even thou$h the "tate is under no obli$ation to provide that favorable treatment. 1. The disparit% of treatment bet een B"P ran)-and-file and the ran)-and-file of the other seven 54+s definitel% bears the unmista)able bad$e of invidious discrimination - no one can, ith candor and fairness, den% the discriminator% character of the subse*uent blan)et and total e6emption of the seven other 54+s from the ""8 hen such as ithheld from the B"P. !2/?e0 &-e 7e/n4 .-e&.e' &0 un&2/?e0 </.:ou. &n$ -&./on&2 7&0/0. A$ain, it must be emphasi3ed that the e*ual protection clause does not demand absolute e*ualit% 7u. /. -eCu/-e0 .:&. &22 ,e-0on0 0:&22 7e .-e&.e' &2/?e, un'e- 2/?e 5/-5u60.&n5e0 &n' 5on'/./on0 7o.: &0 .o ,-/;/2e4e0 5on9e--e' &n' 2/&7/2/./e0 en9o-5e'. 4avoritism and undue preference cannot be allo ed. 4or the principle is that e*ual protection and securit% shall be $iven to ever% person under circumstances hich,

if not identical, are analo$ous. +f la be loo)ed upon in terms of burden or char$es, those that fall ithin a class should be treated in the same fashion> hatever restrictions cast on some in the $roup is e*uall% bindin$ on the rest.1= +n li$ht of the lac) of real and substantial distinctions that ould ,ustif% the une*ual treatment bet een the ran)-and-file of B"P from the seven other 54+s, it is clear that the enactment of the seven subse*uent charters has rendered the continued application of the challen$ed proviso anathema to the e*ual protection of the la , and the same should be declared as an outla . (. ECu&2 P-o.e5./on Un'e- n.e-n&./on&2 Len0 n ou- >u-/0'/5./on, the standard and anal%sis of e*ual protection challen$es in the main have follo ed the M-&./on&2 7&0/0M test, coupled ith a deferential attitude to le$islative classifications 1- and a reluctance to invalidate a la unless there is a sho in$ of a clear and une*uivocal breach of the Constitution. 1E !. ECu&2 P-o.e5./on /n .:e Un/.e' S.&.e0 n 5on.-&0., >u-/0,-u'en5e /n .:e U.S. :&0 4one 7e$on' .:e 0.&./5 M-&./on&2 7&0/0M .e0.. Professor 5unther hi$hli$hts the development in e*ual protection ,urisprudential anal%sis, to itD 1F T-&'/./on&22$, e*ual protection supported onl% minimal ,udicial intervention in most conte6ts. &rdinaril%, the command of e*ual protection as onl% that $overnment must not impose differences in treatment :e6cept upon some reasonable differentiation fairl% related to the ob,ect of re$ulation.: The o2' ;&-/e.$ of e*ual protection scrutin% 9o5u0e' 0o2e2$ on the means used b% the le$islatureD it insisted merel% that the classification in the statute -e&0on&72$ -e2&.e0 .o .:e 2e4/02&./;e ,u-,o0e. (nli)e substantive due process, e*ual protection scrutin% as not t%picall% concerned ith identif%in$ :fundamental values: and restrainin$ le$islative en'0. And usuall% the -&./on&2 52&00/9/5&./on re*uirement as readil% satisfiedD the courts did not demand a ti$ht fit bet een classification and purpose> perfect con$ruence bet een means and ends as not re*uired. 666 666 666 e*ual protection:

@F-o6 6&-4/n&2 /n.e-;en./on .o 6&>o- 5u../n4 e'4e8 The 7arren Court9s :ne and the t o-tier approach.L

4rom its traditional modest role, eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 7u-4eone' /n.o & 6&>o- /n.e-;en./on .oo2 'u-/n4 .:e 3&--en e-&, especiall% in the ./1Cs. The 7arren Court did not abandon the deferential in$redients of the old e*ual protectionD in most areas of economic and social le$islation, the demands imposed b% e*ual protection remained as minimal as everNBut the Court launched an e*ual protection revolution b% findin$ lar$e ne areas for strict rather than deferential scrutin%. A sharpl% differentiated .<o-./e- &,,-o&5: e;o2;e' b% the late ./1CsD in addition to the deferential :old: e*ual protection, a :ne : e*ual protection, connotin$ 0.-/5. 05-u./n$, aroseN. The intensive revie associated ith the ne e*ual protection imposed t o demands - & 'e6&n' no. on2$ &0 .o 6e&n0 7u. &20o one &0 .o en'0. 8e$islation *ualif%in$ for strict scrutin% re*uired a far closer fit bet een classification and statutor% purpose than the rou$h and read% fle6ibilit% traditionall% tolerated b% the old e*ual protectionD 6e&n0 :&' .o 7e 0:o<n Mne5e00&-$M .o &5:/e;e 0.&.u.o-$ en'0, no. 6e-e2$ M-e&0on&72$ -e2&.e'M one0. Moreover, e*ual protection became a source of ends scrutin% as ellD le$islation in the areas of the ne e*ual protection had to be ,ustified b% :compellin$: state interests, not merel% the ide spectrum of :le$itimate: state ends. The 3&--en Cou-. identified the &-e&0 &,,-o,-/&.e 9o- 0.-/5. 05-u./n$ b% searchin$ for .<o 5:&-&5.e-/0./50D the presence of a :suspect: classification> or an impact on :fundamental: ri$hts or interests. +n the cate$or% of :suspect classifications,: the 7arren Court9s ma,or contribution as to intensif% the strict scrutin% in the traditionall% interventionist area of racial classifications. But other cases also su$$ested that there mi$ht be more other suspect cate$ories as ellD ille$itimac% and ealth for e6ample. But it as the 9fundamental interests: in$redient of the ne e*ual protection that proved particularl% d%namic, open-ended, and amorphousN.. K&ther fundamental interests included votin$, criminal appeals, and the ri$ht of interstate travel N.L

666

666

666

,he -urger Court and E0ual )rotection. The Bur$er Court as -e2u5.&n. .o e=,&n' .:e 05o,e o9 .:e ne< eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on, &2.:ou4: /.0 7e0. e0.&72/0:e' /n4-e'/en. -e.&/n0 ;/.&2/.$. There as also mountin$ discontent ith the ri$id t o-tier formulations of the 7arren Court9s e*ual protection doctrine. +t as prepared to use the clause as an interventionist tool ithout resortin$ to the strict lan$ua$e of the ne e*ual protectionN. KAmon$ the fundamental interests identified durin$ this time ere votin$ and access to the ballot, hile :suspect: classifications included se6, aliena$e and ille$itimac%.L 666 666 666

Even hile the t o-tier scheme has often been adhered to in form, there has also been an increasin$l% noticeable resistance to the sharp difference bet een deferential :old: and interventionist :ne : e*ual protection. A number of ,ustices sou$ht formulations that ould blur the sharp distinctions of the t o-tiered approach or that ould narro the $ap bet een strict scrutin% and deferential revie . The most elaborate attac) came from #ustice Marshall, hose fre*uentl% stated position as developed most elaboratel% in his dissent in the #odri*uez caseD 11 The Court apparentl% see)s to establish KthatL e*ual protection cases fall into one of t o neat cate$ories hich dictate the appropriate standard of revie - 0.-/5. 05-u./n$ o- 6e-e -&./on&2/.$. But this @sicA Court9s KdecisionsL def% such eas% cate$ori3ation. A principled readin$ of hat this Court has done reveals that it has applied a spectrum of standards in revie in$ discrimination alle$edl% violative of the e*ual protection clause. This spectrum clearl% comprehends variations in the de$ree of care ith hich Court ill scrutini3e particular classification, dependin$, + believe, on the constitutional and societal importance of the interests adversel% affected and the reco$ni3ed invidiousness of the basis upon hich the particular classification is dra n. #ustice Marshall9s M02/'/n4 05&2eM &,,-o&5: describes man% of the modern decisions, althou$h it is a formulation that the ma,orit% refused to embrace. "u. .:e "u-4e- Cou-.B0 -e0u2.0 /n'/5&.e &. 2e&0. .<o 0/4n/9/5&n. 5:&n4e0 /n eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 2&<8 1irst, invocation of the :old: e*ual protection formula no lon$er si$nals, as it did ith the 7arren Court, an e6treme deference to le$islative classifications and a virtuall% automatic validation of challen$ed statutes. +nstead, several cases, even hile voicin$ the minimal :rationalit%: :hands-off: standards of the old e*ual protection, proceed to find the statute unconstitutional. Second, in some areas the 6o'e-n Cou-. has put forth standards for e*ual protection revie that, hile clearl% more intensive than the deference of the :old: e*ual protection, are less demandin$ than the strictness of the :ne : e*ual protection. "e6 discrimination is the best established e6ample of an M/n.e-6e'/&.eM 2e;e2 o9 -e;/e<. Thus, in one case, the Court said that :classifications b% $ender must serve i!portant $overnmental ob,ectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those ob,ectives.: That standard is :intermediate: ith respect to both ends and meansD here ends must be :compellin$: to survive strict scrutin% and merel% :le$itimate: under the :old: mode, :important: ob,ectives are re*uired here> and here means must be :necessar%: under the :ne : e*ual protection, and merel% :rationall% related: under the :old: e*ual protection, the% must be :substantiall% related: to survive the :intermediate: level of revie . @emp)asis supplied, citations omittedA ". ECu&2 P-o.e5./on /n Eu-o,e The Un/.e' 1/n4'o6 &n' o.:e- 6e67e-0 o9 .:e Eu-o,e&n Co66un/.$ have also $one for ard in discriminator% le$islation and ,urisprudence. 7ithin the (nited Bin$dom domestic la , the most e6tensive list of protected $rounds can be found in !-./52e 14 o9 .:e Eu-o,e&n Con;en./on on Hu6&n R/4:.0 @EC;RA. +t prohibits discrimination on $rounds such as :se6, race, colour, lan$ua$e, reli$ion, political or other opinion, national or social ori$in, association ith a national minorit%, propert%, birth or other status.: This list is illustrative and not e6haustive. #/05-/6/n&./on on .:e 7&0/0 o9 -&5e, 0e= &n' -e2/4/on /0 -e4&-'e' &0 4-oun'0 .:&. -eCu/-e 0.-/5. 05-u./n$. A further indication that certain forms of discrimination are re$arded as ,&-./5u2&-2$ 0u0,e5. under the Covenant can be $leaned from Article E, hich, hile allo in$ states to dero$ate from certain Covenant articles in times of national emer$enc%, prohibits dero$ation b% measures that discriminate solel% on the $rounds of :race, colour, lan$ua$e, reli$ion or social ori$in.:10

Moreover, the Eu-o,e&n Cou-. o9 Hu6&n R/4:.0 has developed a test of ,ustification hich varies ith the $round of discrimination. +n the "e24/&n L/n4u/0./50 case1G the European Court set the standard of ,ustification at a lo levelD discrimination ould contravene the Convention onl% if it had no le$itimate aim, or there as no reasonable relationship of proportionalit% bet een the means emplo%ed and the aim sou$ht to be realised.1/ "u. o;e- .:e $e&-0, .:e Eu-o,e&n Cou-. :&0 'e;e2o,e' & :/e-&-5:$ o9 4-oun'0 5o;e-e' 7$ !-./52e 14 o9 .:e ECHR, & 6u5: :/4:e- 2e;e2 o9 >u0./9/5&./on 7e/n4 -eCu/-e' /n -e0,e5. o9 .:o0e -e4&-'e' &0 M0u0,e5.M D0e=, -&5e, n&./on&2/.$, /22e4/./6&5$, o- 0e=u&2 o-/en.&./onE than of others. Thus, in !7'u2&H/H, 0C the European Court declared thatD . . . KtLhe advancement of the e*ualit% of the se6es is toda% a ma,or $oal in the member "tates of the Council of Europe. This means that ver% ei$ht% reasons ould have to be advanced before a difference of treatment on the $round of se6 could be re$arded as compatible ith the Convention. And in G&$4u0uH ;. !u0.-/&,0. the Eu-o,e&n Cou-. held that M;e-$ <e/4:.$ -e&0on0 ould have to be put for ard before the Court could re$ard a difference of treatment based e6clusivel% on the $round of nationalit% as compatible ith the Convention.: 0= The Eu-o,e&n Cou-. ill then permit "tates a ;e-$ 6u5: n&--o<e- 6&-4/n o9 &,,-e5/&./on in relation to discrimination on $rounds of se6, race, etc., in the application of the Convention ri$hts than it ill in relation to distinctions dra n b% states bet een, for e6ample, lar$e and small land-o ners. 0C. ECu&2/.$ un'e- n.e-n&./on&2 L&< The principle of e*ualit% has lon$ been reco$ni3ed under international la . !-./52e 1 o9 .:e Un/;e-0&2 #e52&-&./on o9 Hu6&n R/4:.0 proclaims that &22 :u6&n 7e/n40 &-e 7o-n 9-ee &n' eCu&2 /n '/4n/.$ &n' -/4:.0. Non-discrimination, to$ether ith e*ualit% before the la and e*ual protection of the la ithout an% discrimination, constitutes basic principles in the protection of human ri$hts. 0E Most, if not all, /n.e-n&./on&2 :u6&n -/4:.0 /n0.-u6en.0 include some prohibition on discrimination andOor provisions about e*ualit%. 0F The $eneral international provisions pertinent to discrimination andOor e*ualit% are the +nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Ri$hts @+CCPRA> 01 the +nternational Covenant on Economic, "ocial and Cultural Ri$hts @+CE"CRA> the +nternational Convention on the Elimination of all 4orms of Racial !iscrimination @CER!A>00 the Convention on the Elimination of all 4orms of !iscrimination a$ainst 7omen @CE!A7A> and the Convention on the Ri$hts of the Child @CRCA. +n the broader international conte6t, eCu&2/.$ /0 &20o en0:-/ne' /n -e4/on&2 /n0.-u6en.0 such as the American Convention on ;uman Ri$hts>0G the African Charter on ;uman and People9s Ri$hts> 0/ the European Convention on ;uman Ri$hts>GC the European "ocial Charter of ./1. and revised "ocial Charter of .//1> and the European (nion Charter of Ri$hts @of particular importance to European statesA. Even the Council of the 8ea$ue of Arab "tates has adopted the Arab Charter on ;uman Ri$hts in .//E, althou$h it has %et to be ratified b% the Member "tates of the 8ea$ue.G. T:e eCu&2/.$ ,-o;/0/on0 /n .:e0e /n0.-u6en.0 'o no. 6e-e2$ 9un5./on &0 .-&'/./on&2 M9/-0. 4ene-&./onM -/4:.0, 5o66on2$ ;/e<e' &0 5on5e-ne' on2$ </.: 5on0.-&/n/n4 -&.:e- .:&n -eCu/-/n4 S.&.e &5./on. Article =1 of the +CCPR re*uires :$uaranteeKsL: of :e*ual and effective protection a$ainst discrimination: hile Articles . and .E of the American and European Conventions obli$e "tates Parties :to ensure ... the full and free e6ercise of Kthe ri$hts $uaranteedL ... ithout an% discrimination: and to :secure ithout discrimination: the en,o%ment of the ri$hts $uaranteed. G= These provisions impose a measure of ,o0/./;e o72/4&./on on "tates Parties to ta)e steps to eradicate discrimination. +n the e6,2o$6en. 9/e2', basic detailed minimum standards ensurin$ e*ualit% and prevention of discrimination, are laid do n in the +CE"CR G- and in a ver% lar$e number of Conventions administered b% the +nternational 8abour &r$anisation, a (nited Nations bod%. GE Additionall%, man% of the other international and re$ional human ri$hts instruments have specific provisions relatin$ to emplo%ment. GF The Un/.e' N&./on0 Hu6&n R/4:.0 Co66/..ee :&0 &20o 4one 7e$on' .:e e&-2/e- .en'en5$ to vie the prohibition a$ainst discrimination @Article =1A as confined to the +CCPR ri$hts. G1 +n "-oe?0G0 and )<&&n'e (-/e0,GG the issue before the Committee as hether discriminator% provisions in the !utch (nemplo%ment Benefits Act @77'A fell ithin the scope of Article =1. The !utch $overnment submitted that discrimination in social securit% benefit provision as not ithin the scope of Article =1, as the ri$ht as contained in the +CE"CR and not the +CCPR. The% accepted that Article =1 could $o be%ond the ri$hts contained in the Covenant to other civil and political ri$hts, such as discrimination in the field of ta6ation, but contended that Article =1 did not e6tend to the social, economic, and cultural ri$hts contained in +CE"CR.

The Committee re,ected this ar$ument. +n its vie , Article =1 applied to ri$hts be%ond the Covenant includin$ the ri$hts in other international treaties such as the ri$ht to social securit% found in +CE"CRD Althou$h Article =1 re*uires that le$islation should prohibit discrimination, it does not of itself contain an% obli$ation ith respect to the matters that ma% be provided for b% le$islation. Thus it does not, for e6ample, re*uire an% state to enact le$islation to provide for social securit%. ;o ever, hen such le$islation is adopted in the e6ercise of a "tate9s soverei$n po er, then such le$islation must compl% ith Article =1 of the Covenant.G/ Breaches of the ri$ht to e*ual protection occur directl% or indirectl%. A classification ma% be struc) do n if it has the ,u-,o0e o- e99e5. of violatin$ the ri$ht to e*ual protection. +nternational la reco$ni3es that '/05-/6/n&./on 6&$ o55u- /n'/-e5.2$, as the ;uman Ri$hts Committee/C too) into account the definitions of discrimination adopted b% CER! and CE!A7 in declarin$ thatD . . . :discrimination: as used in the K+CCPRL should be understood to impl% an% distinction, e6clusion, restriction or preference hich is 7&0e' on &n$ 4-oun' 0u5: &0 race, colour, se6, lan$ua$e, reli$ion, political or other opinion, national or social ori$in, propert%, birth or o.:e- 0.&.u0, and hich has the ,u-,o0e o- e99e5. o9 nu22/9$/n4 o- /6,&/-/n4 .:e -e5o4n/./on, en>o$6en. oe=e-5/0e b% all persons, on an e*ual footin$, of all ri$hts and freedoms. /. @emp)asis suppliedA T:u0, .:e .<o-./e- &n&2$0/0 6&'e /n .:e 5&0e &. 7&- o9 .:e 5:&22en4e' ,-o;/0/on, &n' /.0 5on52u0/on o9 un5on0./.u./on&2/.$ 7$ 0u70eCuen. o,e-&./on, &-e /n 5&'en5e &n' /n 5on0on&n5e </.: .:e ,-o4-e00/;e .-en' o9 o.:e- >u-/0'/5./on0 &n' /n /n.e-n&./on&2 2&<. There should be no hesitation in usin$ the e*ual protection clause as a ma,or cuttin$ ed$e to eliminate ever% conceivable irrational discrimination in our societ%. +ndeed, the social ,ustice imperatives in the Constitution, coupled ith the special status and protection afforded to labor, compel this approach. /= Apropos the special protection afforded to labor under our Constitution and international la , n.e-n&./on&2 S5:oo2 !22/&n5e o9 E'u5&.o-0 ;. %u/0u67/n48 /e held /n

That public polic% abhors ine*ualit% and discrimination is be%ond contention. &ur Constitution and la s reflect the polic% a$ainst these evils. The Constitution in the Article on "ocial #ustice and ;uman Ri$hts e6horts Con$ress to :$ive hi$hest priorit% to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the ri$ht of all people to human di$nit%, reduce social, economic, and political ine*ualities.: The ver% broad Article ./ of the Civil Code re*uires ever% person, :in the e6ercise of his ri$hts and in the performance of his duties, KtoL act ith ,ustice, $ive ever%one his due, and observe honest% and $ood faith.: +nternational la , hich sprin$s from $eneral principles of la , li)e ise proscribes discrimination. 5eneral principles of la include principles of e*uit%, i.e., the $eneral principles of fairness and ,ustice, based on the test of hat is reasonable. The (niversal !eclaration of ;uman Ri$hts, the +nternational Covenant on Economic, "ocial, and Cultural Ri$hts, the +nternational Convention on the Elimination of All 4orms of Racial !iscrimination, the Convention a$ainst !iscrimination in Education, the Convention @No. ...A Concernin$ !iscrimination in Respect of Emplo%ment and &ccupation - all embod% the $eneral principle a$ainst discrimination, the ver% antithesis of fairness and ,ustice. The Philippines, throu$h its Constitution, has incorporated this principle as part of its national la s. +n the or)place, here the relations bet een capital and labor are often s)e ed in favor of capital, ine*ualit% and discrimination b% the emplo%er are all the more reprehensible. The Constitution specificall% provides that labor is entitled to :humane conditions of or).: These conditions are not restricted to the ph%sical or)place - the factor%, the office or the field - but include as ell the manner b% hich emplo%ers treat their emplo%ees. The Constitution also directs the "tate to promote :e*ualit% of emplo%ment opportunities for all.: "imilarl%, the 8abor Code provides that the "tate shall :ensure e*ual or) opportunities re$ardless of se6, race or creed.: +t ould be an affront to both the spirit and letter of these provisions if the "tate, in spite of its primordial obli$ation to promote and ensure e*ual emplo%ment opportunities, closes its e%es to une*ual and discriminator% terms and conditions of emplo%ment. 666 666 666

Notabl%, the +nternational Covenant on Economic, "ocial, and Cultural Ri$hts, in Article 0 thereof, providesD The "tates Parties to the present Covenant reco$ni3e the ri$ht of ever%one to the en,o%ment of ,ust and KfavorableL conditions of or), hich ensure, in particularD a. Remuneration hich provides all or)ers, as a minimum, ithD

i. 4air a$es and e*ual remuneration for or) of e*ual value ithout distinction of an% )ind, in particular omen bein$ $uaranteed conditions of or) not inferior to those en,o%ed b% men, ith e*ual pa% for e*ual or)> 666 666 666

The fore$oin$ provisions impre$nabl% institutionali3e in this ,urisdiction the lon$ honored le$al truism of :e*ual pa% for e*ual or).: Persons ho or) ith substantiall% e*ual *ualifications, s)ill, effort and responsibilit%, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. @citations omittedA Con$ress retains its ide discretion in providin$ for a valid classification, and its policies should be accorded reco$nition and respect b% the courts of ,ustice e6cept hen the% run afoul of the Constitution. /E T:e 'e9e-en5e 0.o,0 <:e-e .:e 52&00/9/5&./on ;/o2&.e0 & 9un'&6en.&2 -/4:., o- ,-e>u'/5e0 ,e-0on0 &55o-'e' 0,e5/&2 ,-o.e5./on 7$ .:e Con0./.u./on. 7hen these violations arise, this Court must dischar$e its primar% role as the van$uard of constitutional $uaranties, &n' -eCu/-e & 0.-/5.e- &n' 6o-e e=&5./n4 &':e-en5e .o 5on0./.u./on&2 2/6/.&./on0. Rational basis should not suffice. Admittedl%, the vie that pre,udice to persons accorded special protection b% the Constitution re*uires a stricter ,udicial scrutin% finds no support in American or En$lish ,urisprudence. Nevertheless, these forei$n decisions and authorities are not per se controllin$ in this ,urisdiction. At best, the% are persuasive and have been used to support man% of our decisions. /F 7e should not place undue and fa nin$ reliance upon them and re$ard them as indispensable mental crutches ithout hich e cannot come to our o n decisions throu$h the emplo%ment of our o n endo ments. 7e live in a different ambience and must decide our o n problems in the li$ht of our o n interests and needs, and of our *ualities and even idios%ncrasies as a people, and al a%s ith our o n concept of la and ,ustice. /1 &ur la s must be construed in accordance ith the intention of our o n la ma)ers and such intent ma% be deduced from the lan$ua$e of each la and the conte6t of other local le$islation related thereto. More importantl%, the% must be construed to serve our o n public interest hich is the be-all and the end-all of all our la s. And it need not be stressed that our public interest is distinct and different from others. /0 +n the =CC- case of rancisco v. House o' #epresentatives, this Court has stated thatD :KALmerican ,urisprudence and authorities, much less the American Constitution, are of dubious application for these are no lon$er controllin$ ithin our ,urisdiction and have onl% limited persuasive merit insofar as Philippine constitutional la is concerned....K+Ln resolvin$ constitutional disputes, Kthis CourtL should not be be$uiled b% forei$n ,urisprudence some of hich are hardl% applicable because the% have been dictated b% different constitutional settin$s and needs.:/G +ndeed, althou$h the Philippine Constitution can trace its ori$ins to that of the (nited "tates, their paths of development have lon$ since diver$ed. // 4urther, the *uest for a better and more :e*ual: effective ,udicial intervention. orld calls for the use of e*ual protection as a tool of

E*ualit% is one ideal hich cries out for bold attention and action in the Constitution. The Preamble proclaims :e*ualit%: as an ideal precisel% in protest a$ainst crushin$ ine*uities in Philippine societ%. The command to promote social ,ustice in Article ++, "ection .C, in :all phases of national development,: further e6plicitated in Article M+++, are clear commands to the "tate to ta)e affirmative action in the direction of $reater e*ualit%.N KTLhere is thus in the Philippine Constitution no lac) of doctrinal support for a more vi$orous state effort to ards achievin$ a reasonable measure of e*ualit%..CC &ur present Constitution has $one further in $uaranteein$ vital social and economic ri$hts to mar$inali3ed $roups of societ%, includin$ labor..C. (nder the polic% of social ,ustice, the la bends over bac) ard to accommodate the interests of the or)in$ class on the humane ,ustification that those ith less privile$e in life should have more in la ..C= And the obli$ation to afford protection to labor is incumbent not onl% on the le$islative and e6ecutive branches but also on the ,udiciar% to translate this pled$e into a livin$ realit%. .C-

"ocial ,ustice calls for the humani3ation of la s and the e*uali3ation of social and economic forces b% the "tate so that ,ustice in its rational and ob,ectivel% secular conception ma% at least be appro6imated. .CE (. ! F/n&2 3o-' 4inall%, concerns have been raised as to the propriet% of a rulin$ voidin$ the challen$ed provision. +t has been proffered that the remed% of petitioner is not ith this Court, but ith Con$ress, hich alone has the po er to erase an% ine*uit% perpetrated b% R.A. No. 01F-. +ndeed, a bill proposin$ the e6emption of the B"P ran)-and-file from the ""8 has supposedl% been filed. (nder most circumstances, the Court ill e6ercise ,udicial restraint in decidin$ *uestions of constitutionalit%, reco$ni3in$ the broad discretion $iven to Con$ress in e6ercisin$ its le$islative po er. #udicial scrutin% ould be based on the :rational basis: test, and the le$islative discretion ould be $iven deferential treatment. .CF "u. /9 .:e 5:&22en4e .o .:e 0.&.u.e /0 ,-e6/0e' on .:e 'en/&2 o9 & 9un'&6en.&2 -/4:., o- .:e ,e-,e.u&./on o9 ,-e>u'/5e &4&/n0. ,e-0on0 9&;o-e' 7$ .:e Con0./.u./on </.: 0,e5/&2 ,-o.e5./on, >u'/5/&2 05-u./n$ ou4:. .o 7e 6o-e 0.-/5.. A ea) and atered do n vie ould call for the abdication of this Court9s solemn dut% to stri)e do n an% la repu$nant to the Constitution and the ri$hts it enshrines. This is true hether the actor committin$ the unconstitutional act is a private person or the $overnment itself or one of its instrumentalities. &ppressive acts ill be struc) do n re$ardless of the character or nature of the actor. .C1 Accordin$l%, hen the $rant of po er is *ualified, conditional or sub,ect to limitations, the issue on hether or not the prescribed *ualifications or conditions have been met, or the limitations respected, is ,usticiable or non-political, the cru6 of the problem bein$ one of le$alit% or validit% of the contested act, not its isdom. &ther ise, said *ualifications, conditions or limitations particularl% those prescribed or imposed b% the Constitution - ould be set at nau$ht. 7hat is more, the ,udicial in*uir% into such issue and the settlement thereof are the main functions of courts of ,ustice under the Presidential form of $overnment adopted in our ./-F Constitution, and the s%stem of chec)s and balances, one of its basic predicates. As a conse*uence, 3e :&;e ne/.:e- .:e &u.:o-/.$ no- .:e '/05-e./on .o 'e52/ne ,&00/n4 u,on 0&/' /00ue, 7u. &-e un'e- .:e /ne2u5.&72e o72/4&./on - 6&'e ,&-./5u2&-2$ 6o-e e=&5./n4 &n' ,e-e6,.o-$ 7$ ou- o&.:, &0 6e67e-0 o9 .:e :/4:e0. Cou-. o9 .:e 2&n', .o 0u,,o-. &n' 'e9en' .:e Con0./.u./on - .o 0e..2e /.. This e6plains h%, in Miller v. #ohnson, it as held that courts have a :dut%, rather than a po er:, to determine hether another branch of the $overnment has :)ept ithin constitutional limits.: Not satisfied ith this postulate, the court ent farther and stressed that, if the Constitution provides ho it ma% be amended - as it is in our ./-F Constitution - :then, unless the manner is follo ed, the ,udiciar% as the interpreter of that constitution, ill declare the amendment invalid.: +n fact, this ver% Court - spea)in$ throu$h #ustice 8aurel, an outstandin$ authorit% on Philippine Constitutional 8a , as ell as one of the hi$hl% respected and foremost leaders of the Convention that drafted the ./-F Constitution - declared, as earl% as #ul% .F, ./-1, that :@iAn times of social dis*uietude or political e6citement, the $reat landmar)s of the Constitution are apt to be for$otten or marred, if not entirel% obliterated. +n cases of conflict, the ,udicial department is the onl% constitutional or$an hich can be called upon to determine the proper allocation of po ers bet een the several departments: of the $overnment..C0 @citations omittedJ emp)asis suppliedA +n the case at bar, the challen$ed proviso operates on the basis of the salar% $rade or officer-emplo%ee status. . /0 &?/n .o & '/0./n5./on 7&0e' on e5ono6/5 52&00 &n' 0.&.u0, ith the hi$her $rades as recipients of a benefit specificall% ithheld from the lo er $rades. &fficers of the B"P no receive hi$her compensation pac)a$es that are competitive ith the industr%, hile the poorer, lo -salaried emplo%ees are limited to the rates prescribed b% the ""8. The implications are *uite disturbin$D B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees are paid the strictl% re$imented rates of the ""8 hile emplo%ees hi$her in ran) - possessin$ hi$her and better education and opportunities for career advancement - are $iven hi$her compensation pac)a$es to entice them to sta%. Con0/'e-/n4 .:&. 6&>o-/.$, /9 no. &22, .:e -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 5on0/0. o9 ,eo,2e <:o0e 0.&.u0 &n' -&n? /n 2/9e &-e 2e00 &n' 2/6/.e', e0,e5/&22$ /n .e-60 o9 >o7 6&-?e.&7/2/.$, /. /0 .:e$ - &n' no. .:e o99/5e-0 - <:o :&;e .:e -e&2 e5ono6/5 &n' 9/n&n5/&2 need 9o.:e &'>u0.6en. This is in accord ith the polic% of the Constitution :to free the people from povert%, provide ade*uate social services, e6tend to them a decent standard of livin$, and improve the *ualit% of life for all.:.CG !n$ &5. o9 Con4-e00 .:&. -un0 5oun.e- .o .:/0 5on0./.u./on&2 desideratu! 'e0e-;e0 0.-/5. 05-u./n$ 7$ .:/0 Cou-. 7e9o-e /. 5&n ,&00 6u0.e-.

To be sure, .:e "SP -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 6e-/. 4-e&.e- 5on5e-n 9-o6 .:/0 Cou-.. The% represent the more impotent ran)-and-file $overnment emplo%ees ho, unli)e emplo%ees in the private sector, have no specific ri$ht to or$ani3e as a collective bar$ainin$ unit and ne$otiate for better terms and conditions of emplo%ment, nor the po er to hold a stri)e to protest unfair labor practices. Not onl% are the% impotent as a labor unit, but their efficac% to lobb% in Con$ress is almost nil as R.A. No. 01F- effectivel% isolated them from the other 54+ ran)-and-file in compensation. T:e0e "SP -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 -e,-e0en. .:e ,o2/./5&22$ ,o<e-2e00 &n' .:e$ 0:ou2' no. 7e 5o6,e22e' .o 0ee? & ,o2/./5&2 0o2u./on .o .:e/uneCu&2 &n' /n/Cu/.ou0 .-e&.6en.. +ndeed, the% have aited for man% %ears for the le$islature to act. The% cannot be as)ed to ait some more for discrimination cannot be $iven an% aitin$ time. (nless the e*ual protection clause of the Constitution is a mere platitude, it is the Court9s dut% to save them from reasonless discrimination. N ( E3 3HEREOF, e hold that the continued operation and implementation of the last proviso of "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of Republic Act No. 01F- is unconstitutional. !avide, #r., C.#., 2uisumbin$, ?nares-"antia$o, "andoval-5utierre3, Austria-Martine3, A3cuna, Tin$a, and Chico-Na3ario, ##., concur. Pan*aniban, %arpio, %arpio-Morales, and Garcia, JJ., see dissentin$. %orona, and %alle2o, Sr., JJ., on leave. CONCURR NG OP N ON CH CO-N!)!R O, J.:
!oes "ec. .F@cA, Article ++, Republic Act No. 10F-,. hich allo s the e6emption of B"P emplo%ees occup%in$ salar% $rade @"5A =C and above from the covera$e of Rep. Act No. 10FG= result in a denial of petitioner9s constitutional ri$ht to e*ual protection of the la < + submit that it does and said provision should therefore be declared unconstitutional on the $round that the division bet een B"P emplo%ees covered from "5 ./ do n and from "5 =C up is purel% arbitrar%. Even $iven the ide discretion vested in Con$ress to ma)e classifications, it is nonetheless clear that the la ma)in$ bod% abused its discretion in ma)in$ such classification. +t is not disputed that all that is re*uired for a valid classification is that it must be reasonable, i.e., that it must be based on substantial distinctions hich ma)e for real differences> it must be $ermane to the purpose of the la > it must not be limited to e6istin$ conditions and it must appl% e*uall% to each member of the class. +n the instant case, the classification as ,ustified on the need of the B"P to compete in the labor mar)et for economists, accountants, la %ers, e6perts in securit%, printin$, commercial and rural ban)in$, financial intermediation fund mana$ement, and other hi$hl% technical and professional personnel, E hich it could not do unless personnel occup%in$ top positions are e6empted from the covera$e of Rep. Act No. 10FG, the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . (nder Rep. Act No. 10FG, ho ever, professional supervisor% positions are covered b% "5 / to "5 -hich includesD

@RAesponsible positions of a mana$erial character involvin$ the e6ercise of mana$ement functions such as plannin$, or$ani3in$, directin$, coordinatin$, controllin$ and overseein$ ithin dele$ated authorit% the activities of an or$ani3ation, a unit thereof or of a $roup, re*uirin$ some de$ree of professional, technical or scientific )no led$e and e6perience, application of mana$erial or supervisor% s)ills re*uired to carr% out their basic duties and responsibilities involvin$ functional $uidance and control, leadership, as ell as line supervision. These positions re*uire intense and thorou$h )no led$e of a speciali3ed field usuall% ac*uired from completion of a bachelor9s de$ree or hi$her de$ree courses. The positions in this cate$or% are assi$ned "alar% 5rade / to "alar% 5rade --.F @(nderscorin$ suppliedA "5 -- is assi$ned to the President of the Philippines> "5 -= is for the 'ice-President, "enate President, "pea)er of the ;ouse and Chief #ustice of this Court. "5 -. is for senators, associate ,ustices of this Court, chairpersons of the constitutional commissions, department secretaries and other positions of e*uivalent ran) hile "5 -C is assi$ned to the constitutional commissioners and other positions of e*uivalent ran). 1 Economists, accountants, la %ers and other hi$hl% technical and professional personnel are covered under "5 / to =/ as alread% adverted to.

Classification in la is the $roupin$ of personsOob,ects because the% a$ree ith one another in certain particulars and differ from others in those same particulars. +n the instant case, ho ever, "5 =C and up do not differ from "5 ./ and do n in terms of technical and professional e6pertise needed as the entire ran$e of positions all :re*uire intense and thorou$h )no led$e of a speciali3ed field usuall% ac*uired from completion of a bachelor9s de$ree or hi$her courses.: Conse*uentl%, if B"P needs an e6emption from Rep. Act No. 10FG for )e% positions in order that it ma% hire the best and bri$htest economists, accountants, la %ers and other technical and professional people, the e6emption must not be$in onl% in "5 =C. (nder the circumstances, .:e 5u.-o99 ,o/n., .:e 4-e&. '/;/'e, 7e.<een SG 19 &n' 2+ /0 en./-e2$ &-7/.-&-$ as it does not have a reasonable or rational foundation. This conclusion finds support in no less than the records of the con$ressional deliberations, the bicameral conference committee havin$ pe$$ed the cut-off period at "5 =C despite previous discussions in the "enate that the :e6ecutive $roup: is :probabl%: "5 =- and above. 0 Moreover, even assumin$ that the classification is reasonable, nonetheless, its continued operation discrimination a$ainst those occup%in$ $rades ./ and belo . ill result in hostile

As pointed out b% Mr. #ustice Puno, some other $overnment corporations, b% la , no e6empt all their emplo%ees from the covera$e of Rep. Act No. 10FG. B"P emplo%ees occup%in$ "5 ./ and belo , ho ever, shall remain under Rep. Act No. 10FG considerin$ the rule that the sub,ect classification, to be valid, must not be limited onl% to conditions e6istin$ as of the time the la as passed. Thus, hile B"P emplo%ees from "5 ./ do n ill continue to be covered under Rep. Act No. 10FG, other $overnment emplo%ees of the same class and occup%in$ the same positions in $overnment corporations ill be e6empt. + therefore concur thereto. ith #ustice Puno in that respect and, considerin$ his thorou$h discussion, + have nothin$ more to add

# SSENT NG OP N ON

P!NG!N "!N, J.:


7ith all due respect, + dissent. + believe that it ould be uncalled 'or, untimely and imprudent for this Court to void the last proviso of the second para$raph of "ection .F@cA of Chapter . of Article ++ of Republic Act @RAA 01F-. +n the 'irst place, the assailed provision is not unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, and the theor% of relative constitutionality finds no application to the case at bar. +n the second place, a becomin$ respect on the part of this Court for Con$ress as a coe*ual and coordinate branch of $overnment dictates that Con$ress should be $iven ample opportunit% to stud% the situation, ei$h its options and e6ercise its constitutional prero$ative to enact hatever le$islation it ma% deem appropriate to address the alle$ed ine*uit% pointed out b% petitioner. 4or the record, + am not a$ainst the e6emption from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a of the +an*-o Sentral n* Pilipinas @B"PA ran) and file emplo%ees @ ith "alar% 5rade ./ and belo A. Neither am + a$ainst increases in their pa%. + simpl% submit that @.A the factual milieu of this case does not sho a denial of e*ual protection, @=A the theor% of relative constitutionalit% does not come into pla%, and @-A petitioner should have addressed its plaint, not to this Court, but to Con$ress in the first instance. &6 5on9/'en. .:&. 4/;en 0u99/5/en. o,,o-.un/.$, .:e 2e4/02&.u-e </22 ,e-9o-6 /.0 5on0./.u./on&2 'u.$ &55o-'/n42$. Hen5e, .:e-e /0 no nee' o- <&--&n. 9o- .:/0 Cou-. .o /n.e-;ene /n 2e4/02&./;e <o-?.

,heory of .elative Constitutionality 2ot 3pplicable to E(traneous Circu!stances


The ponencia advocates the application of the theor% of relative constitutionality to the present case. The theor% sa%s that a statute valid at one time ma% become unconstitutional at another, because of altered circumstances or c)an*ed conditions that ma)e the practical operation of such a statute arbitrar% or confiscator%. Thus, the provisions of that statute, hich ma% be valid as applied to one set of facts but invalid as applied to another, cannot be merel% compared ith those applicable under the Constitution. 4rom the manner in hich it has been utili3ed in American and Philippine ,urisprudence, ho ever, this novel theor% finds relevance onl% ()en t)e 'actual situation covered by an assailed la( c)an*es , not hen another la is passed pertainin$ to sub,ects not directl% covered b% the former. Thus, the theor% applies onl% hen circumstances that ere specificall% addressed upon the passa$e of the la chan$e. +t does not appl% to chan$es or alterations e6traneous to those specificall% addressed. To prove m% point, allo me then to tac)le seriatim the cases relied upon in the ponencia..

Cited 3!erican Cases 2ot 3pplicable to and 2ot in )ari 4ateria with )resent 1acts

Medill.= The constitutionalit% issue in Medill v. State as raised b% a ban)ruptc% trustee in re$ard to a statute e6emptin$ dama$es that ere a arded to the claimants ho suffered as a result of an automobile accident. - "pecificall%, the contested provision e6empted from :attac)ment, *arnis)ment, or sale on any 'inal process issued 'rom any court : @.A $eneral dama$es and @=A future special dama$es a arded in ri$hts of action filed for in,uries that ere caused to the person of a debtor or of a relative.E The "upreme Court of Minnesota said that the $eneral dama$es portion of the ri$ht of action filed b% claimants for personal in,uries sustained in fact represented the monetar% restoration of the ph%sicall% and mentall% dama$ed person> hence, claims for such dama$es could never constitute unreasonable amounts for e6emption purposes. F "uch claims ere thus full% e6empt. +t added that the le$islature had assi$ned the role of determinin$ the amounts that ere reasonable to the state9s ,udicial process.1 7hile a statute ma% be constitutional and valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another, the said Court limited its discussion only to t)e set o' 'acts as presented be'ore it 0 and held that the statute as :not unconstitutional.:G !istin$uishin$ the facts of that case from those found in its earlier rulin$s, / it concluded that -- b% limitin$ the assets that ere available for distribution to creditors .C -- the contested provision therein as a ban)ruptc% relief for protectin$ not onl% human capital,.. but also the debtor9s fundamental needs. %oo-..= The ban)ruptc% trustee in !n re %oo- also ob,ected to the same statutor% e6emption, inter alia, asserted b% the debtors in another personal in,ur% claim. The (" Ban)ruptc% Court, follo in$ Medill, held that such e6emption as :violative o' F F F t)e Minnesota %onstitution,:.as applied to pre-petition special dama$es,.E but not as applied to $eneral dama$es..F The statute did not provide for an% limitation on the amount of e6emption as to the former t%pe of dama$es. .1 Neither did it set an% ob,ective criteria b% hich the ban)ruptc% court ma% limit its si3e..0 Nas)ville..G The plaintiff in Nas)ville v. 0alters *uestioned the constitutionalit% of a Tennessee statute imposin$ upon railroad companies one half of the total cost of $rade separation in ever% instance that the state9s ;i$h a% Commission issued an order for the elimination of a $rade crossin$. The plaintiff rested its contention not on the e6ercise of police po er that promoted the safet% of travel, but on the arbitrariness and unreasonableness of the imposition that deprived it of propert% ithout due process of la ../ Reversin$ the ,ud$ment that the "upreme Court of Tennessee had rendered a$ainst the plaintiff, the (" "upreme Court ho ever did not declare the statute unconstitutional.=C +nstead, it remanded the case, because the determination of facts sho in$ arbitrariness and unreasonableness should have been made b% the Tennessee "upreme Court in the first place. =. +t enumerated the revolutionar% chan$es incident to transportation rou$ht in the ./-Cs b% the idespread introduction of motor vehicles> the assumption b% the federal $overnment of the functions of a road builder> the resultin$ depletion of rail revenues> the chan$e in the character, construction and use of hi$h a%s> the chan$e in the occasion for the elimination of $rade crossin$s, and in the purpose and beneficiaries of such elimination> and the chan$e in the relative responsibilit% of railroads and vehicles movin$ on the hi$h a%s. == +n addition, it held that the promotion of public convenience did not ,ustif% re*uirin$ a railroad compan% -- an% more than others -- to spend mone%, unless it as sho n that the dut% to provide such convenience rested upon that compan%. =- Providin$ an underpass at one9s o n e6pense for private convenience, and not primaril% as a safet% measure, as a denial of due process. =E Atlantic.=F +n Atlantic v. !vey, the plaintiff filed an action for dama$es a$ainst the railroad compan% for the )illin$ of a co on an unfenced ri$ht of a% of the rail a%. The defendant pointed out that the ori$inal 4lorida Act of .GG/ and its later amendments in the ./ECs had re*uired railroad companies to fence their trac)s for the protection and safet% of the travelin$ public and their propert% a$ainst livestoc) roamin$ at lar$e. Thus, the defendant averred that -- ithout imposin$ a similar fencin$ re*uirement on the o ners of automobiles, truc)s and buses that carr% passen$ers upon unfenced public hi$h a%s of the state here such vehicles operated -- the e*ual protection $uarantees of the state and federal constitutions ould be violated.=1 Reversin$ the lo er court9s ,ud$ment for the plaintiff, the "upreme Court of 4lorida held that the application of the contested statutes under then e6istin$ conditions as violative of the e*ual protection clause. =0 Citin$ Nas)ville, that Court too) ,udicial notice of the fact that there ere no motor carriers on public roads hen the statutes ere ori$inall% enacted. +t also reasoned that the statutes ere enacted in the e6ercise of the state9s police po er =G and ere intended for the protection of ever%one a$ainst accidents involvin$ public transportation. Althou$h motor-driven vehicles and railroad carriers ere under a similar obli$ation to protect ever%one a$ainst accidents to life and propert% hen conductin$ their respective businesses, the ha3ard of accidents b% reason of cattle stra%in$ onto the line of traffic of motor-driven vehicles as $reater than that hich arose hen cattle stra%ed onto the line of traffic of railroad carriers. =/ ?et the burden of e6penses and penalties that ere rendered in favor of individuals ho ere neither shippers nor passen$ers as imposed onl% on railroad carriers.-C +n addition, the railroad carriers ould be held liable for attorne%9s fees and double the value of the animals )illed in their rail a%s, ithout even re*uirin$ the plaintiffs ho had sued them to prove the ne$li$ence of such carriers in operatin$ their e*uipment.-. Althou$h it as ar$ued that motor-driven vehicles had no authorit% to fence on state and count% hi$h a%s over hich the% operated, the le$islature could nevertheless authori3e and re*uire them to provide similar protection> or, in default thereof, to suffer similar penalties that ere incidental to usin$ such public roads for $eneratin$ profit and servin$ the public.-=

:ouisville.-- The plaintiff in :ouisville v. aul-ner also filed an action a$ainst defendant-railroad compan% to recover the value of her mule that had stra%ed from her premises and $ot struc) and )illed b% the compan%9s train. -E The ,ud$ment of the lo er court for the plaintiff as based on the fact that the defendant did not offer an% evidence to rebut the prima facie presumption of the latter9s ne$li$ence under Bentuc)% statutes. -F The Court of Appeals of Bentuc)% held the contested provision unconstitutional and reversed the said ,ud$ment. -1 Citin$ both Nas)ville and Atlantic, the appellate court said that because such le$islation applied to all similar corporations and as aimed at the safet% of all persons on a train and the protection of their propert%, it as sustained from its inception in .G/-> ho ever, under chan$ed conditions, it could no lon$er be so. The court reco$ni3ed the fact that, in the ./FCs, the inau$uration and development of transportation b% motor vehicles on public hi$h a%s created even $reater ris)s, not onl% to the occupants of such vehicles but also to domestic animals. -0 ?et, the operators of these vehicles ere not sub,ected to the same e6traordinar% le$al responsibilit% of provin$ that for the )illin$ of those animals on public roads, the% ere free from ne$li$ence, unli)e railroad companies that struc) and )illed such animals on private ri$hts of a%. -G Bernon.-/ The plaintiff in Bernon v. %ity o' Mount Bernon sou$ht to declare unconstitutional a cit% 3onin$ ordinance had limited the business use of its realt%, locall% )no n as the : Plaza,: onl% to the par)in$ of automobiles and its incidental services.EC hich

The Court of Appeals of Ne ?or) ruled that the ordinance as unconstitutional. E. That rulin$ also affirmed the unanimous ,ud$ment earlier rendered in favor of the plaintiff. A$ain citin$ Nas)ville, the Ne ?or) court ruled in the main that, no matter ho compellin$ and acute the communit% traffic problem mi$ht be as to reach a stran$ulation point, the solution did not lie in placin$ an undue and uncompensated burden on a lando ner in the $uise of a re$ulation issued for a public purpose.E= Althou$h for a lon$ time the plaintiff9s land had alread% been devoted to par)in$, the ordinance that prohibited an% other use for it as not :a reasonable eFercise o' t)e police po(er.:E7hile the cit%9s common council had the ri$ht to pass ordinances respectin$ the use of propert% accordin$ to ellconsidered and comprehensive plans desi$ned to promote public health, safet% and $eneral elfare, the e6ercise of such ri$ht as still sub,ect to the constitutional limitation that it ma% not be e6erted arbitraril% or unreasonabl%. Thus, the 3onin$ ordinance could not preclude the use of propert% for an% purpose for hich it as reasonabl% adapted. EE Althou$h valid hen adopted in ./=0, the ordinance as stric)en do n, because its operation under chan$ed conditions in the ./FCs proved confiscator%, especiall% hen the value of the $reater part of the land -- to be used, for instance, in the erection of a retail shoppin$ center -- as destro%ed.EF 4inall%, Murp)y v. 6dmonds.E1 An automobile driver and her husband brou$ht action a$ainst a tractor-trailer driver and his emplo%er and sou$ht dama$es for the severe in,uries she had sustained in a collision. Raised in issue mainl% as the constitutionalit% of the statutor% cap on noneconomic dama$es in personal in,ur% actions. E0 Affirmin$ the ,ud$ment of the Court of "pecial Appeals re,ectin$ all challen$es to the validit% of the la , the Court of Appeals of Mar%land held that there as no irrationalit%, arbitrariness, or violation of e*ual protection in the le$islative classification dra n bet een @.A the less seriousl% in,ured tort claimants hose noneconomic dama$es ere less than the statutor% cap> and @=A the more seriousl% in,ured tort claimants hose noneconomic dama$es ere $reater than, and thus sub,ect to, the statutor% cap.EG Althou$h no e6press e*ual protection clause could be found in Mar%land9s Constitution, the due process clause therein nevertheless embodied e*ual protection to the same e6tent as that found in the 4ourteenth AmendmentE/ of the federal Constitution.FC +ndeed, the ri$ht to recover full dama$es for a noneconomic in,ur% as reco$ni3ed b% common la even before the adoption of the state9s Constitution, but the said court declared that there as no vested interest in an% rule ordained b% common la .F. Concludin$ that onl% the traditional :rational basis test: should be used, the appellate court also re,ected the lo er court9s vie of the ri$ht to press a claim for pain and sufferin$ as an :important ri*)t: re*uirin$ a :)ei*)tened scrutiny test: of the le$islative classification.F= (nder the :rational basis test,: such le$islative classification en,o%ed a stron$ presumption of constitutionalit% and, not bein$ clearl% arbitrar%, could not therefore be invalidated. FMoreover, the la as an economic response to a le$islativel% perceived crisis concernin$ not onl% the availabilit%, but also the cost of liabilit% insurance in the state.FE Puttin$ a statutor% cap on noneconomic dama$es as : reasonably related to a le*itimate le*islative ob2ective,:FF for it led to a $reater ease in the calculation of insurance premiums, thus ma)in$ the mar)et more attractive to insurers. Also, it ultimatel% reduced the cost of such premiums and made insurance more affordable to individuals and or$ani3ations that perform needed medical services. F1 F-o6 .:e 9o-e4o/n4 '/05u00/on, /. /0 /66e'/&.e2$ e;/'en. .:&. no. one o9 .:e &7o;e-5/.e' 5&0e0 /0 e/.:e&,,2/5&72e .o o- in pari !ateria </.: .:e ,-e0en. 5&0e. Medill not onl% upheld the constitutionalit% of the contested provision therein, but also cate$oricall% stated that the peculiar facts of the case prompted such declaration. 5eneral dama$es ere declared e6empt> the la allo in$ their e6emption as constitutional. %oo- simpl% affirmed Medill hen the same contested provision as applied to an issue similar to that hich as raised in the latter case, but then declared that provision unconstitutional hen applied to another issue. Thus, hile $eneral dama$es ere also declared e6empt, the claims for special dama$es filed prior to the filin$ of a petition for relief ere not, and the la allo in$ the latter9s e6emption as unconstitutional.

The court9s action as to be e6pected, because the issue on special dama$es in %oo- as not at all raised in Medill, and there as no precedent on the matter in Minnesota, other than the obiter dictum -- if it can be called one -- in the latter case.F0 ;ad that issue been raised in Medill, a similar conclusion ould inevitabl% have been reached. +n fact, that case alread% stated that hile the court :need not decide hether special dama$es incurred prior to ,ud$ment 6 6 6 K ereL to be e6empt in order to decide the *uestion:FG on $eneral dama$es raised therein, it felt that e6emptin$ special dama$es appeared reasonable and li)el% to be applied, follo in$ an earlier rulin$ in another case. F/ Moreover, the facts of both Medill and %oo- are not at all a)in to so-called :c)an*ed conditions: promptin$ the declarations of constitutionalit% in the former and unconstitutionalit% in the latter. "uch : altered circumstances: or :c)an*ed conditions: in these t o cases refer to the non-e6emption of special dama$es -- a sub,ect matter distinct and separable, althou$h covered b% the same assailed statute. +n fact, %oo- precisel% emphasi3ed that :()ere a statute is not in)erently unconstitutional, it may be 'ound constitutional as applied to some separable sub2ect matters, and unconstitutional as applied to ot)ers.:1C +n other ords, it as the application of the contested provision therein to an entirel% different and separable sub,ect matter -- not the contested provision itself -- that as declared unconstitutional, but the statute itself as not inherentl% unconstitutional to be$in ith. E*uall% important, Nas)ville s)irted the issue on constitutionalit%. The :c)an*ed conditions: referred to in that case, as ell as in Atlantic and :ouisville, ere the revolutionar% chan$es in the mode of transportation that ere specificall% covered b% the statutes respectivel% imposin$ additional costs upon railroad companies onl%, re*uirin$ the fencin$ of their trac)s, or solel% compellin$ them to present evidence to rebut the presumption of their ne$li$ence. +n Bernon, these :c)an*ed conditions: ere deemed to be the economic chan$es in the ./FCs, throu$h hich the normal business use of the land as undul% limited b% the 3onin$ ordinance that as intended to address the acute traffic problem in the communit%. Nas)ville simpl% too) ,udicial notice of the chan$e in conditions hich, to$ether ith the continued imposition of statutor% char$es and fees, caused deprivation of propert% ithout due process of la . Atlantic, :ouisville and Bernon all relied upon Nas)ville, but then ent further b% renderin$ their respective contested provisions unconstitutional, because -- in the application of such provisions under :c)an*ed conditions: -- those similarl% situated ere no lon$er treated ali)e. 4inall%, Murp)y -- obviousl% misplaced because it made no reference at all to the *uoted sentence in the ponencia -- even upheld the validit% of its contested provision. There as no trace, either, of an% : c)an*ed conditions.: +f at all, the le$islative classification therein as declared constitutional, because it as in fact a valid economic response to a le$islativel% perceived crisis concernin$ the availabilit% and cost of liabilit% insurance. +n the present case, no :altered circumstances: or :c)an*ed conditions: in the application of the assailed provision can be found. +t veril% pertains to onl% one sub,ect matter, not separable sub,ect matters as earlier pointed out in both Medill and %oo-. Hence, its application remains and (ill remain consistent . Not in)erently unconstitutional to be*in (it), it cannot no( be declared unconstitutional. Moreover, herein petitioner miserabl% fails to demonstrate -- unli)e in Nas)ville, Atlantic, :ouisville, and Bernon -- ho those similarl% situated have not been treated ali)e in the application of the assailed provision.

)onencia5s .eference to $Changed Conditions$ 4isplaced


4rom Nas)ville to Murp)y, it can be seen that all the contested statutes ere passed in the e6ercise of police po er -- the inherent po er of the "tate to re$ulate libert% and propert% for the promotion of the $eneral elfare. 1. The police measure ma% be struc) do n hen an activit% or propert% that ou$ht to be re$ulated does not affect the public elfare> or hen the means emplo%ed are not reasonabl% necessar% for the accomplishment of the statute9s purpose, and the% become undul% oppressive upon individuals.1= As #ustice Brandeis stresses in Nas)ville, :it may not be eFerted arbitrarily or unreasonably.:1+n the case before us toda%, the assailed provision can be considered a police measure that re$ulates the income of B"P emplo%ees. +ndisputabl%, the re$ulation of such income affects the public elfare, because it concerns not onl% these emplo%ees, but also the public in $eneral -- from hose various credits the ban)s earn their income, the CB $enerates its revenues, and eventuall% these emplo%ees $et their salaries and other emoluments. Additionall%, ith the passa$e of RAs 10FG and 01F-, the means emplo%ed b% the "tate to accomplish its ob,ectives are not undul% oppressive. T:e$ &-e /n 9&5. -e&0on&72$ ne5e00&-$, no. on2$ .o &..-&5. .:e 7e0. &n' 7-/4:.e0. 7&n? -e4u2&.o-$ ,e-0onne2, 7u. &20o .o e0.&72/0: ,-o9e00/on&2/06 &n' e=5e22en5e </.:/n .:e "SP /n &55o-'&n5e </.: 0oun' ,-/n5/,2e0 o9 6&n&4e6en.. No.:/n4, .:e-e9o-e, /0 &-7/.-&-$ /n .:e &00&/2e' ,-o;/0/onK /. 5&nno. 7e 0.-/5?en 'o<n. 7ith due respect, the ponencia9s reference to :c)an*ed conditions: is totall% misplaced. +n the above-cited (" cases, t)is p)rase never re'erred to subse3uent la(s or eFecutive pronouncements , but rather to the 'acts and circumstances that the la or ordinance specificall% addressed upon its passa$e or adoption. A statute that is declared invalid because of a chan$e in circumstances affectin$ its validit% belon$s onl% to a class of emer$enc% la s. 1E Bein$ a manifestation of the "tate9s e6ercise of its police po er, it is valid at the time of its enactment.

n 5on.-&0. .:e-e.o, R! 76*3 5&nno. 7e -e4&-'e' &0 &n e6e-4en5$ 6e&0u-e .:&. /0 6e-e2$ .e6,o-&-$ /n o,e-&./on. . /0 no. e;en & 0.&.u.e 2/6/.e' .o .:e e=/4en5$ .:&. 7-ou4:. /. &7ou.. T:e 9&5.0 &n' 5/-5u60.&n5e0 /. 0,e5/9/5&22$ &''-e00e' u,on /.0 ,&00&4e :&;e no. 7een 0:o<n .o :&;e 5:&n4e' &. &22. Hen5e, .:e &00&/2e' ,-o;/0/on o9 0u5: & 'e52&-&.o-$ 0.&.u.e 5&nno. 7e /n;&2/'&.e'. (nli)e con$ested traffic or motor-driven vehicles on public roads, the pa%ment of salaries at differin$ scales in various 54+s vis-X-vis in the B"P, is not such a chan$e in conditions as ould cause deprivation of propert% ithout due process of la . Petitioner9s members have not been deprived of their ri$ht to income as mandated b% la . The% have not received less than hat the% ere entitled to ever since RA 01F- as passed eleven %ears a$o. To -e,e&., .:e 9&5.u&2 0/.u&./on .:&. .:e &00&/2e' ,-o;/0/on 0,e5/9/5&22$ &''-e00e' u,on ,&00&4e o9 .:/0 2&< :&0 no. 5:&n4e'. T:e 0&6e 0u70.&n./;e -/4:.0 .o & 5o6,e././;e &n' 0.-u5.u-e' :u6&n -e0ou-5e 'e;e2o,6en. ,-o4-&6 e=/0./n4 .:en 0./22 e=/0. no<. On2$ .:e 2&<0 e=.e-n&2 .o &n' no. &6en'&.o-$ o9 .:/0 2&< '/'. E;en /9 .:e0e ne< 2&<0 <e-e .o 7e 5on0/'e-e' &0 Mchanged conditions,M .:o0e <:o :&;e 7een &99e5.e' /n .:e "SP D&0 </22 7e 0:o<n 2&.e-E &-e no. &. &22 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e' &0 .:o0e /n .:e GF 0 .o 5o6,e2 .:e/- 2/?e .-e&.6en. /n &,,2/5&./on. +n addition, the rulin$s in all the above-cited American cases -- althou$h entitled to $reat ei$ht 1F -- are merel% of persuasive effect in our ,urisdiction11 and cannot be stare decisis.10 These are not direct rulin$s of our "upreme Court1G that form part of the Philippine le$al s%stem.1/ 5rantin$ *ratia ar*umenti that the cited cases are to be considered bindin$ precedents in our ,urisdiction, Nas)ville -- the onl% one federal in character -- does not even ma)e a cate$orical declaration on constitutionalit%. 4urthermore, Murp)y maintains that :PsQimply because a le*al principle is part o' t)e common la( F F F does not *ive it any *reater de*ree o' insulation 'rom le*islative c)an*e.:0C Common la , after all, is :a *ro(in* and ever-c)an*in* system o' le*al principles and t)eories F F F.:0. Ever% statute is presumed constitutional.0= This a6iom reflects the respect that must be accorded to the isdom, inte$rit% and patriotism of the le$islature that passed it and to the e6ecutive ho approved it. 0- (nderstandabl%, therefore, the ,udiciar% should be reluctant to invalidate la s.0E Medill precisel% emphasi3es that the :courtIs po(er to declare a statute unconstitutional s)ould be eFercised (it) eFtreme caution and only ()en absolutely necessary. :0F Althou$h that case continues b% sa%in$ that unless it is inherentl% unconstitutional, a la : must stand or 'all F F F not upon assumptions: the court ma% ma)e, the ponencia is still dauntless in rel%in$ thereon to support its ar$uments.

.utter Does 2ot Even 3pply


A$ain ith due respect, the ponenciaIs citation of a local case, #utter,01 is also inappropriate. +n the said case, appellant instituted an action to recover the balance, and interest thereon, of a contract of sale entered into barel% four months prior to the outbrea) of the "econd 7orld 7ar. 00 The lo er court, ho ever, rendered ,ud$ment0G for appellee ho set up as defense0/ the moratorium clause embodied in RA -E=.GC The lo er court reasoned further that the obli$ation sou$ht to be enforced as not %et demandable under that la . G. Reversin$ the ,ud$ment, this Court invalidated G= the moratorium clause,G- not because the la as unconstitutional, but because both its continued operation and enforcement had become unreasonable and oppressive under post ar circumstances of observable reconstruction, rehabilitation and recover% of the countr%9s $eneral financial condition. GE The forced vi$il suffered b% pre ar creditors as not onl% un ittin$l% e6tended from ei$ht to t elve %ears, but as also imposed ithout providin$ for the pa%ment of the correspondin$ interest in the interim. GF Thus, the success of their collection efforts, especiall% hen their credits ere unsecured, as e6tremel% remote. G1 Moreover, the settlement of claims filed ith the (nited "tates-Philippine 7ar !ama$e Commission as not onl% uncertain but as also practicall% futile, for it depended entirel% on the appropriations to be made b% the (" Con$ress. The contested clause in #utter as definitel% a remedial measure passed to accord pre ar debtors ho suffered the rava$es of ar an opportunit% to rehabilitate themselves ithin a reasonable time and to pa% their pre ar debts thereafter, thus preventin$ them from bein$ victimi3ed in the interim b% their pre ar creditors. The purpose havin$ been achieved durin$ the ei$ht-%ear period, there as therefore no more reason for the la . %essante ratione le*is cessat et ipsa leF. 7hen the reason for the la ceases, the la itself ceases. +ut it does not become unconstitutional. The altered circumstances or c)an*ed conditions in #utter ere specificall% the ver% circumstances that the la addressed at its passa$e> the% ere not at all e6traneous circumstances li)e subse*uent la s or e6ecutive pronouncements. The ei$ht-%ear moratorium period havin$ lapsed, the debtors9 concerns had been ade*uatel% addressed. +t as no the turn of the creditors to be protected for the pre- ar loans the% $ranted. +n star) contrast, the contested proviso in the instant case is not a remedial measure. +t is not sub,ect to a period ithin hich a ri$ht of action or a remed% is suspended. Since t)e reason 'or t)e la( still subsists, t)e la( itsel' includin* t)e c)allen*ed proviso must continue in eFistence and operation.

.elative Constitutionality 2ot -ased on )ositive *aw


Appl%in$ the concept of relative constitutionality stron$l% advocated in the ponencia, therefore, not onl% $oes be%ond the parameters of traditional constitutionalism, but also finds no e6press basis in positive la . G0 7hile it has been asserted that :a statute valid ()en enacted may become invalid by c)an*e in conditions to ()ic) it is applied ,:GG the present case has sho n no such chan$e in conditions that ould arrant the invalidation of the assailed provision if applied under such conditions. ;ence, no semblance of constitutional impuissance, other than its con,ured possibilit%, can be seen. !n a constitutional order t)at commands respect 'or coe3ual branc)es o' *overnment, speculation by t)e 2udiciary becomes incendiary and deserves no respectable place in our 2udicial c)ronicles. The ponencia further contends that the principles of international la can operate to render a valid la unconstitutional. The $enerall% accepted definition states that international la is a bod% of le$al rules that appl% bet een soverei$n states and such other entities as have been $ranted international personalit%. G/ 5overnment emplo%ees at the B"P ith salar% $rades ./ and belo are not such entities vested ith international personalit%> an% possible discrimination as to them, in the li$ht of the principles and application of international la ould be too far-fetched. The dan$erous conse*uences of the ma,orit%9s !ecision in the present case cannot and should not be i$nored. 7ill there no be an automatic ""8 e6emption for emplo%ees of other 54+s and financial re$ulator% a$encies< 7ill such e6emption not infrin$e on Con$ress9 prero$ative< The ponencia overloo)s the fact that the Ban$)o "entral is not a 54+, but a re$ulator% bod% of 54+s and other financialOban)in$ institutions. $)ere'ore, it s)ould not be compared (it) t)em. There is no parit%. The Ban$)o "entral is more a)in to the +nsurance Commission, the National Telecommunications Commission, and the Ener$% Re$ulator% Commission. "hould not more appropriate comparisons be made ith such re$ulator% bodies and their emplo%ees<

.espect for Coe0ual -ranch


The trust reposed in this Court is 1not to 'ormulate policy but to determine its le*ality as tested by t)e %onstitution.1 /C 1!t does not eFtend to an un(arranted intrusion into t)at broad and le*itimate sp)ere o' discretion en2oyed by t)e political branc)es to determine t)e policies to be pursued. $)is %ourt s)ould ever be on t)e alert lest, (it)out desi*n or intent, it oversteps t)e boundary o' 2udicial competence.1 /. #udicial activism should not be allo ed to become ,udicial e6uberance. 1As (as so (ell put by Justice Malcolm/ IJust as t)e Supreme %ourt, as t)e *uardian o' constitutional ri*)ts, s)ould not sanction usurpations by any ot)er department o' t)e *overnment, so s)ould it as strictly con'ine its o(n sp)ere o' in'luence to t)e po(ers eFpressly or by implication con'erred on it by t)e 4r*anic Act.I1 /= "ince Con$ress itself did not commit an% constitutional violation or $ravel% abusive conduct hen it enacted RA 01F-, it should not be summaril% blamed for hat the ponencia calls :altered circumstances.:/- Con$ress should be $iven the opportunit% to correct the problem, if an%. + repeat, + am not a$ainst e6emption from the ""8 of Ban$)o "entral emplo%ees ith salar% $rades ./ and belo . Neither am + a$ainst increases in their pa%. ;o ever, it is Con$ress, not this Court, that should provide a solution to their predicament, at least in the first instance. The remed% a$ainst an% perceived le$islative failure to enact corrective le$islation is a resort, not to this Court, but to the bar of public opinion. The electorate can refuse to return to Con$ress members ho, in their vie , have been remiss in the dischar$e of their constitutional duties./E &ur Constitution presumes that, absent an% inference of antipath%, improvident le$islative decisions 1(ill eventually be recti'ied by t)e democratic processesJ1 /F and that ,udicial intervention is un arranted, no matter ho un isel% a political branch ma% have acted. /1 +t is onl% the le$islature, not the courts, that 1must be appealed to 'or t)e c)an*e.1/0 +f, ho ever, Con$ress decides to act, the choice of appropriate measure lies ithin its discretion. &nce determined, the measure chosen cannot be attac)ed on the $round that it is not the best solution, or that it is un ise or inefficacious. /G A la that advances a le$itimate $overnmental interest ill be sustained, even if it 1(or-s to t)e disadvanta*e o' a particular *roup, or F F F t)e rationale 'or it seems tenuous.1// To compel this Court to ma)e a more decisive but unnecessar% action in advance of hat Con$ress ill do is a do nri$ht dero$ation of the Constitution itself, for it converts the ,udiciar% into a super-le$islature and invests it ith a po er that to it has never belon$ed. .CC +n the ords of the $reat "ir 7illiam Blac)stone, 1t)ere is no court t)at )as po(er to de'eat t)e intent o' t)e :e*islature, ()en couc)ed in suc) evident and eFpress (ords, as leave no doubt ()et)er it (as t)e intent o' t)e :e*islature, or noPtQ.1.C. As Rousseau further puts it, 1accordin* to t)e 'undamental compact, only t)e *eneral (ill can bind t)e individuals, and t)ere can be no assurance t)at a particular (ill is in con'ormity (it) t)e *eneral (ill, until it )as been put to t)e 'ree vote o' t)e people.1.C= Thus, instead of this Court invalidatin$ a soverei$n act, Con$ress should be $iven the opportunit% to enact the appropriate measure to address the so-called 1c)an*ed conditions.1 3e 5&nno. 0e5on'-4ue00 .:e 6/n' o9 .:e 2e4/02&.u-e &0 .:e -e,o0/.o-$ o9 .:e 0o;e-e/4n </22. Fo- &22 <e ?no<, &6/'0. .:e 9/05&2 5-/0/0 &n' 9/n&n5/&2 6o-&00 <e &-e e=,e-/en5/n4, Con4-e00 6&$ &2.o4e.:e- -e6o;e .:e 72&n?e. e=e6,./on, ,u. & 0&2&-$ 5&, on .:e :/4:e0. e5:e2on0, .C- 2o<e- .:e 0&2&-$ 4-&'e 05&2e0 0u7>e5. .o SSL e=e6,./on, &'o,. ,e-9o-6&n5e-7&0e' 5o6,en0&./on 0.-u5.u-e0, o- e;en &6en' o- -e,e&2 .:e SSL /.0e29, 7u. </.:/n .:e 5on0./.u./on&2 6&n'&.e .:&. Mat the earliest possible ti!e, the 6overn!ent shall increase the

salary scales of ( ( ( officials and e!ployees of the 2ational 6overn!ent .M.CE Le4/02&./;e -e9o-60 o9 <:&.e;en&.u-e o- 05o,e 6&$ 7e .&?en one 0.e, &. & ./6e, &''-e00/n4 ,:&0e0 o9 ,-o72e60 .:&. 0ee6 .o .:e 2e4/02&./;e 6/n' 6o0. &5u.e..CF R/4:.2$ 0o, ou- 2e4/02&.o-0 6u0. :&;e Mfle(ibility and freedo! fro! #udicial oversight in shaping and li!iting their re!edial efforts .M.C1 3:e-e .:e-e &-e ,2&u0/72e -e&0on0 9o- .:e/- &5./on, .:e Cou-.B0 Min0uiry is at an end.M.C0 (nder the doctrine of separation of po ers and the concomitant respect for coe*ual and coordinate branches of $overnment, the e6ercise of prudent restraint b% this Court ould still be best under t)e present circumstances.

2ot 6rossly Discri!inatory


There is no *uestion that Con$ress neither violated the Constitution nor $ravel% abused its discretion hen it enacted :The Ne Central Ban) Act: to establish and or$ani3e the B"P in .//-. .CG +ndeed, RA 01F- is a valid le$islative measure. Even the ma,orit% concedes that in enactin$ that la , Con$ress as ell ithin its le$islative po ers. ;o ever, the ponencia ar$ues that the subse3uent enactment of la s $rantin$ :blan-et eFemption: from the covera$e of the ""8 of all emplo%ees in seven 54+s.C/ has made the contested proviso :*rossly discriminatory in its operation:..C and therefore unconstitutional. This conclusion, to m% mind, is a non se3uitur. The mere possible effect of related or unrelated la s on another la does not ipso 'acto ma)e the latter unconstitutional. Besides, as alread% discussed, the theor% of relative constitutionality is plainl% inapplicable to the present facts. Moreover, the ponencia has assumed ithout proof that the B"P ran) and file emplo%ees are factuall% and actuall% similarl% situated as the ran) and filers of 8and Ban), """, 5"+", etc., and it is clear from the discussion in Mme. #ustice Carpio Morales9 !issentin$ &pinion that t)at is not really t)e case. +n fact, there e6ist some substantial differences in scope of or), ,ob responsibilities and so forth that ould ne$ate the ponenciaIs assumption

2o Indiciu! of +rgency
&ther than its bare assertion that the continued implementation of the assailed provision ... ould cause :irreparable dama*e and pre2udice:..= to its members, petitioner also fails to sho a minimum indicium of such e6treme ur$enc% as ould impel this Court to second-$uess Con$ress. Briefl%, petitioner contends that @.A the creation of t o classes of emplo%ees ithin the B"P based on the salar% $rade correspondin$ to their positions..- is unreasonable, arbitrar% and capricious class le$islation> ..E and @=A the la itself discriminates a$ainst ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P vis-X-vis those of 54+s. ..F These contentions are utterl% unsubstantiated. The% find no support in la for $rantin$ the relief pra%ed for.

7hile it is true that all emplo%ees of the B"P are appointed under the authorit% of the Monetar% Board, observe the same set of office rules and re$ulations, and perform their or) in practicall% the same offices, ..1 it is e3ually true t)at t)e levels o' di''iculty and responsibility 'or +SP employees (it) salary *rades 5< and belo( are di''erent 'rom t)ose o' ot)er +SP employees (it) salary *rades >? and above. All those classes of position belon$in$ to the Professional "upervisor% Cate$or%..0 of the Position Classification "%stem..G under RA 10FG, for instance, are obviousl% not sub,ected to the same levels of difficult%, responsibilit%, and *ualification re*uirements as those belon$in$ to the Professional Non-"upervisor% Cate$or%,../ althou$h to both cate$ories are assi$ned positions that include salar% $rades ./ and =C. .=C To assert, as petitioner does, that the statutor% classification is ,ust an :arti'ice based on arbitrariness,:.=. </.:ou. 6o-e, is nothin$ more than thro in$ a fe ,abs at an ima$inar% foe. +n li)e manner, petitioner9s denunciation of the proviso for alle$edl% discriminatin$ a$ainst its members vis-X-vis the ran) and filers of other 54+s i$nores the fact that the B"P and the 54+s cited in the ponencia do not belon$ to the same cate*ory of $overnment institutions, althou$h it ma% be said that both are, broadl% spea)in$, :involved: in ban)in$ and finance..== 7hile the former performs primarily *overnmental or re*ulatory functions, the latter e6ecute purel% proprietary ones. Moreover, the e6tent of dama$e or pre,udice inflicted upon the B"P ran) and file emplo%ees as a result of the proviso is not sho n b% an% evidence on record. +ndeed, neither the petitioner nor the ponencia demonstrate the in,uries sustained..=There is no indication hatsoever of the precise nature and eFtent o' dama*es caused or to be caused to petitioner9s members b% the continued implementation of such provision. "urel%, ith no le$ to stand on, the alle$ation of petitioner that there is $reat disparit% in compensation, allo ances or benefits, cannot be considered to be sti$mati3in$ and oundin$ to the ps%che of thousands of its members..=E !n 'act, +SP employees, in *eneral, also s)are t)e same tribulations o' (or-ers and employees in ot)er re*ulatory *overnment o''ices ..=F Not even petitioner9s broad and bare claim of :transcendental importance:.=1 can ipso 'acto $enerate alacrit% on the part of this Court. +n the (nited "tates more than si6t% %ears a$o, #ustice Brandeis delineated the famous canons of avoidance under hich their "upreme Court had refrained from passin$ upon constitutional *uestions. &ne such canon is that the Court must

:not anticipate a 3uestion o' constitutional la( in advance o' t)e necessity o' decidin* it F F F. !t is not t)e )abit o' t)e %ourt to decide 3uestions o' a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision o' t)e case .:.=0 +n addition, the Court must not :pass upon a constitutional 3uestion alt)ou*) properly presented by t)e record, i' t)ere is also present some ot)er *round upon ()ic) t)e case may be disposed o'. :.=G Appl%in$ to this case the contours of constitutional avoidance Brandeis brilliantl% summari3ed, this Court ma% choose to i$nore the constitutional *uestion presented b% petitioner, since there is indeed some other $round upon hich this case can be disposed of -- its clear lac- o' ur*ency, by reason o' ()ic) %on*ress s)ould be allo(ed to do its primary tas- o' revie(in* and possibly amendin* t)e la( . Ta)in$ co$ni3ance of this case and disposin$ of, or alto$ether i$norin$, the constitutional *uestion leads us to the same inevitable conclusionD the assailed provision should not be declared : unconstitutional, unless it is clearly so.:.=/ 7hichever path is chosen b% this Court, + am of the firm belief that such provision cannot and should not be declared unconstitutional. "ince the authorit% to declare a le$al provision void is of a : delicate and a('ul nature,:.-C the Court should :never resort to t)at aut)ority, but in a clear and ur*ent case.:.-. +f ever there is doubt -- and clearl% there is, as manifested herein b% a sharpl% divided Court -- :t)e eFpressed (ill o' t)e le*islature s)ould be sustained. :.-= !ndeed, t)is %ourt is o' t)e unanimous opinion t)at t)e assailed provision (as at t)e outset constitutionalJ )o(ever, (it) recent amendments to related la(s,.-- t)e ma2ority no( 'eels t)at said provision could no lon*er pass constitutional muster. To nail m% colors to the mast, such proclivit% to declare it immediatel% unconstitutional not onl% imprudentl% creeps into the le$islative sphere, but also sorel% clin$s to the strands of obscurantism. 4uture chan$es in both le$islation and its e6ecutive implementation should certainl% not be the benchmar) for a preemptive declaration of unconstitutionalit%, especiall% hen the said provision is not even constitutionall% infirm to be$in ith. Moreover, the con$ressional enactment into la of pendin$ bills .-E on the compensation of B"P emplo%ees -- or even those related thereto -- ill certainl% affect the assailed provision. This Court should bide its time, for it has neither the authorit% nor the competence to contemplate la s, much less to create or amend them. 5iven the current status of these pendin$ bills, the ar$uments raised b% petitioner a$ainst the assailed provision become all the more tenuous and amorphous. ! 'eel (e s)ould leave t)at provision untouc)ed, and instead 2ust accord proper courtesy to our le*islators to determine at t)e proper time and in t)e manner t)ey deem best t)e appropriate content o' any modi'ications to it. Besides, there is an omnipresent presumption of constitutionalit% in ever% le$islative enactment. .-F No confutation of the proviso as ever sho n before> none should be considered no .

Congress 7illing to )erfor! Duty


4ar from bein$ remiss in its dut%, Con$ress is in fact presentl% deliberatin$ upon ;B CC.=-, hich precisel% see)s to amend RA 01F- b%, inter alia, e6emptin$ from the ""8.-1 all positions in the B"P..-0 !55o-'/n42$, .:/0 Cou-. 0:ou2' no. ,-ee6,. Con4-e00, e0,e5/&22$ <:en .:e 2&..e- :&0 &2-e&'$ 0:o<n /.0 </22/n4ne00 &n' &7/2/.$ .o ,e-9o-6 /.0 5on0./.u./on&2 'u.$..-G After all, petitioner has not proven an% e6treme ur$enc% for this Court to shove Con$ress aside in terms of providin$ the proper solution. 8a ma)in$ is not a pool this Court should ade into. The Monetar% Board has enou$h lee a% to devise its o n human resource mana$ement s%stem, sub,ect to the standards of professionalism and e6cellence that are in accordance ith sound principles of mana$ement. .-/ This s%stem must also be in close conformit% to the principles provided for, as ell as ith the rates prescribed, under RA 10FG. More specificall%, there should be :e3ual pay 'or substantially e3ual (or-: and an% differences in pa% should be based :upon substantive di''erences in duties and responsibilities, and 3uali'ication re3uirements o' t)e positions. :.EC +n determinin$ the basic compensation of all $overnment personnel, due re$ard should be $iven b% the said Board to the prevailin$ rates for comparable or) in the private sector..E. 4urthermore, the reasonableness of such compensation should be in proportion to the national bud$et.E= and to the possible erosion in purchasin$ po er as a result of inflation and other factors..E- +t should also abide b% the +nde6 of &ccupational "ervices prepared b% the !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ement in accordance ith the Benchmar) Position "chedule and other factors prescribed thereunder. .EE This Court has not been apprised as to ho precisel% the human resource mana$ement s%stem of the B"P has been misused. +n the absence of an% evidence to the contrar%, it is therefore presumed that the la has been obe%ed, .EF and that official dut% has been re$ularl% performed.E1 in implementin$ the said la . 7here additional implementin$ rules ould still be necessar% to put the assailed provision into continued effect, an% : attac- on t)eir constitutionality (ould be premature.:.E0 "urel%, it ould be ise :not to anticipate t)e serious constitutional la( problems t)at (ould arise under situations ()ere only a tentative 2ud*ment is dictated by prudence. :.EG Attempts :at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren le*al 3uestions and to sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. :.E/ A ,udicial determination is fallo hen inspired b% purel% cerebral casuistr% or emotional puffer%, especiall% durin$ ro ellin$ times.

2o Denial of E0ual )rotection

Even if the matter of ur$enc% is set aside for the nonce, and the Court e6ercises its po er of ,udicial revie .FC over acts of the le$islature,.F. + respectfull% submit that the Petition should still be dismissed because the assailed provision9s continued operation ill not result in a denial of e*ual protection. Neither the passa$e of RA 01F- nor its implementation has been : committed (it) *rave abuse o' discretion amountin* to lac- or eFcess o' 2urisdiction.:.F= Ever% statute is intended b% the le$islature to operate : no 'urt)er t)an may be necessary to e''ectuate:.F- its specific purpose. +n the absence of a clear findin$ as to its arbitrar%, himsical or capricious application, the assailed provision cannot be struc) do n as violative of the fundamental la . Moreover, :PuQnder t)e Ienrolled bill doctrine,9.FE t)e si*nin* o' a bill by t)e Spea-er o' t)e House and t)e Senate President and t)e certi'ication o' t)e PsQecretaries o' bot) Houses o' %on*ress t)at it (as passed, are conclusive :.FF :not only o' its provisions but also o' its due enactment.:.F1 +t is therefore futile to elter in the thou$ht that the ori$inal and amended versions of the correspondin$ bill have no reference to the proviso in *uestion. .F0 4loor deliberations are either e6pansive or restrictive. Bills filed cannot be e6pected to remain static> the% transmute in form and substance. 7hatever doubts there ma% be as to the validit% of an% provision therein must necessaril% be resolved in its favor.

-rief -ac"ground of the E0ual )rotection Clause


!espite the e$alitarian commitment in the !eclaration of +ndependence that : all men are created e3ual,: the framers of the ori$inal Constitution of the (nited "tates omitted an% constitutional rule of e*ual protection. Not until .G1G, hen the 4ourteenth Amendment thereto as ratified b% the le$islatures of the several states of the (nion, .FG did the concept of e*ual protection have a constitutional basis> .F/ and not until the modern era did the (nited "tates "upreme Court $ive it endurin$ constitutional si$nificance. 4rom its inception, therefore, the e*ual protection clause in :t)e broad and beni*n provisions o' t)e ourteent) Amendment:.1C alread% sou$ht :to place all persons similarly situated upon a plane o' e3uality and to render it impossible 'or any class to obtain pre'erred treatment.:.1. +ts ori$inal understandin$ as the proscription onl% of certain discriminator% acts based on race,.1= althou$h its proper construction, hen called to the attention of the (" "upreme Court in the "lau$hter-;ouse Cases, first involved e6clusive privile$es. .1- Eventuall%, other disfavored bases of $overnmental action ere identified. 8abeled as morall% irrelevant traits, *ender, ille*itimacy and aliena*e ere included in this list. Toda%, this clause is :t)e sin*le most important concept F F F 'or t)e protection o' individual ri*)ts .:.1E +t does not, ho ever, create substantive ri$hts. .1F +ts $uarant% is merel% :a pled*e o' t)e protection o' e3ual la(s. :.11 +ts :promise t)at no person s)all be denied t)e e3ual protection o' t)e la(s must coeFist (it) t)e practical necessity t)at most le*islation classi'ies 'or one purpose or anot)er, (it) resultin* disadvanta*e to various *roups or persons. :.10 As mirrored in our Constitution,.1G this clause en,o%s the interpretation $iven b% its American framers .1/ and ma$istrates. +n fact, a centur% a$o, this Court alread% enunciated that : t)e mere act o' cession o' t)e P)ilippines to t)e 9nited States did not eFtend t)e P9SQ %onstitution )ere, eFcept suc) parts as 'all (it)in t)e *eneral principles o' 'undamental limitations in 'avor o' personal ri*)ts 'ormulated in t)e P9SQ %onstitution and its amendments, and ()ic) eFist rat)er by in'erence and t)e *eneral spirit o' t)e P9SQ %onstitution, and eFcept t)ose eFpress provisions o' t)e P9SQ %onstitution ()ic) pro)ibit %on*ress 'rom passin* la(s in t)eir contravention under any circumstances F F F. :.0C Bein$ one such limitation in favor of personal ri$hts enshrined in the 4ourteenth Amendment, e*ual protection is thus deemed e6tended to our ,urisdiction. Notabl%, #ustice Malcolm himself said that the constitutional la of "pain, then in effect, as : entirely abro*ated by t)e c)an*e o' soverei*nty.:.0. As a result, it as the constitutional la of the (nited "tates that as transposed to our fled$lin$ political and le$al s%stem. To be precise, the principal or$anic acts of the Philippines included President McBinle%9s +nstructions to the "econd Philippine Commission of April 0, ./CC, to hich this Court reco$ni3ed the (nited "tates Constitution as a limitation.0= upon the po ers of the militar% $overnor then in char$e of the Philippine +slands. .0+n a catena of constitutional cases decided after the chan$e in soverei$nt%, this Court consistentl% held that the e*ual protection clause re*uires all persons or thin$s similarl% situated to : be treated ali-e, bot) as to ri*)ts con'erred and responsibilities imposed. Similar sub2ects F F F s)ould not be treated di''erently, so as to *ive undue 'avor to some and un2ustly discriminate a*ainst ot)ers.:.0E Bein$ a constitutional limitation first reco$ni3ed .0F in #ubi.01 -- citin$ Yic- 0o.00 -- as one :derived 'rom t)e ourteent) Amendment to t)e 9nited States %onstitution ,:.0G this clause prescribes certain re*uirements for validit%D the challen$ed statute must be applicable to all members of a class, reasonable, and enforced b% the re$ular methods of procedure prescribed, rather than b% purel% arbitrar% means..0/ +ts reasonableness must meet the re*uirements enumerated in Bera.GC and later summari3ed in %ayat..G.

,hree ,ests )assed by 3ssailed )rovision

+ respectfull% submit that the assailed provision passes the three-tiered standard of revie been developed b% the courts throu$h all these %ears.

for e*ual protection that has

,he .ational -asis ,est


(nder the first tier or the rational relations)ip or rational basis test, courts ill uphold a classification if it bears a rational relationship to an accepted $overnmental end..G= +n other ords, it must be :rationally related to a le*itimate state interest.:.G- To be reasonable, such classification must be @.A based on substantial distinction that ma)es for real differences> @=A $ermane to the purposes of the la > @-A not limited to e6istin$ conditions onl%> and @EA e*uall% applicable to all members of the same class..GE Murp)y states that hen a $overnmental classification is attac)ed on e*ual protection $rounds, such classification is in most instances revie ed under the standard rational basis test..GF Accordin$l%, courts ill not overturn that classification, unless the var%in$ treatments of different $roups are so unrelated to the achievement of an% le$itimate purpose that the courts can onl% conclude that the $overnmental actions are irrational. .G1 A classification must :be reasonable, not arbitrary, and F F F rest upon some *round o' di''erence )avin* a 'air and substantial relation to t)e ob2ect o' t)e le*islation, so t)at all persons similarly circumstanced s)all be treated ali-e. :.G0 All these conditions are met in the present case. The retention of the best and the bri$htest o''icials in an independent central monetar% authorit%.GG is a valid $overnmental ob,ective that can be reasonabl% met b% a correspondin$ e6emption from a salar% standardi3ation scheme that is based on $raduated salar% levels. The le$islature in fact en,o%s a ide berth in continuall% classif%in$ henever it enacts a la ,.G/ provided that no persons similarl% situated ithin a $iven class are treated differentl%. To contend other ise is to be presumptuous about the le$islative intent or lac) of it. 7hether it ould have been a better polic% to ma)e a more comprehensive classification : is not our province to decide.:./C The absence of le$islative facts supportin$ a classification chosen has no si$nificance in the rational basis test../. +n fact, :a le*islative c)oice is not sub2ect to courtroom 'act-'indin* and may be based on rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data.:./= Re*uirin$ Con$ress to ,ustif% its efforts ma% even :lead it to re'rain 'rom actin* at all.:./- +n addition, Murp)y holds that the statutor% classification :en2oys a stron* presumption o' constitutionality, and a reasonable doubt as to its constitutionality is su''icient to sustain it. :./E Respectfull%, therefore, + a$ain differ from the ponenciaIs contention that the amendments of the charters of the seven 54+s from .//F to =CCE./F have alread% :unconstitutionali3ed: the continued implementation of the B"P proviso. Be it remembered that the first si6 54+s mentioned b% Mr. #ustice Puno -- namel% the 8BP, """, "B54C, 5"+", !BP and ;5C -do not stand in the same class and cate$or% as the B"P. ./1 7hile the B"P, as mentioned earlier, is a re*ulatory a$enc% performin$ *overnmental functions, the si6 aforementioned 54+s perform proprietary functions that chiefl% compete ith private ban)s and other non-ban) financial institutions. Thus, the so-called concept of relative constitutionality a$ain finds no application. (nder the rational relations)ip test, there can be no une*ual protection of the la bet een emplo%ees of the B"P and those of the 54+s. 4urther, the e*ual protection clause :*uarantees e3uality, not identity o' ri*)ts.:./0 A la remains valid even if it is limited :in t)e ob2ect to ()ic) it is directed.:./G :7e'inin* t)e class o' persons sub2ect to a re*ulatory re3uirement F F F inevitably re3uires t)at some persons ()o )ave an almost e3ually stron* claim to 'avored treatment be placed on di''erent sides o' t)e line, and t)e 'act t)at t)e line mi*)t )ave been dra(n di''erently at some points is a matter 'or le*islative, rat)er t)an 2udicial, consideration. :.// +n fact, as lon$ as :t)e basic classi'ication is rationally based, uneven e''ects upon particular *roups (it)in a class are ordinarily o' no constitutional concern.:=CC :!t is not t)e province o' t)is %ourt to create substantive constitutional ri*)ts in t)e name o' *uaranteein* e3ual protection o' t)e la(s.:=C. &n the other hand, the Philippine !eposit +nsurance Corporation @P!+CA is also a $overnment re$ulator% a$enc% almost on the same level of importance as the B"P. ;o ever, its charter as onl% amended ver% recentl% -- to be more precise, on #ul% =0, =CCE.=C= Conse*uentl%, it ould be most unfair to implicitl% accuse Con$ress of inaction, discrimination and une*ual treatment. %omity (it) and courtesy to a coe3ual branc) dictate t)at our la(ma-ers be *iven su''icient time and lee(ay to address t)e alle*ed problem o' di''erin* pay scales. :4nly by 'ait)'ul ad)erence to t)is *uidin* principle o' 2udicial revie( o' le*islation is it possible to preserve to t)e le*islative branc) its ri*)t'ul independence and its ability to 'unction.:=C- Besides, it is a cardinal rule that courts first ascertain hether construction of a statute is fairl% possible b% hich an% constitutional *uestion therein ma% be avoided. =CE To e6plain further, hile the possible chan$es contemplated b% Con$ress in ;B CC.=- are similar, if not identical, to those found in the amended charters of the seven other 54+s alread% mentioned, the $overnmental ob,ectives as e6plicitl% stated in the e6planator% note remain -- to ascertain B"P9s effectiveness and to stren$then its supervisor% capabilit% in promotin$ a more stable ban)in$ s%stem. This fact merel% confirms that the present classification and distinction under the assailed provision still bear a rational relationship to the same le$itimate $overnmental ob,ectives and should, therefore, not be invalidated. The validit% of a la is to be determined not b% its e''ects on a particular case or by an incidental result arisin* t)ere'rom , but b% the purpose and e''icacy o' t)e la( in accomplis)in* t)at e''ect or result .=CF This point confirms m% earlier position

that the enactment of a la is not the same as its operation. (nli)e Bera in hich the Court invalidated the la on probation because of the une*ual effect in the operation of such la , =C1 t)e assailed provision in t)e present case su''ers 'rom no suc) invidious discrimination. !t very (ell ac)ieves its purpose, and it applies e3ually to all *overnment employees (it)in t)e +SP. urt)ermore, t)e application o' t)is provision is not made sub2ect to any discretion, uneven appropriation o' 'unds, or time limitation. %onse3uently, suc) a la( neit)er denies e3ual protection nor permits o' suc) denial.

,he Strict Scrutiny ,est


(nder the second tier or the strict scrutiny test, the Court ill re*uire the $overnment to sho a compellin$ or overridin$ end to ,ustif% @.A the limitation on fundamental ri$hts or @=A the implication of suspect classes. =C0 7here a statutor% classification impin$es upon a fundamental ri$ht or burdens a suspect class, such classification is sub,ected to strict scrutin%.=CG +t ill be upheld onl% if it is sho n to be :suitably tailored to serve a compellin* state interest.:=C/ Therefore, all le$al restrictions that curtail the civil ri$hts of a suspect class, li)e a sin$le racial or ethnic $roup, are immediatel% suspect. :$)at is not to say t)at all suc) restrictions are unconstitutional. !t is to say t)at courts must sub2ect t)em to t)e most ri*id scrutiny.:=.C Pressin$ public necessit%, for instance, ma% ,ustif% the e6istence of those restrictions, but anta$onism to ard such suspect classes never can. To '&.e, no !6e-/5&n 5&0e -- 9e'e-&2 o- 0.&.e -- :&0 $e. 7een 'e5/'e' /n;o2;/n4 eCu&2 ,&$ 05:e6e0 &0 &,,2/e' e/.:e- .o 4o;e-n6en. e6,2o$ee0 ;/0-P-;/0 ,-/;&.e one0, o- </.:/n .:e 4o;e-n6en.&2 -&n?0. S&2&-$ 4-&'e o52&00 o9 ,o0/./on /0 no. & 9un'&6en.&2 -/4:. 2/?e 6&--/&4e, =.. ,-o5-e&./on,=.= ;o./n4,=.- 0,ee5:=.E &n' /n.e-0.&.e .-&;e2.=.F !6e-/5&n 5ou-.0 :&;e /n 9&5. e;en -e9u0e' .o 'e52&-e 4o;e-n6en. e6,2o$6en. & 9un'&6en.&2 -/4:..=.1 As to suspect classes, non-e6empt $overnment emplo%ees @those ith salar% $rades belo =CA are not a $roup :saddled ith such disabilities, or sub,ected to such a histor% of purposeful une*ual treatment, or rele$ated to such a position of political po erlessness, as to command e6traordinar% protection from the ma,oritarian political process.: =.0 The% are a $roup so much unli)e race,=.G nationalit%,=./ aliena$e==C or denominational preference==. -- factors that are :seldom relevant to the achievement of an% le$itimate state interest that la s $rounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect pre,udice and antipath% 6 6 6.:=== A$ain, ith due respect, the ponencia9s==- reference to ?ic) 7o,==E therefore, is unbefittin$. +ndeed that case held that :KtLhou$h the la itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, %et, if it is applied and administered b% public authorit% ith an evil e%e and an une*ual hand, so as practicall% to ma)e un,ust and ille$al discriminations bet een persons in similar circumstances, material to their ri$hts, the denial of e*ual ,ustice is still ithin the prohibition of the KCLonstitution.:==F The facts in ?ic) 7o clearl% point out that the *uestioned ordinances therein -- re$ulatin$ the use of ooden buildin$s in the business of )eepin$ and conductin$ laundries -- operated in hostilit% to the race and nationalit% to hich plaintiffs belon$ed, bein$ aliens and sub,ects of the Emperor of China. ==1 To a board of supervisors as $iven the arbitrar% po er to ithhold permits to carr% on a harmless and useful occupation on hich the plaintiffs depended for livelihood.==0 +n contrast, no such arbitrariness is found in the case at bar. Neither is there an% alle$ation of abuse of discretion in the implementation of a human resource development pro$ram. There is also no alle$ation of hostilit% sho n to ard emplo%ees receivin$ salaries belo $rade =C. +n fact, for purposes of e*ual protection anal%sis, financial need alone does not identif% a suspect class. ==G And even if it ere to consider $overnment pa% to be a)in to ealth, it has alread% been held that : here ealth is involved, the E*ual Protection Clause does not re*uire absolute e*ualit% or precisel% e*ual advanta$es.: ==/ After all, a la does not become invalid :because of simple ine*ualit%,: =-C financial or other ise. "ince emplo%ment in the $overnment is not a fundamental ri$ht and $overnment emplo%ees belo salar% $rade =C are not a suspect class, the $overnment is not re*uired to present a compellin$ ob,ective to ,ustif% a possible infrin$ement under the strict scrutin% test. The assailed provision thus cannot be invalidated via the strict scrutin% $auntlet. :+n areas of social and economic polic%, a statutor% classification that neither proceeds alon$ suspect lines nor infrin$es fundamental constitutional ri$hts must be upheld a$ainst e*ual protection challen$e if there is an% reasonabl% conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.: =-.

,he Intensified 4eans ,est


(nder the third tier or the intensi'ied means test, the Court should accept the le$islative end, but should closel% scrutini3e its relationship to the classification made.=-= There e6ist classifications that are sub,ected to a hi$her or intermediate de$ree of scrutin% than the deferential or traditional rational basis test. These classifications, ho ever, have not been deemed to involve suspect classes or fundamental ri$hts> thus, the% have not been sub,ected to the strict scrutiny test. +n other ords, such classifications must be :substantially related to a su''iciently important *overnmental interest .:=-E6amples of these so-called :*uasi-suspect: classifications are those based on $ender, =-E le$itimac% under certain circumstances,=-F le$al residenc% ith re$ard to availment of free public education, civil service emplo%ment preference for

armed forces veterans ho are state residents upon entr% to militar% service, and the ri$ht to practice for compensation the profession for hich certain persons have been *ualified and licensed. =-1 Non-e6empt $overnment emplo%ees ma% be a sensitive but not a suspect class, and their emplo%ment status ma% be important althou$h not fundamental. ?et, the enactment of the assailed provision is a reasonable means b% hich the "tate see)s to advance its interest.=-0 "ince such provision su''iciently serves important *overnmental interests and is substantially related to the achievement thereof, then, a$ain it stands. :!n t)e area o' economics and social (el'are, a State does not violate t)e 63ual Protection %lause merely because t)e classi'ications made by its la(s are imper'ect. !' t)e classi'ication )as some Ireasonable basis,I it does not o''end t)e %onstitution simply because t)e classi'ication Iis not made (it) mat)ematical nicety or because in practice it results in some ine3uality.9:=-G :$)e very idea o' classi'ication is t)at o' ine3uality, so t)at F F F t)e 'act o' ine3uality in no manner determines t)e matter o' constitutionality.:=-/ A statute, therefore, :is not invalid under t)e %onstitution because it mi*)t )ave *one 'art)er t)an it did, or because it may not succeed in brin*in* about t)e result t)at it tends to produce. :=EC Con$ress does not have to :stri-e at all evils at t)e same time.:=E. 2uotin$ #ustice ;olmes, a la :aimed at ()at is deemed an evil, and )ittin* it presumably ()ere eFperience s)o(s it to be most 'elt, is not to be upset by t)in-in* up and enumeratin* ot)er instances to ()ic) Pt)e la(Q mi*)t )ave been applied e3ually (ell, so 'ar as t)e court can see. $)at is 'or t)e le*islature to 2ud*eP,Q unless t)e case is very clear.:=E= This Court is ithout po er to disturb a le$islative ,ud$ment, unless : t)ere is no 'air reason 'or t)e la( t)at (ould not re3uire (it) e3ual 'orce its eFtension to ot)ers ()om it leaves untouc)ed. :=E- To find fault ith a le$islative polic% :is not to establis) t)e invalidity o' t)e la( based upon it. :=EE

E,/2o4ue # SSENT NG OP N ON C!RP O, J.8


+ dissent from the ma,orit% opinion. irst, the ma,orit% opinion does not annul a la but enacts a pendin$ bill in Con$ress into la . The ma,orit% opinion invades the le$islative domain b% enactin$ into la a bill that the .- th Con$ress is no considerin$ for approval. The ma,orit% opinion does this in the $uise of annullin$ a proviso in "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of Republic Act No. 01F- @:RA 01F-:A. Second, the ma,orit% opinion erroneousl% classifies the +an*-o Sentral n* Pilipinas @:B"P:A, a re$ulator% a$enc% e6ercisin$ soverei$n functions, in the same cate$or% as non-re$ulator% corporations e6ercisin$ purel% commercial functions li)e 8and Ban) of the Philippines @:8BP:A, "ocial "ecurit% "%stem @:""":A, 5overnment "ervice +nsurance "%stem @:5"+":A, !evelopment Ban) of the Philippines @:!BP:A, "mall Borro ers 5uarantee 4und Corporation @:"B54C:A, and ;ome 5uarantee Corporation @:;5C:A.

U0u-,&./on o9 Le4/02&./;e Po<eThere is a bill no pendin$ in Con$ress, ;ouse Bill No. .=-, see)in$ to e6empt the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of B"P from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a @:""8:A. A similar bill as filed in the .= th Con$ress to$ether ith the bill e6emptin$ from the ""8 all officials and emplo%ees of Philippine !eposit +nsurance Corporation @:P!+C:A. The bill e6emptin$ P!+C emplo%ees from ""8 as approved on =0 #ul% =CCE in the d%in$ da%s of the .= th Con$ress. ;o ever, due to lac) of time, the bill e6emptin$ B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees did not reach third readin$. 7hat the ma,orit% opinion ants is to preempt Con$ress b% declarin$ throu$h a ,udicial decision that B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees are no e6empt from the ""8. The ma,orit% opinion see)s to le$islate the e6emption from ""8 b% declarin$ void the proviso in "ection .F@cA, Article ++ of RA 01F- @:proviso:A, hich statesD A compensation structure, based on ,ob evaluation studies and a$e surve%s and sub,ect to the Board9s approval, shall be instituted as an inte$ral component of the +an*-o SentralIs human resource development pro$ramD Provided, That the Monetar% Board shall ma)e its o n s%stem conform as closel% as possible ith the principles provided for under Republic Act No. 10FG. )rovided, however, T:&. 5o6,en0&./on &n' <&4e 0.-u5.u-e o9 e6,2o$ee0 <:o0e ,o0/./on0 9&22 un'e- 0&2&-$ 4-&'e 19 &n' 7e2o< 0:&22 7e /n &55o-'&n5e </.: .:e -&.e0 ,-e05-/7e' un'e- Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8. DEmphasis suppliedA The ma,orit% opinion ,ustifies its action b% sa%in$ that <:/2e .:e ,-o;/0o <&0 ;&2/' <:en 9/-0. en&5.e', /. /0 no< /n;&2/' because its continued operation is discriminator% a$ainst B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees. All officials and emplo%ees of other $overnment financial institutions @:54+s:A li)e 5"+", 8BP, !BP, """, "B54C, ;5C and P!+C are no e6empt from the ""8. Con$ress $ranted the e6emptions over the %ears, for 8BP in .//F, """ in .//0, 5"+" in .//0, "B54C in .//0, !BP in .//G, ;5C in =CCC, and P!+C in =CCE.

Amon$ the 54+s $ranted e6emption from ""8, onl% P!+C is a re$ulator% a$enc%. P# C -e5e/;e' /.0 SSL e=e6,./on on2$ .:/0 $e&- - 2++4. P# C /0 .:e 9/-0. -e4u2&.o-$ GF <:o0e -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 &-e e=e6,. 9-o6 .:e SSL. Ran)-and-file emplo%ees of B"P, a 54+ e6ercisin$ re$ulator% functions, cannot at this time claim an% unreasonable or oppressive dela% in securin$ le$islative e6emption from ""8, assumin$ Con$ress is disposed to $rant an e6emption. At this time, this Court cannot sa% that the continued validit% of the proviso in "ection .F@cA of RA 01F- is unreasonable and oppressive on B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees. This Court cannot sa% that Con$ress $ravel% abused its ,urisdiction in not e6emptin$ B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees from the ""8 at the same time as P!+C. Con$ress is no considerin$ B"P9s e6emption, and this Court cannot imperiousl% conclude that Con$ress had more than enou$h time to act on B"P9s e6emption. Even if Con$ress does not act on B"P9s e6emption for more than one %ear, it does not follo that this Court should then e6empt B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees from the ""8. As the la no stands, P!+C is the on2$ re$ulator% 54+ hose ran)and-file emplo%ees are e6empt from ""8. All other 54+s e6ercisin$ re$ulator% functions are not e6empt from the ""8, includin$ B"P hose ran)-and file emplo%ees are sub,ect to the ""8. The $rant of e6emption to P!+C is the le$islative act that is *uestionable for bein$ discriminator% a$ainst all other selfsustainin$ $overnment a$encies e6ercisin$ re$ulator% functions. "uch $rant to one re$ulator% a$enc%, ithout a similar $rant to other re$ulator% a$encies hose incomes e6ceed their e6penses, creates a class of e6emption that has dubious basis. +n short, the 0/n4u2&- e=e6,./on of P!+C from the ""8 discriminates a$ainst all other self-sustainin$ $overnment a$encies that e6ercise re$ulator% functions. The $rant of ""8 e6emption to 54+s has ramifications on the deepenin$ bud$et deficit of the $overnment. (nder Republic Act No. 01F1., all 54+s are re*uired to remit to the National Treasur% at least FCS of their annual net earnin$s. This remittance forms part of the $overnment revenues that fund the annual appropriations act. +f the remittances from 54+s decrease, the national revenues fundin$ the annual appropriations act correspondin$l% decrease. T:/0 -e0u2.0 /n </'en/n4 e;en 6o-e .:e 7u'4e. 'e9/5/.. A bi$$er bud$et deficit means there are no revenues to fund salar% increases of &22 4o;e-n6en. e6,2o$ee0 ho are paid out of the annual appropriations act. The e6emption of 54+s from ""8 ma% dela% or even prevent a $eneral increase in the salar% of all $overnment emplo%ees, includin$ ran)-and-file emplo%ees in the ,udiciar%. This Court cannot simpl% ordain an e6emption from ""8 ithout considerin$ serious ramifications on fiscal policies of the $overnment. This is a matter better left to the E6ecutive and 8e$islative !epartments. This Court cannot intrude into fiscal policies that are the province of the E6ecutive and 8e$islative !epartments. +ndeed, Con$ress should pass a la rationali3in$ the e6emptions of all $overnment a$encies from the ""8. The piecemeal $rant of e6emptions is creatin$ distortions in the salar% structure of $overnment emplo%ees similarl% situated. "uch rationali3ation, ho ever, is not the function of the Court. Even as a practical matter, this Court does not have the necessar% data to rationali3e the e6emptions of all $overnment a$encies from the ""8. The po er of ,udicial revie of le$islative acts presumes that Con$ress has enacted a la that ma% violate the Constitution. This Court cannot e6ercise its po er of ,udicial revie before Con$ress has enacted the *uestioned la . +n this case, Con$ress is still considerin$ the bill e6emptin$ B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees from the ""8. There is still no opportunit% for this Court to e6ercise its revie po er because there is nothin$ to revie . The ma,orit% opinion, ho ever, claims that because of the failure of Con$ress to enact the bill e6emptin$ B"P ran)-andfile emplo%ees from the ""8, this Court should no annul the proviso in "ection .F@cA of RA 01F- to totall% e6empt B"P from the ""8. This is no lon$er an e6ercise of the po er of ,udicial revie but an e6ercise of the po er of le$islation - a po er that this Court does not possess. The po er to e6empt a $overnment a$enc% from the ""8 is a le$islative po er, not a ,udicial po er. B% annullin$ a prior valid la that has the effect of e6emptin$ B"P from the ""8, this Court is e6ercisin$ a le$islative po er. The po er of ,udicial revie is the po er to stri)e do n an unconstitutional act of a department or a$enc% of $overnment, not the po er to initiate or perform an act that is lod$ed in another department or a$enc% of $overnment. +f this Court stri)es do n the la e6emptin$ P!+C from the ""8 because it is discriminator% a$ainst other $overnment a$encies similarl% situated, this Court is e6ercisin$ its ,udicial revie po er. The effect is to -e;e-. P# C .o /.0 ,-e;/ou0 0/.u&./on of bein$ sub,ect to the ""8, the same situation $overnin$ B"P and other a$encies similarl% situated. ;o ever, b% annullin$ the proviso in "ection .F@cA of RA 01F-, "SP /0 no. -e;e-.e' .o /.0 ,-e;/ou0 0/.u&./on 7u. 7-ou4:. .o & ne< 0/.u&./on .:&. "SP 5&nno. &..&/n </.:ou. & ne< 2e4/02&./on. &ther $overnment a$encies similarl% situated as B"P remain in their old situation P still bein$ sub,ect to the ""8. This is not an annulment of a le$islative act but an enactment of le$islation e6emptin$ one a$enc% from the ""8 ithout e6emptin$ the remainin$ a$encies similarl% situated. The ma,orit% opinion cites .utter v. Esteban= as precedent for declarin$ the proviso in "ection .F@cA of RA 01Funconstitutional. .utter is not applicable to the present case. +n .utter, the Court declared on .G Ma% ./F- that hile the !ebt Moratorium 8a as valid hen enacted on =1 #ul% ./EG, its :continued operation and enforcement 6 6 6 is unreasonable and oppressive, and should not be prolon$ed a minute lon$er.: 7ith the discontinuance of the effectivit% of

the !ebt Moratorium 8a , the debtors ho benefited from the la ere returned to their o-/4/n&2 0/.u&./on prior to the enactment of the la . This meant that the creditors could resume collectin$ from the debtors the debts the pa%ment of hich as suspended b% the !ebt Moratorium 8a . T:e 5-e'/.o-0 &n' 'e7.o-0 <e-e -e0.o-e' .o .:e/- o-/4/n&2 0/.u&./on 7e9o-e .:e en&5.6en. o9 .:e #e7. Mo-&.o-/u6 L&<. No 'e7.o- o- 5-e'/.o- <&0 ,2&5e' /n & ne< 0/.u&./on .:&. -eCu/-e' .:e en&5.6en. o9 & ne< 2&<. +n the present case, declarin$ the proviso in "ection .F@cA of RA 01F- no lon$er le$all% effective 'oe0 no. -e0.o-e .:e "SP -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 .o .:e/- o-/4/n&2 0/.u&./on, hich sub,ected them to the ""8. +nstead, the discontinuance of the validit% of the proviso brin$s the B"P ran)-and-file emplo%ees to a ne< 0/.u&./on .:&. .:e$ &-e no. en./.2e' </.:ou. .:e en&5.6en. o9 & ne< 2&<. The effect of the ma,orit% decision is to le$islate a ne la that brin$s the B"P ran)-andPfile emplo%ees to a ne situation. Clearl%, the .utter doctrine does not appl% to the present case.

E--oneou0 C2&00/9/5&./on o9 "SP &0 GF S/6/2&- .o L"P, #"P &n' O.:e-0


The ma,orit% opinion classifies B"P as a 54+ ,ust li)e 5"+", 8BP, !BP, """, "B54C, ;5C and P!+C. ;ere lies the basic error of the ma,orit% opinion. GS S, L"P, #"P, SSS, S"GFC &n' HGC &-e GF 0 7u. &-e no. -e4u2&.o-$ &4en5/e0. "SP &n' P# C &-e GF 0 7u. &-e &20o -e4u2&.o-$ &4en5/e0 >u0. 2/?e o.:e- 4o;e-n6en.&2 -e4u2&.o-$ &4en5/e0. The ma,orit% opinion is comparin$ apples ith oran$es. 54+s that do not e6ercise re$ulator% functions operate ,ust li)e commercial financial institutions. ;o ever, 54+s that e6ercise re$ulator% functions, li)e B"P and P!+C, are unli)e commercial financial institutions. B"P and P!+C e6ercise soverei$n functions unli)e the other non-re$ulator% 54+s. Non-re$ulator% 54+s derive their income solel% from commercial transactions. The% compete head on ith private financial institutions. Their operatin$ e6penses, includin$ emplo%ees9 salaries, come from their o n 0e29-4ene-&.e' /n5o6e 9-o6 5o66e-5/&2 &5./;/./e0. ;o ever, re$ulator% 54+s li)e B"P and P!+C derive their income 9-o6 9ee0, 5:&-4e0 &n' o.:e/6,o0/./on0 .:&. &22 7&n?0 &-e 7$ 2&< -eCu/-e' .o ,&$. Re$ulator% 54+s have no competitors in the private sector. &bviousl%, B"P and P!+C do not belon$ to the same class of 54+s as 8BP, """, 5"+", "B54C, !BP and ;5C. E6emptin$ non-re$ulator% 54+s from the ""8 is ,ustified because these 54+s operate ,ust li)e private commercial entities. Their revenues, from hich the% pa% the salaries of their emplo%ees, come solel% from commercial operations. None o9 .:e/- -e;enue0 5o6e0 9-o6 6&n'&.o-$ 4o;e-n6en. e=&5./on0 . This is not the case of 54+s li)e B"P and P!+C hich impose re$ulator% fees and char$es.

Con52u0/on
(nder the Constitution, Con$ress is an independent department that is a co-e*ual of the "upreme Court. This Court has al a%s accorded Con$ress the $reat respect that it deserves under the Constitution. The po er to le$islate belon$s to Con$ress. The po er to revie enacted le$islation belon$s to the "upreme Court. The "upreme Court has no po er to declare a pendin$ bill in Con$ress as deemed enacted into la . That is not the po er to revie le$islation but the po er to usurp a le$islative function. The ma,orit% opinion is leadin$ this Court into usurpin$ the primar% ,urisdiction of Con$ress to enact la s. The ma,orit% opinion brin$s this Court and Con$ress into a needless clash of po ers - hether the po er of ,udicial revie of le$islative acts includes the po er to initiate le$islative acts if this Court becomes impatient ith the pace of le$islative process. Clearl%, this Court does not have the po er to le$islate. Con$ress has a ri$ht to $uard 3ealousl% its primar% po er to enact la s as much as this Court has a ri$ht to $uard 3ealousl% its po er to revie enacted le$islations. Accordin$l%, + vote to dismiss the petition.

# SSENT NG OP N ON C!RP O MOR!LES, J.8


+s bein$ an emplo%ee of a 5overnment & ned or Controlled Corporation @5&CCA or a 5overnment 4inancial +nstitution @54+A a reasonable and sufficient basis for e6emption from the compensation and position classification s%stem for all $overnment personnel provided in Republic Act No. 10FG, . entitled Compensation and Position Classification Act of ./G/, also )no n as the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a < The main opinion, b% simultaneousl% appl%in$ t o different standards for determinin$ compliance ith the constitutional re*uirement of e*ual protection - the :rational basis test: and the :strict scrutin% test: - under the rubric of :relative constitutionalit%,: holds that it is.

(pon studied reflection, ho ever, + find that such conclusion is contrar% to the ei$ht of the applicable le$al authorities> involves an evaluation of the isdom of the la and a pre-emption of the con$ressional po er of appropriation, hich are both be%ond the scope of ,udicial revie > and results in increased, rather than reduced, ine*ualit% ithin the $overnment service - creatin$, as it does, a preferred sub-class of $overnment emplo%ees, i.e. emplo%ees of 54+s, devoid of either a rational factual basis or a discernable public purpose for such classification. Conse*uentl%, + am constrained to respectfull% re$ister m% dissent. The relevant antecedents of this case are as follo sD &n Au$ust =., ./G/, R.A. No. 10FG @the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a A, amendin$ Presidential !ecree No. /GF @the &ld "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a A, as enacted= in response to the mandate to provide for a standardi3ed compensation scale for all $overnment emplo%ees, includin$ those emplo%ed in 5&CCs, under "ection F, Article +M-B, of the ConstitutionD "ec. F. The Con$ress shall provide for the standardi3ation of compensation of $overnment officials and emplo%ees, includin$ those in $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations ith ori$inal charters, ta)in$ into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired for their positions. This provision as ta)en from the ./0- Constitution in order to address the ide disparit% of compensation bet een $overnment emplo%ees emplo%ed in proprietar% corporations and those strictl% performin$ $overnmental functions, the disparit%, havin$ been brou$ht about b% the increasin$ number of e6emptions of proprietar% corporations throu$h special le$islation from the covera$e of the then +nte$rated Reor$ani3ation Plan of ./0=. - Part +++, Chapter ++, Article ++ of the latter statedD Article ++ - #eeFamination o' t)e 0AP%4E Plans After thirteen %ears in operation, the 7APC& Plans have been undermined b% the increasin$ number of e6emptions from its covera$e throu$h special le$islation. Moreover, throu$h court decisions and the opinions of the "ecretar% of #ustice, the so-called proprietar% corporations are no lon$er sub,ect to the Plans Throu$h collective bar$ainin$, emplo%ees of $overnment corporations have been able to secure not onl% hi$her salaries but liberal frin$e benefits as ell. As revealed b% the ./0C Presidential Committee to "tud% Corporate "alar% "cales, the avera$e compensation in some of these corporations, usin$ the avera$e compensation of positions covered b% the 7APC& Plans as base @.CCSA, is as follo sD !BP - =C-S, CB - ./1S, 5"+" -.E0S, """ - .FCS, and N7"A - ...S.F Thus, the stated polic% behind the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a is to provide e*ual pa% for substantiall% e*ual or) and to base differences in pa% upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and *ualification re*uirements of the positions, hile $ivin$ due re$ard to, amon$ others, prevailin$ rates in the private sector for comparable or)D "ECT+&N =. "tatement of Polic%. V . /0 :e-e7$ 'e52&-e' .:e ,o2/5$ o9 .:e S.&.e .o ,-o;/'e eCu&2 ,&$ 9o0u70.&n./&22$ eCu&2 <o-? &n' .o 7&0e '/99e-en5e0 /n ,&$ u,on 0u70.&n./;e '/99e-en5e0 /n 'u./e0 &n' -e0,on0/7/2/./e0, &n' Cu&2/9/5&./on -eCu/-e6en.0 o9 .:e ,o0/./on0. n 'e.e-6/n/n4 -&.e0 o9 ,&$, 'ue -e4&-' 0:&22 7e 4/;en .o, &6on4 o.:e-0, ,-e;&/2/n4 -&.e0 /n .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o- 9o- 5o6,&-&72e <o-?. 4or this purpose, the !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ements @!BMA is hereb% directed to establish and administer a unified Compensation and Position Classification "%stem, hereinafter referred to as the "%stem, as provided for in Presidential !ecree No. /GF, as amended, that shall be applied for all $overnment entities, as mandated b% the Constitution. 666 @Emphasis suppliedA The "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a applies to all positions, hether elective or appointive of the Civil "ervice includin$ those in the 5&CCs and 54+sD ithin the entire len$th and breadth

"ec. E. Covera$e. V T:e Co6,en0&./on &n' Po0/./on C2&00/9/5&./on S$0.e6 :e-e/n ,-o;/'e' 0:&22 &,,2$ .o &22 ,o0/./on0, &,,o/n./;e o- e2e5./;e, on 9u22 o- ,&-.-./6e 7&0/0, no< e=/0./n4 o- :e-e&9.e- 5-e&.e' /n .:e 4o;e-n6en., /n52u'/n4 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' 4o;e-n6en. 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0. The term :$overnment: refers to the E6ecutive, the 8e$islative and the #udicial Branches and the Constitutional Commissions and shall include all, but shall not be limited to, departments, bureaus, offices, boards, commissions, courts, tribunals, councils, authorities, administrations, centers, institutes, state colle$es and universities, local $overnment units, and the armed forces. The term :$overnment-o ned or controlled corporations and financial institutions: shall include all corporations and financial institutions o ned or controlled b% the National 5overnment, hether such corporations and financial institutions perform $overnmental or proprietar% functions. @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA

Nota bene, "ection =. of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a provides that :KaLll provisions of Presidential !ecree No. /GF, as amended b% Presidential !ecree No. .F/0, hich are not inconsistent ith this Act and are not e6pressl% modified, revo)ed or repealed in this Act shall continue to be in full force and effect.: Thus, the definition of terms found in "ection of P.!. No. /GF continues to be applicable to the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , includin$D "ECT+&N -. !efinition of Terms. V As used in this !ecree, the follo in$ shall meanD 666 c. Class @of positionA V The basic unit of the Position Classification "%stem. A class consists of all those positions in the s%stem hich are sufficientl% similar as to @.A )ind or sub,ect matter of or), @=A level of difficult% and responsibilit%, and @-A the *ualification re*uirements of the or), to arrant similar treatment in personnel and pa% administration. d. Class "pecification or "tandards V A ritten description of a class of position@sA. +t distin$uishes the duties, responsibilities and *ualification re*uirements of positions in a $iven class from those of other classes in the Position Classification "%stem. e. Classification V The act of arran$in$ positions accordin$ to broad occupational $roupin$s and determinin$ differences of classes ithin each $roup. 666 $. Compensation or Pa% "%stem V A s%stem for determinin$ rates of pa% for positions and emplo%ees based on e*uitable principles to be applied uniforml% to similar cases. +t consists, amon$ others, of the "alar% and 7a$e "chedules for all positions, and the rules and re$ulations for its administration. h. 5rade V +ncludes all classes of positions hich, althou$h different ith respect to )ind or sub,ect matter of or), are sufficientl% e*uivalent as to level of difficult% and responsibilit% and level of *ualification re*uirements of the or) to arrant the inclusion of such classes of positions ithin one ran$e of basic compensation. 666 m. Position V A set of duties and responsibilities, assi$ned or dele$ated b% competent authorit% and performed b% an individual either on full-time or part-time basis. A position ma% be filled or vacant. n. Position Classification V The $roupin$ of positions into classes on the basis of similarit% of )ind and level of or), and the determination of the relative orth of those classes of positions. o. Position Classification "%stem V A s%stem for classif%in$ positions b% occupational $roups, series and classes, accordin$ to similarities or differences in duties and responsibilities, and *ualification re*uirements. +t consists of @.A classes and class specifications and @=A the rules and re$ulations for its installation and maintenance and for the interpretation, amendment and alternation of the classes and class specifications to )eep pace ith the chan$es in the service and the positions therein. 666 *. Reclassification or Reallocation V A chan$e in the classification of a position either as a result of a chan$e in its duties and responsibilities sufficient to arrant placin$ the position in a different class, or as result of a reevaluation of a position ithout a si$nificant chan$e in duties and responsibilities. r. "alar% or 7a$e Ad,ustment V A salar% or a$e increase to ards the minimum of the $rade, or an increase from a non-prescribed rate to a prescribed rate ithin the $rade. s. "alar% or 7a$e 5rade V The numerical place on the salar% or 7a$e "chedule representin$ multiple steps or rates hich is assi$ned to a class. t. "alar% or 7a$e "chedule V A numerical structure in the Compensation "%stem consistin$ of several $rades, each $rade ith multiple steps ith a percenta$e differential throu$hout the pa% table. A classified position is assi$ned a correspondin$ $rade in the "chedule. u. "alar% or 7a$e "tep +ncrement V An increase in salar% or a$e from one step to another step $rade from the minimum to ma6imum. Also )no n as ithin $rade increase. ithin the

666 At the same time, "ection .1 of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a e6pressl% repealed all la s, decrees, e6ecutive orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or parts thereof that e6empted $overnment a$encies, includin$ 5&CCs and 54+s from the covera$e of the ne Compensation and Position Classification "%stemD "ec. .1. Repeal of "pecial "alar% 8a s and Re$ulations. V All la s, decrees, e6ecutive orders, corporate charters, and other issuances or parts thereof, that e6empt a$encies from the covera$e of the "%stem, or that authori3e and fi6 position classification, salaries, pa% rates or allo ances of specified positions, or $roups of officials and emplo%ees or of a$encies, hich are inconsistent ith the "%stem, includin$ the proviso under "ection =, and "ection .1 of Presidential !ecree No. /GF are hereb% repealed. Thus, all e6emptions from the inte$rated Compensation Classification "%stem $ranted prior to the effectivit% of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , includin$ those under "ections =1 and .10 of Presidential !ecree No. /GF @the &ld "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a A as ell as under the respective 5&CC and 54+ charters, ere repealed G, sub,ect to the nondiminution provision of "ection .=./ As a result, the $eneral rule is that all $overnment emplo%ees, includin$ emplo%ees of 5&CCs and 54+s, are covered b% the Compensation Classification "%stem provided for b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . Nonetheless, Con$ress ac)no led$ed the need of 5&CCs and 54+s performin$ proprietar% functions to maintain competitive salaries comparable to the private sector ith respect to )e% top-level positions in order not to lose these personnel to the private sector. Thus, "ection / of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a empo ers the President, in trul% e6ceptional cases, to approve hi$her compensation, e6ceedin$ "alar% 5rade -C, to the chairman, president, $eneral mana$er, and the board of directors of $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations and financial institutionsD "ECT+&N /. "alar% 5rade Assi$nments for &ther Positions. V 4or positions belo the &fficials mentioned under "ection G hereof and their e*uivalent, hether in the National 5overnment, local $overnment units, $overnmento ned or controlled corporations or financial institutions, the !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ement is hereb% directed to prepare the +nde6 of &ccupational "ervices to be $uided b% the Benchmar) Position "chedule prescribed hereunder and the follo in$ factorsD @.A the education and e6perience re*uired to perform the duties and responsibilities of the positions> @=A the nature and comple6it% of the or) to be performed> @-A the )ind of supervision received> @EA mental andOor ph%sical strain re*uired in the completion of the or)> @FA nature and e6tent of internal and e6ternal relationships> @1A )ind of supervision e6ercised> @0A decision-ma)in$ responsibilit%> @GA responsibilit% for accurac% of records and reports> @/A accountabilit% for funds, properties and e*uipment> and @.CA hardship, ha3ard and personal ris) involved in the ,ob. 666 n no 5&0e 0:&22 .:e 0&2&-$ o9 .:e 5:&/-6&n, ,-e0/'en., 4ene-&2 6&n&4e- o- &'6/n/0.-&.o-, &n' .:e 7o&-' o9 '/-e5.o-0 o9 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0 e=5ee' S&2&-$ G-&'e 3+8 P-o;/'e', T:&. .:e P-e0/'en. 6&$, /n .-u2$ e=5e,./on&2 5&0e0, &,,-o;e :/4:e5o6,en0&./on 9o- .:e &9o-e0&/' o99/5/&20. @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA &n #ul% -, .//-, Republic Act. No. 01F-, The Ne Central Ban) Act, too) effect. "ection .F @cA thereof authori3es the Monetar% Board of the +an*-o Sentral n* Pilipinas @B"PA to institute a compensation structure based on ,ob evaluation studies and a$e surve%s as an inte$ral component of the B"P9s human resource development pro$ram, thereb% implicitl% providin$ for a ider scope of e6emption from the Compensation Classification "%stem than that found in the last para$raph of "ection / of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , to itD "EC. .F. 6Fercise o' Aut)ority. - +n the e6ercise of its authorit%, the Monetar% Board shallD 666 @cA establish a human resource mana$ement s%stem hich shall $overn the selection, hirin$, appointment, transfer, promotion, or dismissal of all personnel. "uch s%stem shall aim to establish professionalism and e6cellence at all levels of the +an*-o Sentral in accordance ith sound principles of mana$ement. ! 5o6,en0&./on 0.-u5.u-e, 7&0e' on >o7 e;&2u&./on 0.u'/e0 &n' <&4e 0u-;e$0 &n' 0u7>e5. .o .:e "o&-'B0 &,,-o;&2, 0:&22 7e /n0./.u.e' &0 &n /n.e4-&2 5o6,onen. o9 .:e "&n4?o Sen.-&2B0 :u6&n -e0ou-5e 'e;e2o,6en. ,-o4-&68 Provided, That the Monetar% Board shall ma)e its o n s%stem conform as closel% as possible ith the principles provided for under Republic Act No. 10FG. )rovided, however, T:&. 5o6,en0&./on &n' <&4e 0.-u5.u-e o9 e6,2o$ee0 <:o0e ,o0/./on0 9&22 un'e- 0&2&-$ 4-&'e 19 &n' 7e2o< 0:&22 7e /n &55o-'&n5e </.: .:e -&.e0 ,-e05-/7e' un'e- Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8. @Emphasis supplied> italics in the ori$inalA ;o ever, the last proviso of "ection .F @cA e6pressl% provides that the compensation and a$e structure of emplo%ees hose positions fall under "alar% 5rade @"5A ./ and belo shall, li)e all other $overnment emplo%ees, be in accordance ith the rates prescribed under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a .

Thus, on account of the above-*uoted provision, B"P ran) and file emplo%ees ith @"5A ./ and belo , li)e their counterparts in the other branches of the civil service, are paid in accordance ith the rates prescribed in the Ne "alar% "cale under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , hile officers ith "5 =C and above are e6empt from the covera$e of said la , the% bein$ paid pursuant to the Ne "alar% "cale containin$ "alar% 5rades A to # .C issued b% the Monetar% Board hich too) effect on #anuar% ., =CCC. T:e C&0e 9o- .:e Pe././oneThe Central Ban) @no +an*-o Sentral n* PilipinasA Emplo%ees Association, +nc., via the instant petition for prohibition filed on #une G, =CC., see)s to prohibit herein respondents B"P and the E6ecutive "ecretar% of the &ffice of the President from further implementin$ the last proviso of Chapter +, Article ++, "ection .F @cA of The Ne Central Ban) Act, hich it assails as unconstitutional for violatin$ the e*ual protection clause, .. hence, null and void. +t is petitioner9s alle$ation that the application of the Compensation Classification "%stem under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a to the ran) and file emplo%ees, but not the B"P9s officers, ould violate the e*ual protection clause as the former are placed in a less favorable position compared to the latter. Petitioner asserts that the classification of B"P emplo%ees into t o classes based solel% on the "5 of their positions is not based on substantial distinctions hich ma)e real differences. 4or, so petitioner contends, all B"P personnel are similarl% situated since, re$ardless of the salar% $rade, the% are appointed b% the Monetar% Board and re*uired to possess civil service eli$ibilities, observe the same office rules and re$ulations, and or) at the same national or re$ional offices, and, even if their individual duties differ, directl% or indirectl% their or) ould still pertain to the operation and functions of the B"P..= More specificall%, it ar$ues that there is :nothin$ bet een "5s ./ and =C that should arrant the partin$ of the B"P 9Red "ea9 of civil servants into t o distinct camps of the privile$ed and the less privile$ed.: .Petitioner further submits that the personnel of the 5overnment "ervice +nsurance "%stem @5"+"A, 8and Ban) of the Philippines @8BPA, !evelopment Ban) of the Philippines @!BPA and the "ocial "ecurit% "%stem @"""A are all e6empted from the covera$e of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . Thus, ithin the class of ran) and file personnel of $overnment financial institutions, the B"P ran) and file personnel are also discriminated upon. .E T:e C&0e 9o- Re0,on'en. E=e5u./;e Se5-e.&-$ &n the other hand, respondent E6ecutive "ecretar%, throu$h the "olicitor 5eneral, contends that the assailed proviso does not violate the e*ual protection clause. ;e submits that the classification of B"P emplo%ees relative to compensation structure is based on actual and real differentiation bet een emplo%ees e6ercisin$ mana$erial functions and the ran) and file,.F even as it strictl% adheres to the enunciated polic% in The Ne Central Ban) Act to establish professionalism and e6cellence ithin the B"P sub,ect to prevailin$ la s and policies of the national $overnment. .1 +n addition, he notes that Article ++, "ection .F @cA serves as an e6emption to the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a hich, for all intents and purposes is a $eneral la applicable to all $overnment emplo%ees. As such, the provision e6emptin$ certain B"P emplo%ees from its covera$e must be strictl% construed. .0 T:e C&0e 9o- Re0,on'en. -ang"o Sentral 8i)e ise advancin$ the vie that the assailed proviso is constitutional, respondent B"P ar$ues that Con$ress, in passin$ the Ne Central Ban) Act, has in fact determined that there are substantial reasons for classif%in$ B"P emplo%ees into those covered b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a and those not covered b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . .G ;o ever, B"P additionall% claims that hile the assailed proviso is constitutional, the manner b% hich it is implemented ma% $ive rise to the *uestion of constitutional infirmit%. ./ +t thus proffers that the assailed provision should be interpreted to$ether ith the other provisions of The Ne Central Ban) Act, such as that vestin$ it ith :fiscal and administrative autonom%: and that directin$ the Monetar% Board to :establish professionalism and e6cellence in all levels in accordance ith sound principles of mana$ement.:=C +t concludes that the assailed provision does not adopt provisions of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a in their entiret%, but refers onl% to the 7&0/5 ,&$ of the emplo%ees and does not cover other benefits hich it @the B"PA ma% deem necessar% to $rant its emplo%ees. =. Admittedl%, the B"P Monetar% Board has endeavored to $rant additional allo ances to the :ran) and file: so that the% ma% be $iven substantiall% similar benefits bein$ en,o%ed b% the officers. The Commission on Audit @C&AA, ho ever, disallo ed these additional allo ances on the $round that the $rant of the same violates the provisions of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a and The Ne Central Ban) Act.== 00ue0 9o- Re0o2u./on +n essence, petitioner asserts that its members are similarl% situated to both the e6ecutiveOofficer corps of the B"P and the ran) and file emplo%ees of the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+" such that the operation of the e*ual protection $uarant% in either case ould entitle them to be placed under a compensation and position classification s%stem outside of that mandated b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a .

Clearl%, the resolution of the instant petition hin$es on a determination of hether the ri$ht of petitioner9s members to the e*ual protection of the la s has been violated b% @aA the classification in The Ne Central Ban) Act bet een the e6ecutive personnel @those ith "5 =C and aboveA, ho are e6empt from the Compensation Classification "%stem mandated under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , and the ran) and file emplo%ees @those ith "5 ./ and belo A ho are covered b% the latter> andOor @bA the disparit% in treatment bet een the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P and the ran) and file emplo%ees of the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+", ho ere subse*uentl% e6empted from said Compensation Classification "%stem b% their amended charters. Put differentl%, the instant Petition presents t o principal issues for resolutionD @.A hether the distinction bet een mana$erial and ran) and file emplo%ees in The Ne Central Ban) Act parta)es of an invidious discrimination proscribed b% the e*ual protection clause> and @=A hether, b% operation of the e*ual protection clause, the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P are entitled to e6emption from the Compensation Classification "%stem mandated under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as a conse*uence of the e6emption of the ran) and file emplo%ees of the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+". S.&n'&-'0 9o- ECu&2 P-o.e5./on !n&2$0/0 Before proceedin$ to resolve these issues, it ma% serve the ends of clarit% to first revie the basic frame or) b% hich the courts anal%3e challen$es to the constitutionalit% of statutes as ell as the standards b% hich compliance ith the e*ual protection clause ma% be determined. P-e0u6,./on o9 Con0./.u./on&2/.$ +t is a basic a6iom of constitutional la that all presumptions are indul$ed in favor of constitutionalit% and a liberal interpretation of the constitution in favor of the constitutionalit% of le$islation should be adopted. Thus, if an% reasonable basis ma% be conceived hich supports the statute, the same should be upheld. Conse*uentl%, the burden is s*uarel% on the shoulders of the one alle$in$ unconstitutionalit% to prove invalidit% be%ond a reasonable doubt b% ne$atin$ all possible bases for the constitutionalit% of a statute.=- 'eril%, to doubt is to sustain.=E The rationale for this presumption in favor of constitutionalit% and the correspondin$ restraint on the part of the ,udicial branch as e6pounded upon b% #ustice 8aurel in the case of People v. Bera,=F vizD This court is not unmindful of the fundamental criteria in cases of this nature that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionalit% of a statute. !n &5. o9 .:e 2e4/02&.u-e &,,-o;e' 7$ .:e e=e5u./;e, /0 ,-e0u6e' .o 7e </.:/n 5on0./.u./on&2 2/6/.&./on0. The responsibilit% of upholdin$ the Constitution rests not on the courts alone but on the le$islature as ell. :The *uestion of the validit% of ever% statute is first determined b% the le$islative department of the $overnment itself.: @(. ". vs. Ten ?u K./.=L, =E Phil., ., .C> Case vs. Board of ;ealth and ;eiser K./.-L, =E Phil., =FC, =01> (. ". vs. #oson K./.-L, =1 Phil., ..A And a statute finall% comes before the courts sustained b% the sanction of the e6ecutive. T:e 6e67e-0 o9 .:e Le4/02&.u-e &n' .:e C:/e9 E=e5u./;e :&;e .&?en &n o&.: .o 0u,,o-. .:e Con0./.u./on &n' /. 6u0. 7e ,-e0u6e' .:&. .:e$ :&;e 7een .-ue .o .:/0 o&.: &n' .:&. /n en&5./n4 &n' 0&n5./on/n4 & ,&-./5u2&- 2&< .:e$ '/' no. /n.en' .o ;/o2&.e .:e Con0./.u./on. T:e 5ou-.0 5&nno. 7u. 5&u./ou02$ e=e-5/0e /.0 ,o<e- .o o;e-.u-n .:e 0o2e6n 'e52&-&./on0 o9 .<o o9 .:e .:-ee 4-&n' 'e,&-.6en.0 o9 .:e 4o;e-n6en.. @1 R. C. 8., p. .C..A Then, .:e-e /0 .:&. ,e5u2/&- ,o2/./5&2 ,:/2o0o,:$ <:/5: 7/'0 .:e >u'/5/&-$ .o -e92e5. .:e </0'o6 o9 .:e ,eo,2e &0 e=,-e00e' .:-ou4: &n e2e5./;e Le4/02&.u-e &n' &n e2e5./;e C:/e9 E=e5u./;e. . 9o22o<0, .:e-e9o-e, .:&. .:e 5ou-.0 </22 no. 0e. &0/'e & 2&< &0 ;/o2&./;e o9 .:e Con0./.u./on e=5e,. /n & 52e&- 5&0e . This is a proposition too plain to re*uire a citation of authorities.=1 @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA +ndeed, it has been observed that classification is the essence of le$islation. =0 &n this point, the observation of the (nited "tates "upreme Court in the recent case of Personnel Administrator o' Massac)usetts v. eeney=G is illuminatin$D The e*ual protection $uarantee of the 4ourteenth Amendment does not ta)e from the "tates all po er of classification. Mo0. 2&<0 52&00/9$, &n' 6&n$ &99e5. 5e-.&/n 4-ou,0 une;en2$, e;en .:ou4: .:e 2&< /.0e29 .-e&.0 .:e6 no '/99e-en.2$ 9-o6 &22 o.:e- 6e67e-0 o9 .:e 52&00 'e05-/7e' 7$ .:e 2&<. 7hen the basic classification is rationall% based, uneven effects upon particular $roups ithin a class are ordinaril% of no constitutional concern. T:e 5&25u2u0 o9 e99e5.0, .:e 6&nne- /n <:/5: & ,&-./5u2&- 2&< -e;e-7e-&.e0 /n & 0o5/e.$ /0 & 2e4/02&./;e &n' no. & >u'/5/&2 -e0,on0/7/2/.$. +n assessin$ an e*ual protection challen$e, a court is called upon onl% to measure the basic validit% of the le$islative classification. 3:en 0o6e o.:e/n'e,en'en. -/4:. /0 no. &. 0.&?e &n' <:en .:e-e /0 no M-e&0on .o /n9e- &n./,&.:$,M /. /0 ,-e0u6e' .:&. Me;en /6,-o;/'en. 'e5/0/on0 </22 e;en.u&22$ 7e -e5./9/e' 7$ .:e 'e6o5-&./5 ,-o5e00 ....:=/ @Emphasis supplied> citations omittedA ;ence, in enactin$ la s, the le$islature is accorded the idest scope of discretion and the courts, in e6ercisin$ their po er of ,udicial revie , do not in*uire into the Court in !c)on*, etc., et al. v. Hernandez, etc., and Sarmiento ,-C statedD e. 8e$islative discretion not sub,ect to ,udicial revie . V ithin the bounds of the Constitution> isdom of the la . &n this point, this

No , in this matter of e*uitable balancin$, hat is the proper place and role of the courts< +t must not be overloo)ed, in the first place, .:&. .:e 2e4/02&.u-e, <:/5: /0 .:e 5on0./.u./on&2 -e,o0/.o-$ o9 ,o2/5e ,o<e&n' e=e-5/0e0 .:e ,-e-o4&./;e o9 'e.e-6/n/n4 .:e ,o2/5$ o9 .:e S.&.e, /0 7$ 9o-5e o9 5/-5u60.&n5e0 ,-/6&-/2$ .:e >u'4e o9 ne5e00/.$, &'eCu&5$ o- -e&0on&72ene00 &n' </0'o6, o9 &n$ 2&< ,-o6u24&.e' /n .:e e=e-5/0e o9 .:e ,o2/5e ,o<e-, o- o9 .:e 6e&0u-e0 &'o,.e' .o /6,2e6en. .:e ,u72/5 ,o2/5$ o- .o &5:/e;e ,u72/5 /n.e-e0.. On .:e o.:e- :&n', 5ou-.0, &2.:ou4: He&2ou0 4u&-'/&n0 o9 /n'/;/'u&2 2/7e-.$ &n' -/4:., :&;e ne;e-.:e2e00 e;/n5e' & -e2u5.&n5e .o /n.e-9e-e </.: .:e e=e-5/0e o9 .:e 2e4/02&./;e ,-e-o4&./;e. T:e$ :&;e 'one 0o e&-2$ <:e-e .:e-e :&0 7een & 52e&-, ,&.en. o- ,&2,&72e &-7/.-&-$ &n' un-e&0on&72e &7u0e o9 .:e 2e4/02&./;e ,-e-o4&./;e. Mo-eo;e-, 5ou-.0 &-e no. 0u,,o0e' .o o;e--/'e 2e4/./6&.e ,o2/5$, &n' 5ou-.0 ne;e- /nCu/-e /n.o .:e </0'o6 o9 .:e 2&<. -. @Emphasis suppliedA &nl% b% faithful adherence to this principle of ,udicial revie under the Constitution and its abilit% to function.-= is it possible to preserve to the le$islature its prero$atives

The presumption of constitutionalit% not ithstandin$, the courts are nevertheless dut% bound to stri)e do n an% statute hich transcends the bounds of the Constitution includin$ an% classification hich is proven to be unreasonable, arbitrar%, capricious or oppressive. The *uestion that arises then is b% classification be measured< T:e R&./on&2 "&0/0 Te0. +t ma% be observed that, in the Philippines, the traditional and oft-applied standard is the so-called :rational basis test,: the re*uisites of hich ere first summari3ed b% #ustice @later Chief #usticeA Moran in the case of People v. %ayat-- to itD +t is an established principle of constitutional la that the $uarant% of the e*ual protection of the la s is not violated b% a le$islation based on reasonable classification. And the 52&00/9/5&./on, .o 7e -e&0on&72e, D1E 6u0. -e0. on 0u70.&n./&2 '/0./n5./on0K D2E 6u0. 7e 4e-6&ne .o .:e ,u-,o0e0 o9 .:e 2&<K D3E 6u0. no. 7e 2/6/.e' .o e=/0./n4 5on'/./on0 on2$K &n' D4E 6u0. &,,2$ eCu&22$ .o &22 6e67e-0 o9 .:e 0&6e 52&00. -E @Emphasis supplied> citations omittedA To the fore$oin$ ma% be added the follo in$ observations of the Court in P)ilippine Jud*es Association, v. Prado,-F to itD hat standard@sA should the reasonableness, and therefore the validit%, of a le$islative

The e*ual protection of the la s is embraced in the concept of due process, as ever% unfair discrimination offends the re*uirements of ,ustice and fair pla%. +t has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in Article +++ "ec. ., of the Constitution to provide for a more specific $uarant% a$ainst an% form of undue favoritism or hostilit% from the $overnment. Arbitrariness in $eneral ma% be challen$ed on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed parta)es of an un arranted partialit% or pre,udice, the sharper eapon to cut it do n is the e*ual protection clause. Accordin$ to a lon$ line of decisions, eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 0/6,2$ -eCu/-e0 .:&. &22 ,e-0on0 o- .:/n40 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e' 0:ou2' 7e .-e&.e' &2/?e, 7o.: &0 .o -/4:.0 5on9e--e' &n' -e0,on0/7/2/./e0 /6,o0e'. S/6/2&0u7>e5.0, /n o.:e- <o-'0, 0:ou2' no. 7e .-e&.e' '/99e-en.2$, 0o &0 .o 4/;e un'ue 9&;o- .o 0o6e &n' un>u0.2$ '/05-/6/n&.e &4&/n0. o.:e-0. T:e eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 52&u0e 'oe0 no. -eCu/-e .:e un/;e-0&2 &,,2/5&./on o9 .:e 2&<0 on &22 ,e-0on0 o.:/n40 </.:ou. '/0./n5./on. T:/0 6/4:. /n 9&5. 0o6e./6e0 -e0u2. /n uneCu&2 ,-o.e5./on , as here, for e6ample, a la prohibitin$ mature boo)s to all persons, re$ardless of a$e, ould benefit the morals of the %outh but violate the libert% of adults. 3:&. .:e 52&u0e -eCu/-e0 /0 eCu&2/.$ &6on4 eCu&20 &0 'e.e-6/ne' &55o-'/n4 .o & ;&2/' 52&00/9/5&./on. "$ 52&00/9/5&./on /0 6e&n. .:e 4-ou,/n4 o9 ,e-0on0 o- .:/n40 0/6/2&.o e&5: o.:e- /n 5e-.&/n ,&-./5u2&-0 &n' '/99e-en. 9-o6 &22 o.:e-0 /n .:e0e 0&6e ,&-./5u2&-0. -1 @Emphasis supplied> footnotes omittedA The Rational Basis Test has been described as adoptin$ a :deferential: attitude to ards le$islative classifications. As previousl% discussed, this :deference: comes from the reco$nition that classification is often an unavoidable element of the tas) of le$islation hich, under the separation of po ers embodied in our Constitution, is primaril% the prero$ative of Con$ress. +ndeed, in the (nited "tates, from here the e*ual protection provision of our Constitution has its roots, the Rational Basis Test remains a primar% standard for evaluatin$ the constitutionalit% of a statute. Thus, in :yin* v. !nternational 9nion, 9nited Automobile, Aerospace and A*ricultural !mplement 0or-ers o' America, 9A0,-0 here a statute providin$ that no household ma% become eli$ible to participate in the food stamp pro$ram hile an% of its members are on stri)e, or receive an increase in the allotment of food stamps alread% bein$ received because the income of the stri)in$ member has decreased, the (.". "upreme Court heldD

"e5&u0e .:e 0.&.u.e 5:&22en4e' :e-e :&0 no 0u70.&n./&2 /6,&5. on &n$ 9un'&6en.&2 /n.e-e0. &n' 'oe0 no. M&99e5. </.: ,&-./5u2&-/.$ &n$ ,-o.e5.e' 52&00,M <e 5on9/ne ou- 5on0/'e-&./on .o <:e.:e- .:e 0.&.u.o-$ 52&00/9/5&./on /0 M-&./on&22$ -e2&.e' .o & 2e4/./6&.e 4o;e-n6en.&2 /n.e-e0..M 3e :&;e 0.-e00e' .:&. .:/0 0.&n'&-' o9 -e;/e< /0 .$,/5&22$ Cu/.e 'e9e-en./&2K 2e4/02&./;e 52&00/9/5&./on0 &-e M,-e0u6e' .o 7e ;&2/',M 2&-4e2$ 9o- .:e -e&0on .:&. M.:e '-&</n4 o9 2/ne0 .:&. 5-e&.e '/0./n5./on0 /0 ,e5u2/&-2$ & 2e4/02&./;e .&0? &n' un&;o/'&72e one.M 666 7e have little trouble in concludin$ that W .C/ is rationall% related to the le$itimate $overnmental ob,ective of avoidin$ undue favoritism to one side or the other in private labor disputes. The "enate Report declaredD :Public polic% demands an end to the food stamp subsidi3ation of all stri)ers ho become eli$ible for the pro$ram solel% throu$h the temporar% loss of income durin$ a stri)e. (nion stri)e funds should be responsible for providin$ support and benefits to stri)ers durin$ labor-mana$ement disputes.: +t as not part of the purposes of the 4ood "tamp Act to establish a pro$ram that ould serve as a eapon in labor disputes> the Act as passed to alleviate hun$er and malnutrition and to stren$then the a$ricultural econom%. The "enate Report stated that :allo in$ stri)ers to be eli$ible for food stamps has dama$ed the pro$ram9s public inte$rit%: and thus endan$ers these other $oals served b% the pro$ram. Con$ress acted in response to these problems. 666 +t is true that in terms of the scope and e6tent of their ineli$ibilit% for food stamps, W .C/ is harder on stri)ers than on :voluntar% *uitters.: But the concern about neutralit% in labor disputes does not arise ith respect to those ho, for one reason or another, simpl% *uit their ,obs. As e have stated in a related conte6t, even if the statute :provides onl% 9rou$h ,ustice,9 its treatment ... is far from irrational.: Con4-e00 nee' no. '-&< & 0.&.u.o-$ 52&00/9/5&./on .o .:e 0&./09&5./on o9 .:e 6o0. 0:&-,-e$e' o70e-;e-0 /n o-'e- .o 6ee. .:e 2/6/.&./on0 .:&. .:e Con0./.u./on /6,o0e0 /n .:/0 0e../n4. !n' <e &-e no. &u.:o-/He' .o /4no-e Con4-e00B 5on0/'e-e' e99o-.0 .o &;o/' 9&;o-/./06 /n 2&7o- '/0,u.e0, <:/5: &-e e;/'en5e' &20o 7$ .:e .<o 0/4n/9/5&n. ,-o;/0o0 5on.&/ne' /n .:e 0.&.u.e. The first proviso preserves eli$ibilit% for the pro$ram of an% household that as eli$ible to receive stamps :immediatel% prior to such stri)e.: The second proviso ma)es clear that the statutor% ineli$ibilit% for food stamps does not appl% :to an% household that does not contain a member on stri)e, if an% of its members refuses to accept emplo%ment at a plant or site because of a stri)e or loc)out.: +n li$ht of all this, the statute is rationall% related to the stated ob,ective of maintainin$ neutralit% in private labor disputes.-G @Emphasis and underscorin$ supplied> citations and footnotes omittedA More recentl%, the American Court summari3ed the principles behind the application of the Rational Basis Test in its ,urisdiction in ederal %ommunications %ommission v. +eac) %ommunications, !nc .,-/ as follo sD 7hether embodied in the 4ourteenth Amendment or inferred from the 4ifth, eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on /0 no. & 2/5en0e 9o- 5ou-.0 .o >u'4e .:e </0'o6, 9&/-ne00, o- 2o4/5 o9 2e4/02&./;e 5:o/5e0. n &-e&0 o9 0o5/&2 &n' e5ono6/5 ,o2/5$, & 0.&.u.o-$ 52&00/9/5&./on .:&. ne/.:e- ,-o5ee'0 &2on4 0u0,e5. 2/ne0 no- /n9-/n4e0 9un'&6en.&2 5on0./.u./on&2 -/4:.0 6u0. 7e u,:e2' &4&/n0. eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 5:&22en4e /9 .:e-e /0 &n$ -e&0on&72$ 5on5e/;&72e 0.&.e o9 9&5.0 .:&. 5ou2' ,-o;/'e & -&./on&2 7&0/0 9o- .:e 52&00/9/5&./on. "ee Sullivan v. Stroop, E/1 (.". E0G, EGF, ..C ".Ct. =E//, =FCE, ..C 8.Ed.=d E-G @.//CA> +o(en v. Gilliard, EG(.". FG0, 1CC-1C-, .C0 ".Ct. -CCG, -C.1- -C.G, /0 8.Ed.=d EGF @./G0A> 9nited States #ailroad #etirement +d. v. ritz, EE/ (.". .11, .0E-.0/, .C. ".Ct. EF-, EF/-E1=, 11 8.Ed.=d -1G @./GCA> 7andrid*e v, 0illiams, -/0 (.". E0., EGE-EGF, /C ".Ct. ..F-, ..1., =F 8.Ed.=d E/. @./0CA. 3:e-e .:e-e &-e M,2&u0/72e -e&0on0M 9oCon4-e00B &5./on, Mou- /nCu/-$ /0 &. &n en'.M 9nited States #ailroad #etirement +d. v. ritz, supra, EE/ (."., at .0/, .C. ".Ct. at E1.. T:/0 0.&n'&-' o9 -e;/e< /0 & ,&-&'/46 o9 >u'/5/&2 -e0.-&/n.. MT:e Con0./.u./on ,-e0u6e0 .:&., &70en. 0o6e -e&0on .o /n9e- &n./,&.:$, e;en /6,-o;/'en. 'e5/0/on0 </22 e;en.u&22$ 7e -e5./9/e' 7$ .:e 'e6o5-&./5 ,-o5e00 &n' .:&. >u'/5/&2 /n.e-;en./on /0 4ene-&22$ un<&--&n.e' no 6&..e:o< un</0e2$ <e 6&$ .:/n? & ,o2/./5&2 7-&n5: :&0 &5.e'.M Bance v. +radley, EEC (.". /-, /0, // ".Ct. /-/, /E=-/E-, F/ 8.Ed.=d .0. @./0/A. &n rational-basis revie , & 52&00/9/5&./on /n & 0.&.u.e 0u5: &0 .:e C&72e !5. 5o6e0 .o u0 7e&-/n4 & 0.-on4 ,-e0u6,./on o9 ;&2/'/.$, see :yn* v. Automobile 0or-ers, EGF (.". -1C, -0C, .CG ".Ct. ..GE, ../=, // 8.Ed.=d -GC @./GGA,&n' .:o0e &..&5?/n4 .:e -&./on&2/.$ o9 .:e 2e4/02&./;e 52&00/9/5&./on :&;e .:e 7u-'en M.o ne4&./;e e;e-$ 5on5e/;&72e 7&0/0 <:/5: 6/4:. 0u,,o-. /..M :e)n)ausen v. :a-e S)ore Auto Parts %o., E.C (.". -F1, -1E, /- ".Ct. .CC.. .CC1, -F 8.Ed.=d -F. @./0-A @internal *uotation mar)s omittedA. "ee also Hodel v. !ndiana, EF= (.". -.E, --.---=, .C. ".Ct. =-01, =-G0, 1/ 8.Ed.=d EC @./G.A. Moreover, because e never re*uire a le$islature to articulate its reasons for enactin$ a statute, it is entirel% irrelevant for constitutional purposes hether the conceived reason for the challen$ed distinction actuall% motivated the le$islature. 9nited States #ailroad #etirement +d. v. ritz, supra, EE/ (."., at .0/, .C. ".Ct., at E1.. "ee lemmin* v. Nestor, -1(.". 1C-, 1.=, GC ".Ct. .-10, .-0-, E 8.Ed.=d .E-F @./1CA. Thus, the absence of :9le$islative facts9 : e6plainin$ the distinction :KoLn the record,: =/E (.".App.!.C., at -G/, /F/ 4.=d, at /G0, has no si$nificance in rational-basis anal%sis. "ee Nordlin*er v. Ha)n, FCF (.". ., .F, ..= ".Ct. =-=1, =--E, .=C 8.Ed.=d . @.//=A +n other ords, a le$islative choice is not sub,ect to courtroom fact-findin$ and ma% be based on rational speculation unsupported b% evidence or empirical data. "ee Bance v. +radley, supra, EEC (."., at ..., // ".Ct., at /E/. "ee also Minnesota v. %lover :ea' %reamery %o., EE/ (.". EF1, E1E, .C. ".Ct. 0.F, 0=-, 11 8.Ed.=d 1F/ @./G.A. MBOn2$ 7$ 9&/.:9u2 &':e-en5e .o .:/0 4u/'/n4 ,-/n5/,2e o9 >u'/5/&2 -e;/e< o9 2e4/02&./on /0 /. ,o00/72e .o ,-e0e-;e

.o .:e 2e4/02&./;e 7-&n5: /.0 -/4:.9u2 /n'e,en'en5e &n' /.0 &7/2/.$ .o 9un5./on.BM :e)n)ausen, supra, E.C (."., at -1F, /- ".Ct., at .CC1 @*uotin$ %armic)ael v. Sout)ern %oal H %o-e %o., -C. (.". E/F, F.C, F0 ".Ct. G1G, G0=, G. 8.Ed. .=EF @./-0AA. T:e0e -e0.-&/n.0 on >u'/5/&2 -e;/e< :&;e &''e' 9o-5e M<:e-e .:e 2e4/02&.u-e 6u0. ne5e00&-/2$ en4&4e /n & ,-o5e00 o9 2/ne-'-&</n4.M 9nited States #ailroad #etirement +d. v. ritz, EE/ (."., at .0/, .C. ".Ct., at E1.. #e9/n/n4 .:e 52&00 o9 ,e-0on0 0u7>e5. .o & -e4u2&.o-$ -eCu/-e6en.-- 6u5: 2/?e 52&00/9$/n4 4o;e-n6en.&2 7ene9/5/&-/e0--M/ne;/.&72$ -eCu/-e0 .:&. 0o6e ,e-0on0 <:o :&;e &n &26o0. eCu&22$ 0.-on4 52&/6 .o 9&;o-e' .-e&.6en. 7e ,2&5e' on '/99e-en. 0/'e0 o9 .:e 2/ne, &n' .:e 9&5. @.:&.A .:e 2/ne 6/4:. :&;e 7een '-&<n '/99e-en.2$ &. 0o6e Po/n.0 /0 & 6&..e- 9o- 2e4/02&./;e, -&.:e- .:&n >u'/5/&2, 5on0/'e-&./on.M !bid. @internal *uotation mar)s and citation omittedA. The distinction at issue here represents such a lineD B% e6cludin$ from the definition of :cable s%stem: those facilities that serve commonl% o ned or mana$ed buildin$s ithout usin$ public ri$hts-of- a%, W 1C=@0A@BA delineates the bounds of the re$ulator% field. "uch scope-of-covera$e provisions are unavoidable components of most economic or social le$islation. +n establishin$ the franchise re*uirement, Con$ress had to dra the line some here> it had to choose hich facilities to franchise. T:/0 ne5e00/.$ -en'e-0 .:e ,-e5/0e 5oo-'/n&.e0 o9 .:e -e0u2./n4 2e4/02&./;e >u'46en. ;/-.u&22$ un-e;/e<&72e, 0/n5e .:e 2e4/02&.u-e 6u0. 7e &22o<e' 2ee<&$ .o &,,-o&5: & ,e-5e/;e' ,-o72e6 /n5-e6en.&22$. "ee, e.*., 0illiamson v. :ee 4ptical o' 4-la., !nc., -EG (.". EG-, 0F ".Ct. E1., // 8.Ed. F1- @./FFAD MT:e ,-o72e6 o9 2e4/02&./;e 52&00/9/5&./on /0 & ,e-enn/&2 one, &'6/../n4 o9 no 'o5.-/n&/-e 'e9/n/./on. E;/20 /n .:e 0&6e 9/e2' 6&$ 7e o9 '/99e-en. '/6en0/on0 &n' ,-o,o-./on0, -eCu/-/n4 '/99e-en. -e6e'/e0. O- 0o .:e 2e4/02&.u-e 6&$ .:/n?. O- .:e -e9o-6 6&$ .&?e one 0.e, &. & ./6e, &''-e00/n4 /.0e29 .o .:e ,:&0e o9 .:e ,-o72e6 <:/5: 0ee60 6o0. &5u.e .o .:e 2e4/02&./;e 6/n'. T:e 2e4/02&.u-e 6&$ 0e2e5. one ,:&0e o9 one 9/e2' &n' &,,2$ & -e6e'$ .:e-e, ne42e5./n4 .:e o.:e-0. T:e ,-o:/7/./on o9 .:e ECu&2 P-o.e5./on C2&u0e 4oe0 no 9u-.:e- .:&n .:e /n;/'/ou0 '/05-/6/n&./on.MEC @Emphasis and underscorin$ supplied> footnotes omittedA !eferential or not, in the Philippines, the Rational Basis Test has proven to be an effective tool for curbin$ invidious discrimination. Thus, in People v. Bera,E. this Court held as unconstitutional "ection .. of Act No. E==., hich provided that the Probation 8a :shall appl% onl% in those provinces in hich the respective provincial boards have provided for the salar% of a probation officer at rates not lo er than those no provided for provincial fiscals.: E= The Court held that the challen$ed provision as an undue dele$ation of le$islative po er since it left the operation or non-operation of the la entirel% up to the absolute and unlimited @and therefore completel% arbitrar%A discretion of the provincial boards. E- The Court ent on to demonstrate that this un arranted dele$ation of le$islative po er created :a situation in hich discrimination and ine*ualit% K ereL permitted or allo ed:EE since :a person other ise comin$ ithin the purvie of the la ould be liable to en,o% the benefits of probation in one province hile another person similarl% situated in another province ould be denied those same benefits,:EF despite the absence of substantial differences $ermane to the purpose of the la . 4or this reason the *uestioned provision as also held unconstitutional and void for bein$ repu$nant to the e*ual protection clause.E1 +n Biray v. %ity o' %aloocan,E0 the Court invalidated on e*ual protection $rounds, amon$ others, an &rdinance providin$ for the collection of :entrance fees: for cadavers comin$ from outside Caloocan Cit% for burial in private cemeteries ithin the cit%. The cit% $overnment had sou$ht to ,ustif% the fees as an e6ercise of police po er claimin$ that policemen usin$ the cit%9s motorc%cles or cars had to be assi$ned to escort funeral processions and reroute traffic to minimi3e public inconvenience.EG This Court, throu$h #ustice #.B.8. Re%es held thatD 7hile undeniabl% the above-described activit% of cit% officers is called for b% ever% funeral procession, %et e are left ithout e6planation h% the &rdinance should collect the prescribed fees solel% in the case of cadavers comin$ 'rom places outside the territor% of Caloocan Cit% for burial in private cemeteries ithin the Cit%. "urel%, hether the corpse comes from ithout or ithin the Cit% limits, and hether interment is to be made in private or public cemeteries, the Cit% police must re$ulate traffic, and must use their Cit% cars or motorc%cles to maintain order> and the Cit% streets must suffer some de$ree of erosion. Clearl%, then, the ordinance in *uestion does un,ustifiabl% discriminate a$ainst private cemeteries, in violation of the e*ual protection clause of the Constitution, a defect ade*uate to invalidate the *uestioned portion of the measure. E/ @+talics in the ori$inalA +n P)ilippine Jud*es Association. v. Prado,FC this Court ruled that "ection -F of R.A. No. 0-FE,F. ithdra in$ the fran)in$ privile$es of the #udiciar%F= but retainin$ the same for the President, the 'ice-President, "enators and Members of the ;ouse of Representatives, and others,F- violated the e*ual protection clause. +n anal%3in$ the *uestioned le$islative classification, the Court concluded that the onl% reasonable criteria for classification vis-X-vis the $rant of the fran)in$ privile$e as :the perceived need of the $rantee for the accommodation, hich ould ,ustif% a aiver of substantial revenue b% the Corporation in the interest of providin$ for a smoother flo of communication bet een the $overnment and the people.:FE The Court then ent on to state thatD Assumin$ that basis, e cannot understand h%, of all the departments of the $overnment, it is the #udiciar% that has been denied the fran)in$ privile$e. There is no *uestion that if there is an% ma,or branch of the $overnment that needs the privile$e, it is the #udicial !epartment, as the respondents themselves point out.

Curiousl%, the respondents ould ,ustif% the distinction on the basis precisel% of this need and, oh this basis, den% the #udiciar% the fran)in$ privile$e hile e6tendin$ it to others less deservin$. 666 +n lumpin$ the #udiciar% ith the other offices from hich the fran)in$ privile$e has been ithdra n, "ection -F has placed the courts of ,ustice in a cate$or% to hich it does not belon$. +f it reco$ni3es the need of the President of the Philippines and the members of Con$ress for the fran)in$ privile$e, there is no reason h% it should not reco$ni3e a similar and in fact $reater need on the part of the #udiciar% for such privile$e. 7hile e ma% appreciate the ithdra al of the fran)in$ privile$e from the Armed 4orces of the Philippines 8adies "teerin$ Committee, e fail to understand h% the "upreme Court should be similarl% treated as that Committee. And hile e ma% concede the need of the National Census and "tatistics &ffice for the fran)in$ privile$e, e are intri$ued that a similar if not $reater need is not reco$ni3ed in the courts of ,ustice. 666 7e are unable to a$ree ith the respondents that "ection -F of R.A. No. 0-FE represents a valid e6ercise of discretion b% the 8e$islature under the police po er. &n the contrar%, e find its repealin$ clause to be a discriminator% provision that denies the #udiciar% the e*ual protection of the la s $uaranteed for all persons or thin$s similarl% situated. The distinction made b% the la is superficial. +t is not based on substantial distinctions that ma)e real differences bet een the #udiciar% and the $rantees of the fran)in$ privile$e. This is not a *uestion of isdom or po er into Court has the dut% and po er to correct.FF hich the #udiciar% ma% not intrude. +t is a matter of arbitrariness that this

More recentl%, in Government Service !nsurance System v. Montesclaros ,F1 this Court ruled that the proviso in "ection .G of P.!. No...E1,F0 hich prohibited a dependent spouse from receivin$ survivorship pension if such dependent spouse married the pensioner ithin three %ears before the pensioner *ualified for the pension, as unconstitutional for, amon$ others, violatin$ the e*ual protection clause. "aid the CourtD The survivin$ spouse of a $overnment emplo%ee is entitled to receive survivor9s benefits under a pension s%stem. ;o ever, statutes sometimes re*uire that the spouse should have married the emplo%ee for a certain period before the emplo%ee9s death to prevent sham marria$es contracted for monetar% $ain. &ne e6ample is the +llinois Pension Code hich restricts survivor9s annuit% benefits to a survivin$ spouse ho as married to a state emplo%ee for at least one %ear before the emplo%ee9s death. The +llinois pension s%stem classifies spouses into those married less than one %ear before a member9s death and those married one %ear or more. The classification see)s to prevent conscious adverse ris) selection of deathbed marria$es here a terminall% ill member of the pension s%stem marries another so that person becomes eli$ible for benefits. +n Sneddon v. $)e State 6mployeeIs #etirement System o' !llinois, the Appellate Court of +llinois held that such classification as based on difference in situation and circumstance, bore a rational relation to the purpose of the statute, and as therefore not in violation of constitutional $uarantees of due process and e*ual protection. A statute based on reasonable classification does not violate the constitutional $uarant% of the e*ual protection of the la . The re*uirements for a valid and reasonable classification areD @.A it must rest on substantial distinctions> @=A it must be $ermane to the purpose of the la > @-A it must not be limited to e6istin$ conditions onl%> and @EA it must appl% e*uall% to all members of the same class. Thus, the la ma% treat and re$ulate one class differentl% from another class provided there are real and substantial differences to distin$uish one class from another. The proviso in *uestion does not satisf% these re*uirements. The proviso discriminates a$ainst the dependent spouse ho contracts marria$e to the pensioner ithin three %ears before the pensioner *ualified for the pension. (nder the proviso, even if the dependent spouse married the pensioner more than three %ears before the pensioner9s death, the dependent spouse ould still not receive survivorship pension if the marria$e too) place ithin three %ears before the pensioner *ualified for pension. The ob,ect of the prohibition is va$ue. There is no reasonable connection bet een the means emplo%ed and the purpose intended. The la itself does not provide an% reason or purpose for such a prohibition. +f the purpose of the proviso is to prevent : deat)bed marria*es,: then e do not see h% the proviso rec)ons the three-%ear prohibition from the date the pensioner *ualified for pension and not from the date the pensioner died. The classification does not rest on substantial distinctions. 7orse, the classification lumps all those marria$es contracted ithin three %ears before the pensioner *ualified for pension as havin$ been contracted primaril% for financial convenience to avail of pension benefits. @4ootnotes omittedA Even in the American conte6t, the application of the :deferential: Rational Basis Test has not automaticall% resulted in the affirmation of the challen$ed le$islation. Thus, in %ity o' %leburne $eFas v. %leburne :ivin* %enter,FG a cit%9s 3onin$ ordinance re*uirin$ a special permit for the operation of a $roup home for the mentall% retarded as challen$ed on e*ual protection $rounds. The American Court, rulin$ that the Rational Basis Test as applicable and limitin$ itself to the facts of the particular case, held that there as

no rational basis for believin$ that the mentall% retarded condition of those livin$ in the affected $roup home posed an% special threat to the cit%9s le$itimate interests an% more than those livin$ in boardin$ houses, nursin$ homes and hospitals, for hich no special permit as re*uired. Thus, it concluded, the permit re*uirement violated the respondent9s ri$ht to e*ual protection.F/ And, in #omer v. 6vans,1C the (.". "upreme Court invalidated Amendment = of the Colorado "tate Constitution hich precluded all le$islative, e6ecutive, or ,udicial action at an% level of state or local $overnment desi$ned to protect the status of persons based on their homose6ual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships. 1. S.-/5. S5-u./n$ 7hile in the Philippines the Rational Basis Test has, so far, served as a sufficient standard for evaluatin$ $overnmental actions a$ainst the Constitutional $uarant% of e*ual protection, the American 4ederal "upreme Court, as pointed out in the main opinion, has developed a more demandin$ standard as a complement to the traditional deferential test, hich it applies in certain ell-defined circumstances. This more demandin$ standard is often referred to as "trict "crutin%. Briefl% stated, "trict "crutin% is applied hen the challen$ed statute either @.A classifies on the basis of an inherentl% suspect characteristic or @=A infrin$es fundamental constitutional ri$hts. 1= 7ith respect to such classifications, the usual presumption of constitutionalit% is reversed, and it is incumbent upon the $overnment to demonstrate that its classification has been narro l% tailored to further compellin$ $overnmental interests, 1- other ise the la shall be declared unconstitutional for bein$ violative of the E*ual Protection Clause. The central purpose of the E*ual Protection Clause as to eliminate racial discrimination emanatin$ from official sources in the "tates.1E 8i)e other ri$hts $uaranteed b% the post-Civil 7ar Amendments, the E*ual Protection Clause @also )no n as the 4ourteenth AmendmentA as motivated in lar$e part b% a desire to protect the civil ri$hts of African-Americans recentl% freed from slaver%. Thus, initiall%, the (.". "upreme Court attempted to limit the scope of the E*ual Protection Clause to discrimination claims brou$ht b% African-Americans. 1F +n Strauder v. 0est Bir*inia,11 the American "upreme Court in stri)in$ do n a 7est 'ir$inia statute hich prohibited a :colored man: from servin$ in a ,ur%, traced the roots of the E*ual Protection ClauseD This is one of a series of constitutional provisions havin$ a common purpose> namel%, securin$ to a race recentl% emancipated, a race that throu$h man% $enerations had been held in slaver%, all the civil ri$hts that the superior race en,o%. The true spirit and meanin$ of the amendments, as e said in the Slau*)ter-House %ases @.1 7all. -1A, cannot be understood ithout )eepin$ in vie the histor% of the times hen the% ere adopted, and the $eneral ob,ects the% plainl% sou$ht to accomplish. At the time hen the% ere incorporated into the Constitution, it re*uired little )no led$e of human nature to anticipate that those ho had lon$ been re$arded as an inferior and sub,ect race ould, hen suddenl% raised to the ran) of citi3enship, be loo)ed upon ith ,ealous% and positive disli)e, and that "tate la s mi$ht be enacted or enforced to perpetuate the distinctions that had before e6isted, 666 To *uote the lan$ua$e used b% us in the Slau*)ter-House %ases, :No one can fail to be impressed ith the one pervadin$ purpose found in all the amendments, l%in$ at the foundation of each, and ithout hich none of them ould have been su$$ested,-- e mean the freedom of the slave race, the securit% and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the ne l% made freeman and citi3en from the oppressions of those ho had formerl% e6ercised unlimited dominion over them.: "o a$ainD :The e6istence of la s in the "tates here the ne l% emancipated ne$roes resided, hich discriminated ith $ross in,ustice and hardship a$ainst them as a class, as the evil to be remedied, and b% it Kthe 4ourteenth AmendmentL such la s ere forbidden. +f, ho ever, the "tates did not conform their la s to its re*uirements, then, b% the fifth section of the article of amendment, Con$ress as authori3ed to enforce it b% suitable le$islation.: And it as added, :7e doubt ver% much hether an% action of a "tate, not directed b% a% of discrimination a$ainst the ne$roes, as a class, ill ever be held to come ithin the purvie of this provision.: 6 6 6 +t ordains that no "tate shall deprive an% person of life, libert%, or propert%, ithout due process of la , or den% to an% person ithin its ,urisdiction the e*ual protection of the la s. 7hat is this but declarin$ that the la in the "tates shall be the same for the blac) as for the hite> that all persons, hether colored or hite, shall stand e*ual before the la s of the "tates, and, in re$ard to the colored race, for hose protection the amendment as primaril% desi$ned, that no discrimination shall be made a$ainst them b% la because of their color< The ords of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitor%, but the% contain a necessar% implication of a positive immunit%, or ri$ht, most valuable to the colored race,--the ri$ht to e6emption from unfriendl% le$islation a$ainst them distinctivel% as colored,--e6emption from le$al discriminations, impl%in$ inferiorit% in civil societ%, lessenin$ the securit% of their en,o%ment of the ri$hts hich others en,o%, and discriminations hich are steps to ards reducin$ them to the condition of a sub,ect race. That the 7est 'ir$inia statute respectin$ ,uries--the statute that controlled the selection of the $rand and petit ,ur% in the case of the plaintiff in error--is such a discrimination ou$ht not to be doubted. Nor ould it be if the persons e6cluded b% it ere hite men. +f in those "tates here the colored people constitute a ma,orit% of the entire population a la should be enacted e6cludin$ all hite men from ,ur% service, thus den%in$ to them the privile$e of participatin$ e*uall% ith the blac)s in the administration of ,ustice, e apprehend no one ould be heard to claim that it ould not be a denial to hite men of the e*ual protection of the la s. Nor if a la should be passed e6cludin$ all naturali3ed Celtic +rishmen, ould there b% an% doubt of its inconsistenc% ith the spirit of the amendment. The ver% fact that colored people are sin$led out and e6pressl% denied b% a statute all ri$ht to

participate in the administration of the la , as ,urors, because of their color, thou$h the% are citi3ens, and ma% be in other respects full% *ualified, is practicall% a brand upon them, affi6ed b% the la , an assertion of their inferiorit%, and a stimulant to that race pre,udice hich is an impediment to securin$ to individuals of the race that e*ual ,ustice hich the la aims to secure to all others. 10 &ver the %ears ho ever, the E*ual Protection Clause has been applied a$ainst unreasonable $overnmental discrimination directed at an% identifiable $roup.1G +n hat 8aurence ;. Tribe and Michael C. !orf call the most famous footnote in American constitutional la ,1/ #ustice "tone in 9.S. v. %arolene Products %o.0C maintained that state-sanctioned discriminator% practices a$ainst discrete and insular minorities are entitled to a diminished presumption of constitutionalit%D 666 the e6istence of facts supportin$ the le$islative ,ud$ment is to be presumed, for re$ulator% le$islation affectin$ ordinar% commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the li$ht of the facts made )no n or $enerall% assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis ithin the )no led$e and e6perience of the le$islators. K4NEL 666 4NE T:e-e 6&$ 7e n&--o<e- 05o,e 9o- o,e-&./on o9 .:e ,-e0u6,./on o9 5on0./.u./on&2/.$ <:en 2e4/02&./on &,,e&-0 on /.0 9&5e .o 7e </.:/n & 0,e5/9/5 ,-o:/7/./on o9 .:e Con0./.u./on, 0u5: &0 .:o0e o9 .:e 9/-0. .en !6en'6en.0, <:/5: &-e 'ee6e' eCu&22$ 0,e5/9/5 <:en :e2' .o 7e e67-&5e' </.:/n .:e Fou-.een.:. "ee "tromber$ v. California, =G- (.". -F/, -1/, -0C, F. ".Ct. F-=, F-F, F-1, 0F 8.Ed. ...0, 0- A.8.R. .EGE> 8ovell v. 5riffin, -C- (.". EEE, FG ".Ct. 111, G= 8.Ed. /E/, decided March =G, ./-G. +t is unnecessar% to consider no hether le$islation hich restricts those political processes hich can ordinaril% be e6pected to brin$ about repeal of undesirable le$islation, is to be sub,ected to more e6actin$ ,udicial scrutin% under the $eneral prohibitions of the 4ourteenth Amendment than are most other t%pes of le$islation. &n restrictions upon the ri$ht to vote, see Ni6on v. ;erndon, =0- (.". F-1, E0 ".Ct. EE1, 0. 8.Ed. 0F/> Ni6on v. Condon, =G1 (.". 0-, F= ".Ct. EGE, 01 8.Ed. /GE, GG A.8.R. EFG> on restraints upon the dissemination of information, see Near v. Minnesota, =G- (.". 1/0, 0.- -- 0.E, 0.G--0=C, 0==, F. ".Ct. 1=F, 1-C, 1-=, 1--, 0F 8.Ed. .-F0> 5ros,ean v. American Press Co., =/0 (.". =--, F1 ".Ct. EEE, GC 8.Ed. 11C> 8ovell v. 5riffin, supra> on interferences ith political or$ani3ations, see "tromber$ v. California, supra. =G- (.". -F/, -1/, F. ".Ct. F-=, F-F, 0F 8.Ed. ...0, 0- A.8.R. .EGE> 4is)e v. Bansas. =0E (.". -GC, E0 ".Ct. 1FF, 0. 8.Ed. ..CG> 7hitne% v. California, =0E (.". -F0, -0--- -0G, E0 ".Ct. 1E., 1E0. 1E/, 0. 8.Ed. .C/F> ;erndon v. 8o r%. -C. (.". =E=, F0 ".Ct. 0-=, G. 8.Ed. .C11> and see ;olmes, #., in 5itlo v. Ne ?or), =1G (.". 1F=, 10-, EF ".Ct. 1=F, 1/ 8.Ed. ..-G> as to prohibition of peaceable assembl%, see !e #on$e v. &re$on, =// (.". -F-, -1F, F0 ".Ct. =FF, =1C, G. 8.Ed. =0G. Nor need e en*uire hether similar considerations enter into the revie of statutes directed at particular reli$ious, Pierce v. "ociet% of "isters. =1G (.". F.C, EF ".Ct. F0., 1/ 8.Ed. .C0C, -/. A.8.R. E1G, or national, Me%er v. Nebras)a, =1= (.". -/C, E- ".Ct. 1=F, 10 8.Ed. .CE=, =/ A.8.R. .EE1> Bartels v. +o a, =1= (.". ECE, E- ".Ct. 1=G, 10 8.Ed. .CE0> 4arrin$ton v. To)ushi$e, =0- (.". =GE, E0 ".Ct. EC1, 0. 8.Ed. 1E1, or racial minorities. Ni6on v. ;erndon, supra> Ni6on v. Condon, supra> <:e.:e,-e>u'/5e &4&/n0. '/05-e.e &n' /n0u2&- 6/no-/./e0 6&$ 7e & 0,e5/&2 5on'/./on, <:/5: .en'0 0e-/ou02$ .o 5u-.&/2 .:e o,e-&./on o9 .:o0e ,o2/./5&2 ,-o5e00e0 o-'/n&-/2$ .o 7e -e2/e' u,on .o ,-o.e5. 6/no-/./e0, &n' <:/5: 6&$ 5&22 9o- & 5o--e0,on'/n42$ 6o-e 0e&-5:/n4 >u'/5/&2 /nCu/-$. Compare McCulloch v. Mar%land, E 7heat. -.1, E=G, E 8.Ed. F0/> "outh Carolina "tate ;i$h a% !epartment v, Barn ell Bros., -C- (.". .00, FG ".Ct. F.C, G= 8.Ed. 0-E, decided 4ebruar% .E, ./-G, note =, and cases cited.0. @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA The use of the term :suspect: ori$inated in the case of 8orematsu v. 9.S.0= +n 8orematsu,0- the American "upreme Court upheld the constitutionalit% of Civilian E6clusion &rder No. -E of the Commandin$ 5eneral of the 7estern Command, (.". Arm%, hich directed that all persons of #apanese ancestr% should be e6cluded from "an 8eandro California, a militar% area, be$innin$ Ma% /, ./E=. ;o ever, in revie in$ the validit% of la s hich emplo% race as a means of classification, the Court heldD +t should be noted, to be$in ith, that all le$al restrictions hich curtail the civil ri$hts of a 0/n42e -&5/&2 4-ou, &-e /66e'/&.e2$ 0u0,e5.. T:&. /0 no. .o 0&$ .:&. &22 0u5: -e0.-/5./on0 &-e un5on0./.u./on&2. . /0 .o 0&$ .:&. 5ou-.0 6u0. 0u7>e5. .:e6 .o .:e 6o0. -/4/' 05-u./n$. Pressin$ public necessit% ma% sometimes ,ustif% the e6istence of such restrictions> racial anta$onism never can. 0E @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA Racial classifications are $enerall% thou$ht to be :suspect: because throu$hout the (nited "tates9 histor% these have $enerall% been used to discriminate officiall% a$ainst $roups hich are politicall% subordinate and sub,ect to private pre,udice and discrimination.0F Thus, the (.". "upreme Court has :consistentl% repudiated distinctions bet een citi3ens solel% because of their ancestr% as bein$ odious to a free people hose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of e*ualit%.:01 The underl%in$ rationale of the suspect classification theor% is that here le$islation affects discrete and insular minorities, the presumption of constitutionalit% fades because traditional political processes ma% have bro)en do n.00 Moreover, classifications based on race, aliena$e or national ori$in are so seldom relevant to the achievement of

an% le$itimate state interest that la s $rounded on such considerations are deemed to reflect pre,udice and antipath% - a vie that those in the burdened class are not as orth% or deservin$ as others. 0G Almost three decades after Borematsu, in the landmar) case of San Antonio !ndependent Sc)ool 7istrict v. #odri*uez,0/ the (.". "upreme Court in identif%in$ a :suspect class: as a class saddled ith such disabilities, or sub,ected to such a histor% of purposeful une*ual treatment, or rele$ated to such a position of political po erlessness as to command e6traordinar% protection from the ma,oritarian political process, GC articulated that suspect classifications ere not limited to classifications based on race, aliena$e or national ori$in but could also be applied to other criteria such as reli$ion. G. Thus, the (.". "upreme Court has ruled that suspect classifications deservin$ of "trict "crutin% include those based on race or national ori$inG=, aliena$eG- and reli$ionGE hile classifications based on $ender GF, ille$itimac%G1, financial needG0, conscientious ob,ectionGG and a$eG/ have been held not to constitute suspect classifications. As priorl% mentioned, the application of "trict "crutin% has not been limited to statutes hich proceed alon$ suspect lines but has been utili3ed on statutes infrin$in$ upon fundamental constitutionall% protected ri$hts. Most fundamental ri$hts cases decided in the (nited "tates re*uire e*ual protection anal%sis because these cases ould involve a revie of statutes hich classif% persons and impose differin$ restrictions on the abilit% of a certain class of persons to e6ercise a fundamental ri$ht./C 4undamental ri$hts include onl% those basic liberties e6plicitl% or implicitl% $uaranteed b% the (.". Constitution./. And precisel% because these statutes affect fundamental liberties, an% e6periment involvin$ basic freedoms hich the le$islature conducts must be criticall% e6amined under the lens of "trict "crutin%. 4undamental ri$hts hich $ive rise to "trict "crutin% include the ri$ht of procreation, /= the ri$ht to marr%,/- the ri$ht to e6ercise 4irst Amendment freedoms such as free speech, political e6pression, press, assembl%, and so forth, /E the ri$ht to travel,/F and the ri$ht to vote./1 Because "trict "crutin% involves statutes hich either classifies on the basis of an inherentl% suspect characteristic or infrin$es fundamental constitutional ri$hts, the presumption of constitutionalit% is reversed> that is, such le$islation is assumed to be unconstitutional until the $overnment demonstrates other ise. The $overnment must sho that the statute is supported b% a compellin$ $overnmental interest and the means chosen to accomplish that interest are narro l% tailored./0 5erald 5unther e6plains as follo sD ... The intensive revie associated ith the ne e*ual protection imposed t o demands a demand not onl% as to means but also as to ends. 8e$islation *ualif%in$ for strict scrutin% re*uired a far closer fit bet een classification and statutor% purpose than the rou$h and read% fle6ibilit% traditionall% tolerated b% the old e*ual protectionD means had to be sho n :necessar%: to achieve statutor% ends, not merel% :reasonabl% related.: Moreover, e*ual protection became a source of ends scrutin% as ellD le$islation in the areas of the ne e*ual protection had to be ,ustified b% :compellin$: state interests, not merel% the ide spectrum of :le$itimate: state ends. /G 4urthermore, the le$islature must adopt the least burdensome or least drastic means available for achievin$ the $overnmental ob,ective.// 7hile "trict "crutin% has, as %et, not found idespread application in this ,urisdiction, the tenet that le$islative classifications involvin$ fundamental ri$hts re*uire a more ri$orous ,ustification under more strin$ent standards of anal%sis has been ac)no led$ed in a number of Philippine cases. .CC "ince the (nited "tates9 conception of the E*ual Protection Clause as lar$el% influenced b% its histor% of s%stematicall% discriminatin$ alon$ racial lines, it is perhaps no surprise that the Philippines hich does not have an% comparable e6perience has not found a similar occasion to appl% this particular American approach of E*ual Protection. n.e-6e'/&.e S5-u./n$ The Rational Basis Test and "trict "crutin% form hat 5erald 5unther termed as the t o-tier approach to e*ual protection anal%sis - the first tier consistin$ of the Rational Basis Test @also called b% 5unther as the old e*ual protectionA hile the second tier consistin$ of "trict "crutin% @also called b% 5unther as the ne e*ual protectionA. .C. 5unther ho ever described the t o-tier approach emplo%ed b% the (.". "upreme Court as bein$ ri$id, critici3in$ the a$$ressive ne e*ual protection for bein$ :strict in theor% and fatal in fact: .C= and the deferential old e*ual protection as :minimal scrutin% in theor% and virtuall% none in fact.:.C5unther9s sentiments ere also shared b% certain members of the Bur$er Court, most notabl% #ustice Marshall ho advocated a "lidin$ "cale Approach hich he elaborated on in his dissentin$ opinion in San Antonio !ndependent Sc)ool 7istrict v. #odri*uezD.CE To be$in, + must once more voice m% disa$reement ith the Court9s ri$idified approach to e*ual protection anal%sis. "ee !andrid$e v. 7illiams, -/0 (.". E0., F./--F=., /C ".Ct. ..F-, ..0G--..GC, =F 8.Ed.=d E/. @./0CA @dissentin$ opinionA> Richardson v. Belcher, ECE (.". 0G, /C, /= ".Ct. =FE, =1., -C 8.Ed.=d =-. @./0.A @dissentin$ opinionA. The Court apparentl% see)s to establish toda% that e*ual protection cases fall into one of t o neat cate$ories hich dictate the appropriate standard of revie --strict scrutin% or mere rationalit%. But this Court9s decisions in the field of e*ual protection def% such eas% cate$ori3ation. A principled readin$ of hat this Court has done reveals that it has applied a spectrum of standards in revie in$ discrimination alle$edl% violative of the E*ual Protection Clause. This spectrum clearl% comprehends variations in the de$ree of care ith hich the

Court ill scrutini3e particular classifications, dependin$, + believe, on the constitutional and societal importance of the interest adversel% affected and the reco$ni3ed invidiousness of the basis upon hich the particular classification is dra n. + find in fact that man% of the Court9s recent decisions embod% the ver% sort of reasoned approach to e*ual protection anal%sis for hich + previousl% ar$ued--that is, an approach in hich 9concentration @isA placed upon the character of the classification in *uestion, the relative importance to individuals in the class discriminated a$ainst of the $overnmental benefits that the% do not receive, and the asserted state interests in support of the classification.9 !andrid$e v. 7illiams, supra, -/0 (."., at F=C--F=., /C ".Ct., at ..GC @dissentin$ opinionA..CF "hortl% before his retirement in .//., #ustice Marshall su$$ested to the "upreme Court that it adopt a "lidin$ "cale that ould embrace a spectrum of standards of revie ..C1 &ther sources of discontent in the (.". "upreme Court are #ustice "tevens ho ar$ues for a return to the Rational Basis Test hich he believes to be ade*uate to invalidate all invidious forms of discrimination and Chief #ustice Rehn*uist ho is dis$runtled ith the Court9s special solicitude for the claims of discrete and insular minorities. .C0 ?et, despite numerous criticisms from American le$al luminaries, the (.". "upreme Court has not done a a% ith the Rational Basis Test and "trict "crutin% as the% continue to remain viable approaches in e*ual protection anal%sis. &n the contrar%, the American Court has developed %et a third tier of e*ual protection revie , fallin$ bet een the Rational Basis Test and "trict "crutin% -+ntermediate "crutin% @also )no n as ;ei$htened "crutin%A. The (.". "upreme Court has $enerall% applied +ntermediate or ;ei$htened "crutin% classification is based on either @.A $ender or @=A ille$itimac%. .CG hen the challen$ed statute9s

5ender-based classifications are presumed unconstitutional as such classifications $enerall% provide no sensible $round for differential treatment. +n %ity o' %leburne, $eFas v. %leburne :ivin* %enter, .C/ the (nited "tates "upreme Court saidD :K7Lhat differentiates se6 from such nonsuspect statuses as intelli$ence or ph%sical disabilit% ... is that the se6 characteristic fre*uentl% bears no relation to abilit% to perform or contribute to societ%.: rontiero v. #ic)ardson, E.. (.". 100, 1G1, /- ".Ct. .01E, .00C, -1 8.Ed.=d FG- @./0-A @pluralit% opinionA. Rather than restin$ on meanin$ful considerations, statutes distributin$ benefits and burdens bet een the se6es in different a%s ver% li)el% reflect outmoded notions of the relative capabilities of men and omen. ..C +n the same manner, classifications based on ille$itimac% are also presumed unconstitutional as ille$itimac% is be%ond the individual9s control and bears no relation to the individual9s abilit% to participate in and contribute to societ%. ... "imilar to "trict "crutin%, the burden of ,ustification for the classification rests entirel% on the $overnment. ..= Thus, the $overnment must sho at least that the statute serves an important purpose and that the discriminator% means emplo%ed is substantiall% related to the achievement of those ob,ectives. .."ummar% of the American "upreme Court Approach to E*ual Protection +n fine, the three standards currentl% emplo%ed b% the (.". 4ederal "upreme Court for determinin$ the constitutional validit% of a statutor% classification in the li$ht of the e*ual protection clause ma%be summari3ed ..E as follo sD E*ual Protection "tandards R&./on&2 "&0/0 Le4/02&./;e 52&00/9/5&./on0 /n 4ene-&2, such as those pertainin$ to economic or social le$islation, hich do not affect fundamental ri$hts or suspect classes> or is not based on $ender or ille$itimac%. Must be 2e4/./6&.e. Classification must be -&./on&22$ -e2&.e' to the le$islative purpose.

Applicable To

S.-/5. S5-u./n$ n.e-6e'/&.e S5-u./n$ 8e$islative classifications 8e$islative classifications &99e5./n4 9un'&6en.&2 7&0e' on 4en'e- o-/4:.0 o- 0u0,e5. /22e4/./6&5$ 52&00e0.

8e$islative Purpose Relationship of Classification to Purpose

Must be 5o6,e22/n4. Classification must be ne5e00&-$ &n' n&--o<2$ .&/2o-e' to achieve the le$islative purpose.

Must be /6,o-.&n.. Classification must be 0u70.&n./&22$ -e2&.e' to the le$islative purpose.

!,,-o,-/&.e S.&n'&-' 9oE;&2u&./n4 .:e P-e0en. C&0e 7hich of the fore$oin$ three standards should be applied in arrivin$ at a resolution of the instant petition<

6,-o,-/e.$ o9 & 'ou72e 0.&n'&-' 9o- e;&2u&./n4 5o6,2/&n5e </.: .:e eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 4u&-&n.$ As noted earlier, the main opinion, in arrivin$ at its conclusion, simultaneousl% ma)es use of both the Rational Basis Test and the "trict "crutin% Test. Thus, in assessin$ the validit% of the classification bet een e6ecutive and ran) and file emplo%ees in "ection .F @cA of The Ne Central Ban) Act, the Rational Basis Test as applied. +n evaluatin$ the distinction bet een the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P and the ran) and file emplo%ees of the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+", the "trict "crutin% Test as emplo%ed. !espite m% best efforts, + fail to see the ,ustification for the use of this :double standard: in determinin$ the constitutionalit% of the *uestioned proviso. 7h% a :deferential test: for one comparison @bet een the e6ecutives and ran) and file of the B"PA and a :strict test: for the other @bet een the ran) and file of the B"P and the ran) and file of the other 5&CCsO54+sA< As the precedin$ revie of the standards developed b% the (.". 4ederal "upreme Court sho s, the choice of the appropriate test for evaluatin$ a le$islative classification is dependent on the nature of the ri$hts affected @ i.e. hether :fundamental: or notA and the character of the persons alle$edl% discriminated a$ainst @ i.e. hether belon$in$ to a :suspect class: or notA. As determined b% these t o parameters, the scope of application of each standard is distinct and e6clusive of the others. +ndeed, to m% )no led$e, the American Court has never applied more than one standard to a $iven set of facts, and here one standard as found to be appropriate, the (.". "upreme Court has deliberatel% esche ed an% discussion of another...F Assumin$ that the e*ual protection standards evolved b% the (.". "upreme Court ma% be adopted in this ,urisdiction, there is no reason h% the e6clusive manner of their application should not be adopted also. +n the present case, the persons alle$edl% discriminated a$ainst @i.e. the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"PA and the ri$hts the% are assertin$ @to be e6empted from the Compensation Classification "%stem prescribed b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a A remain the same, hether the classification under revie is bet een them and the e6ecutive officers of the B"P or the ran) and file emplo%ees of the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+". +t therefore stands to reason that the test or standard V hether Rational Basis, "trict "crutin% or +ntermediate "crutin% a$ainst hich petitioner9s claims should be measured should li)e ise be the same, re$ardless of hether the evaluation pertains to the constitutionalit% of @.A the classification e6pressl% made in "ection .F @cA of The Ne Central Ban) Act or @=A the classification resultin$ from the amendments of the charters of the other 5&CCsO54+s. To illustrate further, if petitioner9s constitutional challen$e is premised on the denial of a :fundamental ri$ht: or the perpetuation of pre,udice a$ainst a :suspect class,: as su$$ested @but not full% e6plicatedA in the closin$ pa$es of the main opinion> then, follo in$ the trend in American ,urisprudence, the "trict "crutin% Test ould be applicable, hether the classification bein$ revie ed is that bet een the officers and ran) and file of the B"P or bet een the ran) and file of the B"P and the ran) and file of the other 5&CCsO54+s. But certainl%, the same $roup of B"P ran) and file personnel cannot be considered a :non-suspect class: hen compared to the B"P e6ecutive corps, but members of a :suspect class: hen compared to the ran) and file emplo%ees of the other 5&CCsO54+s. Neither could the ri$hts the% assert be simultaneousl% :fundamental: and :less than fundamental.: Conse*uentl%, it ould be improper to appl% the Rational Basis Test as the standard for one comparison and the "trict "crutin% Test for the other. To do so ould be to appl% the la unevenl% and, accordin$l%, den% the persons concerned :the e*ual protection of the la s.: MRe2&./;e Con0./.u./on&2/.$M No. ! Ju0./9/5&./on 9o- .:e #ou72e S.&n'&-' +t ould appear that the emplo%ment of a :double standard: in the present case is sou$ht to be ,ustified someho b% the concept of relative constitutionalit% invo)ed b% the main opinion. Thus, the main opinion holds that the :subse*uent enactments, ho ever, constitute si$nificant chan$es in circumstance that considerabl% alter the reasonabilit% of the continued operation of the last proviso of "ection .F @cA, Article ++ of Republic Act No. 01F-, and e6poses the proviso to more serious scrutin%.: The ponencia li)e ise invites this Court to reflect on the follo in$ *uestionsD :5iven that Con$ress chose to e6empt other 54+s @aside the B"PA from the covera$e of the ""8, can the e6clusion of the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the B"P stand constitutional scrutin% in the li$ht of the fact that Con$ress did not e6clude the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the other 54+s< +s Con$ress9 po er to classif% unbridled as to sanction une*ual and discriminator% treatment, simpl% because the ine*uit% manifested not instantl% throu$h a sin$le overt act, but $raduall% throu$h seven separate acts< +s the ri$ht to e*ual protection bounded in time and space thatD @aA the ri$ht can be invo)ed onl% a$ainst classification made directl% and deliberatel%, as opposed to discrimination that arises indirectl% as a conse*uence of several other acts< and @bA is the le$al anal%sis confined to determinin$ the validit% ithin the parameters of the statute 6 6 6 thereb% proscribin$ an% evaluation vis-X-vis the $roupin$s or the lac) thereof amon$ several similar enactments made over a period of time<: ..1

To clarif%, it as never su$$ested that ,udicial revie should be confined or limited to the *uestioned statute itself ithout considerin$ other related la s. +t is ell ithin the po ers of this Court to resolve the issue of hether the subse*uent amendments of the charters of other 5&CCs and other 54+s altered the constitutionalit% of "ection .F @cA of the Ne Central Ban) Act. +t is, ho ever, hat to me is the improper resort b% the main opinion to relative constitutionalit%, and as to be subse*uentl% demonstrated, the use of an inappropriate standard for e*ual protection anal%sis, that constrained me to re$ister m% dissent. As illustrated in the main opinion, :relative constitutionalit%: refers to the principle that a statute ma% be constitutionall% valid as: applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another set of facts. Thus, a statute valid at one time ma% become void at another time because of altered factual circumstances. This principle is reall% a corollar% to the re*uirements that a valid classification @aA must be based on real and substantial @not merel% superficialA distinctions and @bA must not be limited to e6istin$ conditions onl%. :"ubstantial distinctions: must necessaril% be derived from the ob,ective factual circumstances of the classes or $roups that a statute see)s to differentiate. The classification must be real and factual and not holl% abstract, artificial, or contrived. Thus, in Bictoriano v. 6lizalde #ope 0or-ersI 9nion,..0 this Court statedD 7e believe that Republic Act No. --FC satisfies the aforementioned re*uirements. The Act classifies emplo%ees and or)ers, as to the effect and covera$e of union shop securit% a$reements, into those ho b% reason of their reli$ious beliefs and convictions cannot si$n up ith a labor union, and those hose reli$ion does not prohibit membership in labor unions. T:e 52&00/9/5&./on -e0.0 on -e&2 o- 0u70.&n./&2, no. 6e-e2$ /6&4/n&-$ o<:/60/5&2, '/0./n5./on0. There is such real distinction in the beliefs, feelin$s and sentiments of emplo%ees. Emplo%ees do not believe in the same reli$ious faith and different reli$ions differ in their do$mas and cannons. Reli$ious beliefs, manifestations and practices, thou$h the% are found in all places, and in all times, ta)e so man% varied forms as to be almost be%ond ima$ination. There are man% vie s that comprise the broad spectrum of reli$ious beliefs amon$ the people. There are diverse manners in hich beliefs, e*uall% paramount in the lives of their possessors, ma% be articulated. Toda% the countr% is far more hetero$enous in reli$ion than before, differences in reli$ion do e6ist, and these differences are important and should not be i$nored. ..G @Emphasis suppliedA +n the ords of #ustice #ac)son of the (.". "upreme Court in 0alters v. %ity o' St. :ouis, MissouriD../ 6 6 6 E*ual protection does not re*uire identit% of treatment. . on2$ -eCu/-e0 .:&. 52&00/9/5&./on -e0. on -e&2 &n' no. 9e/4ne' '/99e-en5e0, .:&. .:e '/0./n5./on0 :&;e 0o6e -e2e;&n5e .o .:e ,u-,o0e 9o- <:/5: .:e 52&00/9/5&./on /0 6&'e, &n' .:&. .:e '/99e-en. .-e&.6en.0 7e no. 0o '/0,&-&.e, -e2&./;e .o .:e '/99e-en5e /n 52&00/9/5&./on, &0 .o 7e <:o22$ &-7/.-&-$, 6 6 6.=C @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA 4or this reason, in revie in$ le$islation challen$ed on e*ual protection $rounds - particularl% hen a statute other ise valid on its face is alle$ed to be discriminator% in its application - a court must often loo) be%ond the four corners of the statute and carefull% e6amine the factual circumstances of the case before it. Thus, in 6rmita-Malate Hotel and Motel 4perations Associations, !nc. v. Hon. %ity Mayor o' Manila ,.=. this Court, in reversin$ a trial court decision invalidatin$ an ordinance re$ulatin$ the operation of motels and hotels in Manila, heldD Primaril% hat calls for a reversal of such a decision is the absence of an% evidence to offset the presumption of validit% that attaches to a challen$ed statute or ordinance. As as e6pressed cate$oricall% b% #ustice MalcolmD :The presumption is all in favor of validit% . . . . The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot be li$htl% set aside. The councilors must, in the ver% nature of thin$s, be familiar ith the necessities of their particular municipalit% and ith all the facts and circumstances hich surround the sub,ect and necessitate action. The local le$islative bod%, b% enactin$ the ordinance, has in effect $iven notice that the re$ulations are essential to the ell bein$ of the people . . . . The #udiciar% should not li$htl% set aside le$islative action hen there is not a clear invasion of personal or propert% ri$hts under the $uise of police re$ulation.: . &'6/.0 o9 no 'ou7. .:e-e9o-e .:&. .:e-e 7e/n4 & ,-e0u6,./on o9 ;&2/'/.$, .:e ne5e00/.$ 9o- e;/'en5e .o -e7u. /. /0 un&;o/'&72e, un2e00 .:e 0.&.u.e o- o-'/n&n5e /0 ;o/' on /.0 9&5e, hich is not the case here. The principle has been no here better e6pressed than in the leadin$ case of &95orman Q ?oun$ v. ;artford 4ire +nsurance Co., here the American "upreme Court throu$h #ustice Brandeis tersel% and succinctl% summed up the matter thusD :The statute here *uestioned deals ith a sub,ect clearl% ithin the scope of the police po er. 7e are as)ed to declare it void on the $round that the specific method of re$ulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of la . !0 un'e-2$/n4 Cue0./on0 o9 9&5. 6&$ 5on'/./on .:e 5on0./.u./on&2/.$ o9 2e4/02&./on o9 .:/0 5:&-&5.e-, .:e ,-e0u6,./on o9 5on0./.u./on&2/.$ 6u0. ,-e;&/2 /n .:e &70en5e o9 0o6e 9&5.u&2 9oun'&./on o9 -e5o-' 9o- o;e-.:-o</n4 .:e 0.&.u.e.M No such factual foundation bein$ laid in the present case, the lo er court decidin$ the matter on the pleadin$s and the stipulation of facts, the presumption of validit% must prevail and the ,ud$ment a$ainst the ordinance set aside. .== @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA

And in Peralta v. %ommission on 6lections,.=- this Court statedD The e*ual protection clause does not forbid all le$al classifications. 7hat KitL proscribes is a classification hich is arbitrar% and unreasonable. +t is not violated b% a reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions, here the classification is $ermane to the purpose of the la and applies e*uall% to all those belon$in$ to the same class. The e*ual protection clause is not infrin$ed b% le$islation hich applies onl% to those persons fallin$ ithin a specified class, if it applies ali)e to all persons ithin such class, and reasonable $rounds e6ist for ma)in$ a distinction bet een those ho fall ithin the class and those ho do not. T:e-e /0, o9 5ou-0e, no 5on5/0e o- e&0$ &n0<e- &0 .o <:&. &n &-7/.-&-$ 52&00/9/5&./on /0. No 'e9/n/.e -u2e :&0 7een o- 5&n 7e 2&/' 'o<n on .:e 7&0/0 o9 <:/5: 0u5: Cue0./on 6&$ 7e -e0o2;e'. T:e 'e.e-6/n&./on 6u0. 7e 6&'e /n &55o-'&n5e </.: .:e 9&5.0 ,-e0en.e' 7$ .:e ,&-./5u2&- 5&0e. T:e 4ene-&2 -u2e, <:/5: /0 <e22-0e..2e' 7$ .:e &u.:o-/./e0, /0 .:&. & 52&00/9/5&./on, .o 7e ;&2/', 6u0. -e0. u,on 6&.e-/&2 '/99e-en5e0 7e.<een .:e ,e-0on0, &5./;/./e0 o- .:/n40 /n52u'e' &n' .:o0e e=52u'e'.B T:e-e 6u0., /n o.:e- <o-'0, 7e & 7&0/0 9o'/0./n5./on. 4urthermore, such classification must be $ermane and pertinent to the purpose of the la . And, finall%, the basis of classification must, in $eneral, be so dra n that those ho stand in substantiall% the same position ith respect to the la are treated ali)e, 6 6 6.=E @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA A similar thou$ht as e6pressed in Medill v. State o' Minnesota,.=F cited in the main opinion,.=1 here the "tate "upreme Court of Minnesota.=0 reversed a decision of the (.". Ban)ruptc% Court and held that a statute e6emptin$ :KrLi$hts of action for in,uries to the person of the debtor or of a relative: from :attachment, $arnishment, or sale on an% final process, issued from an% court,: did not contravene the provisions of the Minnesota Constitution limitin$ e6emptions to a :reasonable amount: to be determined b% la . The Minnesota Court heldD 6 6 6 e must determine here hether there is an ob,ective measure hich limits the amount or e6tent of the personal in,ur% ri$ht of action e6emption since there is no dollar limit or :to the e6tent reasonabl% necessar%: limitin$ lan$ua$e on the face of the provision. The trustee ar$ues that the case is :incredibl% simple: because there is no lan$ua$e on the face of the statute purportin$ to limit the e6emption. The state and debtors ar$ue that the ,udicial determination of $eneral dama$es in a personal in,ur% action is based on ob,ective criteria> therefore, the amount of the e6emption is reasonable and :determined b% la : under article ., section .=. 7e thin) that the latter interpretation is reasonable and that the trustee has failed to meet his burden of provin$ be%ond a reasonable doubt that the provision is unconstitutional. 666 ;ere, the resolution of the Medills9 personal in,ur% action involved a ,udicial determination of an amount that reasonabl% compensated them for their in,uries. The Medills9 recover% as reasonabl% limited b% a ,ur%9s determination of dama$es, hich as then approved b% a court. Contrar% to the trustee9s ar$ument, e believe that the limits on out-of-court settlements are similarl% reasonable. F/-0., un2e00 & 0.&.u.e /0 /n:e-en.2$ un5on0./.u./on&2, M/.0 ;&2/'/.$ 6u0. 0.&n' o- 9&22 u,on .:e -e5o-' 7e9o-e .:e 5ou-. &n' no. u,on &00u6,./on0 .:/0 5ou-. 6/4:. @o.:e-</0eA 6&?e R R R.: Grobe v. 4a- %enter %reamery %o , =1= Minn. 1C, 1-, ..- N.7.=d EFG, E1C @./1=A. Moreover, even in the case of an out-of-court settlement, the :inherent: limitation on the ri$ht of action still e6ists> the amount of a settlement is limited to or b% the e6tent of in,ur%, and no part% ill a$ree to an :unreasonable: settlement. The trustee vi$orousl% ar$ues that the court must $o considerabl% be%ond the plain lan$ua$e of the statute and rules of statutor% construction to impose the re*uired constitutional limit on the e6emption provision at issue here. Ho<e;e-, .:e 5on0./.u./on&2/.$ o9 & 0.&.u.e 5&nno. /n e;e-$ /n0.&n5e 7e 'e.e-6/ne' 7$ & 6e-e 5o6,&-/0on o9 /.0 ,-o;/0/on0 </.: .:e &,,2/5&72e ,-o;/0/on0 o9 .:e 5on0./.u./on. ! 0.&.u.e 6&$ 7e 5on0./.u./on&2 &n' ;&2/' &0 &,,2/e' .o one 0e. o9 9&5.0 &n' /n;&2/' /n /.0 &,,2/5&./on .o &no.:e-. Grobe, =1= Minn, at 1=, ..- N.7.=d at E1C. T:u0, un2e00 <e 9/n' .:e e=e6,./on un5on0./.u./on&2 on /.0 9&5e, /. 6u0. 7e un5on0./.u./on&2 &0 &,,2/e' .o .:e 9&5.0 o9 .:e /n0.&n. 5&0e /n o-'e- .o 7e 0.-/5?en. .=G @Emphasis suppliedA This does not mean that the factual differences must be prominent for the distinction bet een t o classes to be substantial. Nor are fine distinctions bet een t o classes, other ise sharin$ several common attributes, prohibited. Thus, the Court in Peralta, ent on to stateD 6 6 6 +t is, ho ever, conceded that it is almost impossible in some matters to foresee and provide for ever% ima$inable and e6ceptional case. E=&5.ne00 /n '/;/0/on /0 /6,o00/72e &n' ne;e- 2oo?e' 9o- /n &,,2$/n4 .:e 2e4&2 .e0.. !22 .:&. /0 -eCu/-e' /0 .:&. .:e-e 6u0. 7e, /n 4ene-&2, 0o6e -e&0on&72e 7&0/0 on 4ene-&2 2/ne0 9o- .:e '/;/0/on. C2&00/9/5&./on <:/5: :&0 0o6e -e&0on&72e 7&0/0 'oe0 no. o99en' .:e eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 52&u0e 6e-e2$ 7e5&u0e /. /0 no. 6&'e </.: 6&.:e6&./5&2 n/5e.$. @Emphasis supplied> citations omittedA The pronouncement in Bictoriano v. 6lizalde #ope 0or-ersI 9nion,.=/ is also instructiveD +n the e6ercise of its po er to ma)e classifications for the purpose of enactin$ la s over matters ithin its ,urisdiction, the state is reco$ni3ed as en,o%in$ a ide ran$e of discretion. . /0 no. ne5e00&-$ .:&. .:e

52&00/9/5&./on 7e 7&0e' on 05/en./9/5 o- 6&-?e' '/99e-en5e0 o9 .:/n40 o- /n .:e/- -e2&./on. Ne/.:e- /0 /. ne5e00&-$ .:&. .:e 52&00/9/5&./on 7e 6&'e </.: 6&.:e6&./5&2 n/5e.$. Hen5e 2e4/02&./;e 52&00/9/5&./on 6&$ /n 6&n$ 5&0e0 ,-o,e-2$ -e0. on n&--o< '/0./n5./on0, for the e*ual protection $uarant% does not preclude the le$islature from reco$ni3in$ de$rees of evil or harm, and le$islation is addressed to evils as the% ma% appear..-C @Emphasis supplied> citations omittedA To be sure, this Court has ad,ud$ed as valid statutes providin$ for differences in treatment bet eenD inter-urban buses and provincial buses>.-. ta6pa%ers receivin$ compensation income and other ta6pa%ers>.-= male overseas or)ers and female overseas or)ers>.-- electric cooperatives and other cooperatives>.-E businesses inside the secured area of the "ubic "pecial Economic Hone and those outside the secured area> .-F public officers ith pendin$ criminal cases hich have not %et $one to trial and those ith cases herein trial has alread% commenced> .-1 and Cit% and Municipal Election &fficers of the Commission &n Elections @C&ME8ECA and other C&ME8EC officials. .-0 Nevertheless, to be substantial, these distinctions, no matter ho finel% dra n, must still be rooted on some ob,ective factual foundation> and cannot be left to the arbitrar%, himsical or capricious ima$ination of the la ma)er. Thus, relative constitutionalit%, as + understand it, merel% ac)no led$es that the factual circumstances hich form the bases for the substantial and real distinctions bet een t o classes ma% chan$e over time. Thus, it is entirel% possible that a le$islative classification held to be valid at one time upon a particular state of facts ma% be subse*uentl% invalidated if the factual basis for the substantial distinctions that e6isted bet een the t o classes has ceased to e6ist. %essante ratione le*is, cessat ipsa leF..-G #ust such a possibilit% as ac)no led$ed b% the (.". "upreme Court in %)astleton %orporation v. Sinclair,.-/ Court, spea)in$ throu$h #ustice ;olmes, declaredD here the

The ori$inal Act of &ctober ==, ././, c. GC, tit. =, E. "tat. =/0, considered in Bloc) v. ;irsh, as limited to e6pire in t o %ears. "ection .==. The Act of Au$ust =E, ./=., c. /., E= "tat. =CC, purported to continue it in force, ith some amendments, until Ma% ==, ./==. &n that da% a ne act declared that the emer$enc% described in the ori$inal title = still e6isted, reenacted ith further amendments the amended Act of ././, and provided that it as continued until Ma% ==, ./=E. Act of Ma% ==, ./==, c. ./0, E= "tat. FE-. 7e repeat hat as stated in Bloc) v. ;irsh, as to the respect due to a declaration of this )ind b% the 8e$islature so far as it relates to present facts. But even as to them a Court is not at libert% to shut its e%es to an obvious mista)e, hen the validit% of the la depends upon the truth of hat is declared. And still more obviousl% so far as this declaration loo)s to the future it can be no more than prophec% and is liable to be controlled b% events. ! 2&< 'e,en'/n4 u,on .:e e=/0.en5e o9 &n e6e-4en5$ o- o.:e- 5e-.&/n 0.&.e o9 9&5.0 .o u,:o2' /. 6&$ 5e&0e .o o,e-&.e /9 .:e e6e-4en5$ 5e&0e0 o- .:e 9&5.0 5:&n4e e;en .:ou4: ;&2/' <:en ,&00e' , 6 6 6.EC @Emphasis supplied> citations omittedA +ndeed, this appears to be the thrust of the cases cited .E. b% the main opinion to illustrate relative constitutionalit%D The case of Bernon Par- #ealty v. %ity o' Mount Bernon.E= concerned a parcel of land ad,acent to a railroad station and located in the middle of a hi$hl% developed business district had continuall% been used as a car par). +n ./=0 it as placed in a Residence 9B9 district under a 3onin$ ordinance under hich its use as a car par) remained a valid nonconformin$ use. +n ./F., the area as sold to 'ernon Par) Realt% hich applied for, but did not obtain, a permit to build a retail shoppin$ center @prohibited under the ./=0 ordinanceA. +n ./F=, after 'ernon Par) had brou$ht suit to declare the ./=0 ordinance unconstitutional, the cit%9s common council amended the 3onin$ ordinance to prohibit the use of the propert% for an% purpose e6cept the par)in$ and stora$e of automobiles and the continuance of prior nonconformin$ uses. The Court of Appeals of Ne ?or) found the ./=0 3onin$ ordinance and the ./F= amendment ille$al and void, rulin$ thatD 7hile the common council has the un*uestioned ri$ht to enact 3onin$ la s respectin$ the use of propert% in accordance ith a ell-considered and comprehensive plan desi$ned to promote public health, safet% and $eneral elfare, such po er is sub,ect to the constitutional limitation that it ma% not be e6erted arbitraril% or unreasonabl% and this is so henever the 3onin$ ordinance precludes the use of the propert% for an% purpose for hich it is reasonabl% adapted. "$ .:e 0&6e .o?en, &n o-'/n&n5e ;&2/' <:en &'o,.e' </22 ne;e-.:e2e00 7e 0.-/5?en 'o<n &0 /n;&2/' <:en, &. & 2&.e- ./6e, /.0 o,e-&./on un'e- 5:&n4e' 5on'/./on0 ,-o;e0 5on9/05&.o-$ 0u5:, 9o- /n0.&n5e, &0 <:en .:e 4-e&.e- ,&-. o9 /.0 ;&2ue /0 'e0.-o$e' for hich the courts ill afford relief in an appropriate case..E- @Emphasis supplied> citations omittedA +n Nas)ville, %)atanoo*a H St. :ouise #ail(ays v. 0alters ,.EE the petitioners *uestioned the constitutionalit% of a provision of the Tennessee Public Acts of ./=., hich authori3ed the state hi$h a% commissioner to re*uire the separation of $rades henever a state hi$h a% crosses a railroad if in its discretion :the elimination of such $rade crossin$ is necessar% for the protection of persons travelin$ on an% such hi$h a% or an% such railroad: and re*uirin$ the railroad compan% to pa% in ever% case, one-half of the total cost of the separation of $rades. +n remandin$ the case to the "upreme Court of Tennessee, the (.". 4ederal "upreme Court declaredD

The "upreme Court Kof TennesseeL declined to consider the "pecial facts relied upon as sho in$ that the order, and the statute as applied, ere arbitrar% and unreasonable> and did not pass upon the *uestion hether the evidence sustained those findin$s. +t held that the statute as, upon its face, constitutional> that hen it as passed the state had, in the e6ercise of its police po er, authorit% to impose upon railroads one-half of the cost of eliminatin$ e6istin$ or future $rade crossin$s> and that the court could not :an% more: consider : hether the provisions of the act in *uestion have been rendered burdensome or unreasonable b% chan$ed economic and transportation conditions,: than it :could consider chan$ed mental attitudes to determine the constitutionalit% or enforceabilit% of a statute.: A rule to the contrar% is settled b% the decisions of this Court. ! 0.&.u.e ;&2/' &0 .o one 0e. o9 9&5.0 6&$ 7e /n;&2/' &0 .o &no.:e-. ! 0.&.u.e ;&2/' <:en en&5.e' 6&$ 7e5o6e /n;&2/' 7$ 5:&n4e /n .:e 5on'/./on0 .o <:/5: /. /0 &,,2/e'. The police po er is sub,ect to the constitutional limitation that it ma% not be e6erted arbitraril% or unreasonabl%. To this limitation, attention as specificall% called in cases hich have applied most broadl% the po er to impose upon railroads the cost of separation of $rades. 4irst. (nless the evidence and the special facts relied upon ere of such a nature that the% could not conceivabl% establish that the action of the state in imposin$ upon the rail a% one-half of the cost of the underpass as arbitrar% and unreasonable, the "upreme Court Kof TennesseeL obviousl% erred in refusin$ to consider them. T:e 5:&-4e o9 &-7/.-&-/ne00 /0 7&0e' ,-/6&-/2$ u,on .:e -e;o2u./on&-$ 5:&n4e0 /n5/'en. .o .-&n0,o-.&./on <-ou4:. /n -e5en. $e&-0 7$ .:e </'e0,-e&' /n.-o'u5./on o9 6o.o- ;e:/52e0K .:e &00u6,./on 7$ .:e 9e'e-&2 4o;e-n6en. o9 .:e 9un5./on0 o9 -o&' 7u/2'e-K .:e -e0u2./n4 'e,2e./on o9 -&/2 -e;enue0K .:e 5:&n4e /n .:e 5:&-&5.e-, .:e 5on0.-u5./on, &n' .:e u0e o9 :/4:<&$0K .:e 5:&n4e /n .:e o55&0/on 9oe2/6/n&./on o9 4-&'e 5-o00/n40, /n .:e ,u-,o0e o9 0u5: e2/6/n&./on, &n' /n .:e 5:/e9 7ene9/5/&-/e0 .:e-eo9K &n' .:e 5:&n4e /n .:e -e2&./;e -e0,on0/7/2/.$ o9 .:e -&/2-o&'0 &n' ;e:/52e0 6o;/n4 on .:e :/4:<&$0 &0 e2e6en.0 o9 '&n4e- &n' 5&u0e0 o9 &55/'en.0. 6 6 6 666 "econd. 6 6 6 The promotion of public convenience ill not ,ustif% re*uirin$ of a railroad, an% more than of others, the e6penditure of mone%, unless it can be sho n that a dut% to provide the particular convenience rests upon it..EF @Emphasis supplied> citations omittedA +n Atlantic %oast :ine #ailroad %o. v. !vey,.E1 an action for dama$es as filed a$ainst the Atlantic Coast 8ine Railroad Compan% for the )illin$ of a co on an unfenced ri$ht of a% under certain 4lorida statutes authori3in$ the recover% of double dama$es plus attorne%9s fees for animals )illed on unfenced railroad ri$ht of a%, ithout proof of ne$li$ence. The railroad compan% alle$ed that several chan$es in economic, transportation and safet% conditions had occurred since these statutes ere passed in .G//.E0 and that, in vie of these chan$es, it as unfair, un,ust and ine*uitable to re*uire railroad companies to fence their trac)s to protect a$ainst livestoc) roamin$ at lar$e ithout ma)in$ a similar re*uirement for the o ners of automobiles, truc)s and buses carr%in$ passen$ers on the unfenced public hi$h a%s. +n rulin$ that the *uestioned statutes violated the e*ual protection $uarant%, the "upreme Court of 4lorida reasonedD +t stands ad,udicated that the purpose of the statutes, supra, is the protection a$ainst accidents to life and propert% in conductin$ public transportation and that such statutes are in the e6ercise of the police po er. +t cannot be *uestioned that those transportation companies en$a$ed as common carriers on the public roads and those so en$a$ed on their privatel% o ned roads such as railroad companies, o e li)e duties to the public and are under li)e obli$ations for the protection a$ainst accidents to life and propert% in conductin$ such business. . /0 <e22 0e..2e' .:&. & 0.&.u.e ;&2/' <:en en&5.e' 6&$ 7e5o6e /n;&2/' 7$. 5:&n4e /n 5on'/./on0 .o <:/5: /. /0 &,,2/e'. The alle$ations of the pleas are sufficient to sho , and the demurrer admits, that compliance ith the statute places a burden of e6pense on the railroad compan% to provide for the safet% of life and propert% of those hom it assumes to serve hich is not re*uired to be borne b% competitive motor carriers hich sub,ect the lives and propert% of those hom the% assume to serve to $reater ha3ards of the identical character hich the railroad is re*uired to so $uard a$ainst and it is also sho n that under the statutes penalties are imposed on the rail a% carrier in favor of individuals ho are neither shippers nor passen$ers. (nder the statutes, as sho n b% the record here, the rail a% common carrier is not onl% re*uired to carr% the burden of fencin$ its traffic line for the protection of the persons and propert% it transports, hile other-common carriers are not re*uired to provide the li)e protection, but in addition to this, there is another $ross ine*ualit% imposed b% the statute, vi3D Un'e- .:e 0.&.u.e0 .:e ,2&/n./99 .o <:o6 .:e 5&--/e-, &0 0u5:, <&0 un'e- no o72/4&./on0, <&0 &22o<e' .o -e5o;e- 'ou72e .:e ;&2ue o9 .:e &n/6&2 ?/22e', ,2u0 Q*+ &0 &..o-ne$B0 9ee0, &n' <&0 no. -eCu/-e' .o ,-o;e &n$ &5. o9 ne42/4en5e on .:e ,&-. o9 .:e 5&--/e- /n .:e o,e-&./on o9 /.0 eCu/,6en., <:/2e /9 & 5o66on 5&--/e- 7u0 o- .-u5? :&' 7$ .:e o,e-&./on o9 /.0 eCu/,6en. ?/22e' .:e 0&6e &n/6&2 /n .:e 0&6e 2o5&2/.$, .:e ,2&/n./99 <ou2' :&;e 7een -eCu/-e' .o ,-o;e ne42/4en5e /n .:e o,e-&./on o9 .:e eCu/,6en. &n' .:e 5o66on 5&--/e- <ou2' :&;e 7een 2/&72e on2$ 9o- .:e ;&2ue o9 .:e &n/6&2. T:/0 5e-.&/n2$ /0 no. eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on o9 .:e 2&<. .EG @Emphasis and underscorin$ supplied> citations omittedA "imilarl%, the case of :ouisville H Nas)ville #ailroad %o. v. aul-ner .E/ concerned an action to recover the value of a mule )illed b% the railroad compan%9s train under a Bentuc)% statute hich made the )illin$ or in,ur% of cattle b% railroad en$ines or cars prima 'acie evidence of ne$li$ence on the part of the railroad9s a$ents or servants. The Bentuc)% "upreme Court, follo in$ the rulin$s in Nas)ville and Atlantic %oast, ad,ud$ed the *uestioned statute to be unconstitutional, vizD

The present statute hich places the dut% upon a railroad compan% to prove it as free from ne$li$ence in )illin$ an animal upon its trac) is an act of .G/-. The $enesis of the le$islation, ho ever, $oes bac) to the be$innin$ of railroad transportation in the state. T:e 5on0./.u./on&2/.$ o9 0u5: 2e4/02&./on <&0 0u0.&/ne' 7e5&u0e /. &,,2/e' .o &22 0/6/2&- 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' :&' 9o- /.0 o7>e5. .:e 0&9e.$ o9 ,e-0on0 on & .-&/n &n' .:e ,-o.e5./on o9 ,-o,e-.$. Lou/0;/22e J N. R. Co. ;. "e25:e-, 89 1$. 193, 12 S.3. 19*,11 1$.L&< Re,. 393, & 'e5/0/on -en'e-e' /n 1889. O9 5ou-0e, .:e-e <e-e no &u.o6o7/2e0 /n .:o0e '&$0. T:e 0u70eCuen. /n&u4u-&./on &n' 'e;e2o,6en. o9 .-&n0,o-.&./on 7$ 6o.o- ;e:/52e0 on .:e ,u72/5 :/4:<&$0 7$ 5o66on 5&--/e-0 o9 9-e/4:. &n' ,&00en4e-0 5-e&.e' e;en 4-e&.e- -/0?0 .o .:e 0&9e.$ o9 o55u,&n.0 o9 .:e ;e:/52e0 &n' o9 '&n4e- o9 /n>u-$ &n' 'e&.: o9 'o6e0./5 &n/6&20. Fe., un'e- .:e 2&< .:e o,e-&.o-0 o9 .:&. 6o'e o9 5o6,e././;e .-&n0,o-.&./on &-e no. 0u7>e5. .o .:e 0&6e e=.-&o-'/n&-$ 2e4&2 -e0,on0/7/2/.$ 9o- ?/22/n4 0u5: &n/6&20 on .:e ,u72/5 -o&'0 &0 &-e -&/2-o&' 5o6,&n/e0 9o- ?/22/n4 .:e6 on .:e/- ,-/;&.e -/4:.0 o9 <&$. The "upreme Court, spea)in$ throu$h #ustice Brandeis in Nashville, C. Q "t. 8. R%. Co. v. 7alters, =/E (.". ECF, FF ".Ct. EG1, EGG. 0/ 8.Ed. /E/, stated, B! 0.&.u.e ;&2/' <:en en&5.e' 6&$ 7e5o6e /n;&2/' 7$ 5:&n4e /n .:e 5on'/./on0 .o <:/5: /. /0 &,,2/e'. The police po er is sub,ect to the limitation that it ma% not be e6erted arbitraril% or unreasonabl%.9 A number of prior opinions of that court are cited in support of the statement. "ee .. Am.#ur., Constitutional 8a , W .C=. The "tate of 4lorida for man% %ears had a statute, 4.".A. W -F1.C. et se*. imposin$ e6traordinar% and special duties upon railroad companies, amon$ hich as that a railroad compan% as liable for double dama$es and an attorne%9s fee for )illin$ livestoc) b% a train ithout the o ner havin$ to prove an% act of ne$li$ence on the part of the carrier in the operation of his train. +n Atlantic Coast 8ine Railroad Co. v. +ve%, .EG 4la. 1GC, F "o.=d =EE, =E0, .-/ A.8.R. /0-, it as held that .:e 5:&n4e' 5on'/./on0 7-ou4:. &7ou. 7$ 6o.o- ;e:/52e .-&n0,o-.&./on -en'e-e' .:e 0.&.u.e un5on0./.u./on&2 0/n5e /9 & 5o66on 5&--/e- 7$ 6o.o- ;e:/52e :&' ?/22e' .:e 0&6e &n/6&2, .:e o<ne- <ou2' :&;e 7een -eCu/-e' .o ,-o;e ne42/4en5e /n .:e o,e-&./on o9 /.0 eCu/,6en.. S&/' .:e 5ou-., BT:/0 5e-.&/n2$ /0 no. eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on o9 .:e 2&<.B As stated in Mar)endorf v. 4riedman, =GC B%. EGE, .-- ".7.=d F.1, .=0 A.8.R. E.1, appeal dismissed 4riedman v.. Mar)endorf, -C/ (.". 1=0, 1C ".Ct. 1.C, GE 8.Ed. /G0, .:e ,u-,o0e o9 .:e ,-o;/0/on0 o9 RR 3 &n' *9 o9 .:e 1en.u5?$ Con0./.u./on &n' o9 .:e Fou-.een.: !6en'6en. .o .:e Fe'e-&2 Con0./.u./on /0 .o ,2&5e &22 ,e-0on0 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e' u,on & ,2&ne o9 eCu&2/.$ &n' .o -en'e- /. /6,o00/72e 9o- &n$ 52&00 .o o7.&/n ,-e9e--e' .-e&.6en.. Appl%in$ this proscription of ine*ualit% and unreasonable discrimination, e held invalid an amendment to a statute re$ulatin$ motor transportation for hire hich e6empted from the operation of the statute such vehicles en$a$ed in transportin$ farm products. Priest v. "tate Ta6 Commission, =FG B%. -/., GC ".7.=d E-. 7e, therefore, hold that the part of BR" =00.--C hich imposes a dut% upon a railroad compan% of provin$ that it as free from ne$li$ence in the )illin$ or in,ur% of cattle b% its en$ine or cars is invalid and unconstitutional. .FC @Emphasis supplied> underscorin$ in the ori$inalA 4inall%, in #utter v. 6steban,.F. this Court invalidated "ection = of R.A. No. -E= providin$ for an ei$ht-%ear moratorium period ithin hich a creditor could not demand pa%ment of a monetar% obli$ation contracted before !ecember G, ./E. @counted from the settlement of the ar dama$e claim of the debtorA after ta)in$ ,udicial notice of the si$nificant chan$e in the nation9s economic circumstances in ./F-, thus it heldD 666 7e do not need to $o far to appreciate this situation. 7e can see it and feel it as e $a3e around to observe the ave of reconstruction and rehabilitation that has s ept the countr% since liberation than)s to the aid of America and the innate pro$ressive spirit of our people. This aid and this spirit have or)ed onders in so short a time that it can no be safel% stated that in the main the financial condition of our countr% and our people, individuall% and collectivel%, has practicall% returned to normal not ithstandin$ occasional reverses caused b% local dissidence and the sporadic disturbance of peace and order in our midst. Business, industr% and a$riculture have pic)ed up and developed at such stride that e can sa% that e are no ell on the road to recover% and pro$ress. This is so not onl% as far as our observation and )no led$e are capable to ta)e note and comprehend but also because of the official pronouncements made b% our Chief E6ecutive in public addresses and in several messa$es he submitted to Con$ress on the $eneral state of the nation, 6 6 6 666 n .:e 9&5e o9 .:e 9o-e4o/n4 o70e-;&./on0 , and consistent ith hat e believe to be as the onl% course dictated b% ,ustice, fairness and ri$hteousness, <e 9ee2 .:&. .:e on2$ <&$ o,en .o u0 un'e- .:e ,-e0en. 5/-5u60.&n5e0 /0 .o 'e52&-e .:&. .:e 5on./nue' o,e-&./on &n' en9o-5e6en. o9 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 342 &. .:e ,-e0en. ./6e /0 un-e&0on&72e &n' o,,-e00/;e, and should not be prolon$ed a minute lon$er, and, therefore, the same should be declared null and void and ithout effect. 6 6 6 .F= @Emphasis suppliedA

As the financial ruin and economic devastation hich provided the rationale for the enactment of R.A. No. -E= as no lon$er present, this Court did not hesitate to rule that the continued enforcement of the statute as :unreasonable and oppressive, and should not be prolon$ed a minute lon$er.: +n the case at bar, ho ever, petitioner does not alle$e a comparable chan$e in the factual milieu as re$ards the compensation, position classification and *ualifications standards of the emplo%ees of the B"P @ hether of the e6ecutive level or of the ran) and fileA since the enactment of The Ne Central Ban) Act. Neither does the main opinion identif% the relevant factual chan$es hich ma% have occurred vis-X-vis the B"P personnel that ma% ,ustif% the application of the principle of relative constitutionalit% as above-discussed. Nor, to m% )no led$e, are there an% relevant factual chan$es of hich this Court ma% ta)e ,udicial )no led$e. ;ence, it is difficult to see ho relative constitutionalit% ma% be applied to the instant petition. Moreover, even if such factual chan$es ere alle$ed and proved or ,udiciall% discoverable, still there is absolutel% nothin$ in an% of the cases above-cited hich ould ,ustif% the simultaneous application of both the Rational Basis Test and the "trict "crutin% Test. +n fact, in the case of :ouisville H Nas)ville #ailroad %o.,.F- herein a statute previousl% held to have complied ith the re*uirements of the e*ual protection clause in .GG/ as subse*uentl% ruled to have violated the e*ual protection $uarant% in ./F0 due to chan$ed factual conditions, the onl% test applied in both instances as the Rational Basis Test..FE +t is true that petitioner alle$es that its members9 claim to e6emption from the Compensation Classification "%stem under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as bolstered b% the amendments to the charters of the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+", hich e6empted all the emplo%ees of these 5&CCsO54+s from said Compensation Classification "%stem. ;o ever, these subse*uent amendments do not constitute factual chan$es in the conte6t of relative constitutionalit%. Rather, the% involve subse*uent le$islative classifications hich should be evaluated in accordance ith the appropriate standard. To assess the validit% of the *uestioned proviso in the li$ht of subse*uent le$islation, all that need be applied is the familiar rule that statutes that are in pari materia.FF should be read to$ether. As this Court declared in %ity o' Na*a v. A*na,.F1 vizD 6 6 6 E;e-$ ne< 0.&.u.e 0:ou2' 7e 5on0.-ue' /n 5onne5./on </.: .:o0e &2-e&'$ e=/0./n4 /n -e2&./on .o .:e 0&6e 0u7>e5. 6&..e- &n' &22 0:ou2' 7e 6&'e .o :&-6on/He &n' 0.&n' .o4e.:e-, /9 .:e$ 5&n 7e 'one 7$ &n$ 9&/- &n' -e&0on&72e /n.e-,-e.&./on . . . +t ill also be noted that "ection =-C/ of the Revised Administrative Code and "ection = of Republic Act No. ==1E @8ocal Autonom% ActA refer to the same sub,ect matter V enactment and effectivit% of a ta6 ordinance. +n this respect the% can be considered in pari materia. S.&.u.e0 &-e 0&/' .o 7e /n pari !ateria <:en .:e$ -e2&.e .o .:e 0&6e ,e-0on o- .:/n4, o- .o .:e 0&6e 52&00 o9 ,e-0on0 o- .:/n40, o- :&;e .:e 0&6e ,u-,o0e o- o7>e5.. 3:en 0.&.u.e0 &-e /n pari !ateria, .:e -u2e o9 0.&.u.o-$ 5on0.-u5./on '/5.&.e0 .:&. .:e$ 0:ou2' 7e 5on0.-ue' .o4e.:e-. T:/0 /0 7e5&u0e en&5.6en.0 o9 .:e 0&6e 2e4/02&.u-e on .:e 0&6e 0u7>e5. 6&..e- &-e 0u,,o0e' .o 9o-6 ,&-. o9 one un/9o-6 0$0.e6K .:&. 2&.e- 0.&.u.e0 &-e 0u,,2e6en.&-$ o- 5o6,2/6en.&-$ .o .:e e&-2/e- en&5.6en.0 &n' /n .:e ,&00&4e o9 /.0 &5.0 .:e 2e4/02&.u-e /0 0u,,o0e' .o :&;e /n 6/n' .:e e=/0./n4 2e4/02&./on on .:e 0&6e 0u7>e5. &n' .o :&;e en&5.e' /.0 ne< &5. </.: -e9e-en5e .:e-e.o. H&;/n4 .:u0 /n 6/n' .:e ,-e;/ou0 0.&.u.e0 -e2&./n4 .o .:e 0&6e 0u7>e5. 6&..e-, <:ene;e- .:e 2e4/02&.u-e en&5.0 & ne< 2&<, /. /0 'ee6e' .o :&;e en&5.e' .:e ne< ,-o;/0/on /n &55o-'&n5e </.: .:e 2e4/02&./;e ,o2/5$ e67o'/e' /n .:o0e ,-/o- 0.&.u.e0 un2e00 .:e-e /0 &n e=,-e00 -e,e&2 o9 .:e o2' &n' .:e$ &22 0:ou2' 7e 5on0.-ue' .o4e.:e-..F0 @Emphasis and underscorin$ supplied> citations omittedA ;ere, it can be said that the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , the Ne Central Ban) Act, and the amended charters of the other 5&CCs and 54+s are in pari materia insofar as the% pertain to compensation and position classification s%stem@sA coverin$ $overnment emplo%ees. Conse*uentl%, the provisions of these statutes concernin$ compensation and position classification, includin$ the le$islative classifications made therein, should all be read and evaluated to$ether in the li$ht of the e*ual protection clause. Conse*uentl%, the relevant *uestion is hether these statutes, ta)en to$ether as one uniform s%stem of compensation for $overnment emplo%ees, compl% ith the re*uisites of the e*ual protection $uarant%. R&./on&2 "&0/0 Te0. !,,-o,-/&.e .o .:e C&0e &. "&Turnin$ then to the determination of the standard appropriate to the issues presented b% the instant petition, it is immediatel% apparent that +ntermediate "crutin%, inasmuch as its application has been limited onl% to classifications based on $ender and ille$itimac%, finds no application to the case at bar. The choice of the appropriate standard is thus narro ed bet een "trict "crutin% and the Rational Basis Test. As has been observed, "trict "crutin% has been applied in the American conte6t hen a le$islative classification intrudes upon a fundamental ri$ht or classifies on the basis of an inherentl% suspect characteristic. "trict "crutin% cannot be applied in the case at bar since no here in the petition does petitioner alle$e that Article ++, "ection .F @cA of the Ne Central Ban) Act burdens a fundamental ri$ht of its members. The petition merel% states that :the proviso in *uestion ;/o2&.e0 .:e -/4:. .o eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on o9 .:e 2&<0 o9 .:e "SP -&n? &n' 9/2e e6,2o$ee0 ho are members of the petitioner.:.FG 7hile it is true that the E*ual Protection Clause is found in the Bill of Ri$hts of both the American and Philippine Constitutions, for strict scrutin% to appl% there must be a violation of a Constitutional ri$ht other

than the ri$ht to e*ual protection of the la s. To hold other ise ould be absurd as an% invocation of a violation of the e*ual protection clause ould automaticall% result in the application of "trict "crutin%. +n Bacco v. Guill,.F/ several ph%sicians challen$ed a Ne ?or) statute hich prohibits assistance to suicide. The% ar$ued that althou$h it as consistent ith the standards of their medical practice to prescribe lethal medication for mentall% competent, terminall% ill patients ho are sufferin$ $reat pain and desire a doctor9s help in ta)in$ their o n lives, the% are deterred from doin$ so b% Ne ?or)9s ban on assistin$ suicide. .1C The% contend that because Ne ?or) permits a competent person to refuse life-sustainin$ medical treatment and because the refusal of such treatment is :essentiall% the same thin$: as ph%sician-assisted suicide, the ban violates the E*ual Protection Clause. .1. A unanimous (.". "upreme Court applied the Rational Basis Test as the statute did not infrin$e fundamental ri$hts. Moreover, the Court held that the $uarantee of e*ual protection is not a source of substantive ri$hts or liberties. The E*ual Protection Clause commands that no "tate shall :den% to an% person ithin its ,urisdiction the e*ual protection of the la s.: T:/0 ,-o;/0/on 5-e&.e0 no 0u70.&n./;e -/4:.0. San Antonio !ndependent Sc)ool 7ist. v. #odri*uez, E.. (.". ., --, /- ".Ct. .=0G. .=/1-.=/0, -1 8.Ed.=d .1 @./0-A> id., at F/, /- ".Ct., at .-.C @"te art, #., concurrin$A. +nstead, it embodies a $eneral rule that "tates must treat li)e cases ali)e but ma% treat unli)e cases accordin$l%. Plyler v. 7oe. EF0 (.". =C=, =.1, .C= ".Ct. =-G=, =-/E, 0= 8.Ed.=d 0G1 @./G=A @:9KTLhe Constitution does not re*uire thin$s hich are different in fact or opinion to be treated in la as thou$h the% ere the same9:A @*uotin$ $i*ner v. $eFas, -.C (.". .E., .E0, 1C ".Ct. G0/, GG=, GE 8.Ed. ..=E @./ECAA . +f a le$islative classification or distinction :neither burdens a fundamental ri$ht nor tar$ets a suspect class, e ill uphold KitL so lon$ as it bears a rational relation to some le$itimate end.: #omer v. 6vans, F.0 (.". 1=C, 1-., ..1 ".Ct. .1=C, .1=0, .-E 8.Ed.=d GFF @.//1A. Ne< Fo-?B0 0.&.u.e0 ou.2&</n4 &00/0./n4 0u/5/'e &99e5. &n' &''-e00 6&..e-0 o9 ,-o9oun' 0/4n/9/5&n5e .o &22 Ne< Fo-?e-0 &2/?e. T:e$ ne/.:e- /n9-/n4e 9un'&6en.&2 -/4:.0 no- /n;o2;e 0u0,e5. 52&00/9/5&./on0. 0as)in*ton v. Gluc-sber*, at 0./-0=G, ..0 ".Ct., at ==10-==0.> see GC 4.-d, at 0=1> San Antonio Sc)ool 7ist., E.. (."., at =G, /- ".Ct., at .=/E @:The s%stem of alle$ed discrimination and the class it defines have none of the traditional indicia of suspectness:A> id., at ----F, /- ".Ct., at .=/1-.=/G @courts must loo) to the Constitution, not the :importance: of the asserted ri$ht, hen decidin$ hether an asserted ri$ht is :fundamental:A. These la s are therefore entitled to a :stron$ presumption of validit%.: Heller v. 7oe, FC/ (.". -.=, -./, ..- ".Ct. =1-0, =1E=, .=F 8.Ed.=d =F0 @.//-A..1= @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA Neither does the main opinion identif% hat fundamental ri$ht the challen$ed proviso of the Ne infrin$es upon. +nstead the ponencia cites the follo in$ Constitutional provisionsD PREAMB8ED 7e, the soverei$n 4ilipino people, implorin$ the aid of Almi$ht% 5od, in order to build a ,ust and humane societ% and establish a 5overnment that shall embod% our ideals and aspirations, promote the common $ood, conserve and develop our patrimon%, and secure to ourselves and our posterit% the blessin$s of independence and democrac% under the rule of la and a re$ime of truth, ,ustice, freedom, love, e*ualit%, and peace, do ordain and promul$ate this Constitution. ART+C8E ++D !eclaration of Principles and "tate Policies "ECT+&N /. The "tate shall promote a ,ust and d%namic social order that ill ensure the prosperit% and independence of the nation and free the people from povert% throu$h policies that provide ade*uate social service, promote full emplo%ment, a risin$ standard of livin$, and an improved *ualit% of life for all. "ECT+&N .C. The "tate shall promote social ,ustice in all phases of national development. "ECT+&N ... The "tate values the di$nit% of ever% human person and $uarantees full respect for human ri$hts. "ECT+&N .G. The "tate affirms labor as a primar% social economic force. +t shall protect the ri$hts of promote their elfare. ART+C8E +++D Bill of Ri$hts "ECT+&N .. No person shall be deprived of life, libert%, or propert% person be denied the e*ual protection of the la s. ART+C8E +MD Constitutional Commissions B. The Civil "ervice Commission ithout due process of la , nor shall an% or)ers and Central Ban) Act

"ECT+&N F. The Con$ress shall provide for the standardi3ation of compensation of $overnment officials, includin$ those in $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations ith ori$inal charters, ta)in$ into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired for their positions. ART+C8E M++D National Econom% and Patrimon% "ECT+&N .. The $oals of the national econom% are a more e*uitable distribution of opportunities, income, and ealth> a sustained increase in the amount of $oods and services produced b% the nation for the benefit of the people> and an e6pandin$ productivit% as the )e% raisin$ the *ualit% of life for all, especiall% the underprivile$ed. The "tate shall promote industriali3ation and full emplo%ment based on sound a$ricultural development and a$rarian reform, throu$h industries that ma)e full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and hich are competitive in both domestic and forei$n mar)ets. ;o ever, the "tate shall protect 4ilipino enterprises a$ainst unfair forei$n competition and trade practices. +n pursuit of these $oals, all sectors of the econom% and all re$ions of the countr% shall be $iven optimum opportunit% to develop. Private enterprises, includin$ corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective or$ani3ations, shall be encoura$ed to broaden the base of their o nership. "ECT+&N ==. Acts hich circumvent or ne$ate an% of the provisions of this Article shall be considered inimical to the national interest and sub,ect to criminal and civil sanctions, as ma% be provided b% la . ART+C8E M+++D "ocial #ustice and ;uman Ri$hts "ECT+&N .. The Con$ress shall $ive hi$hest priorit% to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the ri$ht of all the people to human di$nit%, reduce social, economic, and political ine*ualities, and remove cultural ine*uities b% e*uitabl% diffusin$ ealth and political po er for the common $ood. To this end, the "tate shall re$ulate the ac*uisition, o nership, use, and disposition of propert% and its increments. 8abor "ECT+&N -. The "tate shall afford full protection to labor, local and oversea, or$ani3ed and unor$ani3ed, and promote full emplo%ment and e*ualit% of emplo%ment opportunities for all. +t shall $uarantee the ri$hts of all or)ers to self-or$ani3ations, and peaceful concerted activities, includin$ the ri$ht to stri)e in accordance ith la . The% shall be entitled to securit% of tenure, humane conditions of or), and a livin$ a$e. The% shall also participate in polic% and decision-ma)in$ processes affectin$ their ri$hts and benefits as ma% be provided b% la . The "tate shall promote the principle of shared responsibilit% bet een or)ers and emplo%ers and the preferential use of voluntar% modes in settlin$ disputes, includin$ conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance there ith to foster industrial peace. The "tate shall re$ulate the relations bet een or)ers and emplo%ers, reco$ni3in$ the ri$ht of labor to its ,ust share in the fruits of production and the ri$ht of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to e6pansion and $ro th. 7ith the e6ception of "ection ., Article +++ and "ection -, Article M+++, the fore$oin$ Constitutional provisions do not embod% an% particular ri$ht but espouse principles and policies. .1- As previousl% discussed, mere reliance on the E*ual Protection Clause hich is in the Bill of Ri$hts is not sufficient to ,ustif% the application of "trict "crutin%. 7hile "ection of Article M+++ enumerates the seven basic ri$hts of or)ers - the ri$ht to or$ani3e, the ri$ht to conduct collective bar$ainin$ or ne$otiation ith mana$ement, the ri$ht to en$a$e in peaceful concerted activities includin$ the ri$ht to stri)e in accordance ith la , the ri$ht to en,o% securit% of tenure, the ri$ht to or) under humane conditions, the ri$ht to receive a livin$ a$e, and the ri$ht to participate in polic% and decision-processes affectin$ their ri$hts and benefits as ma% be provided b% la - + fail to see ho Article ++, "ection .F @cA of the Ne Central Ban) Act can impin$e on an% of these seven ri$hts. Another reason h% "trict "crutin% is inappropriate is the absence of a classification hich is based on an inherentl% suspect characteristic. There is no suspect class involved in the case at bar. B% no stretch of the ima$ination can the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P be considered a suspect class - a class saddled ith such disabilities, or sub,ected to such a histor% of purposeful une*ual treatment, or rele$ated to such a position of political po erlessness as to command e6traordinar% protection from the ma,oritarian political process. As e6amined earlier, in appl%in$ this definition of suspect class, the (.". "upreme Court has labeled ver% fe classifications as suspect. +n particular, the Court has limited the term suspect class to classifications based on race or national ori$in, aliena$e and reli$ion. +t is at once apparent that Article ++,

"ection .F @cA of the Ne Central Ban) Act, in e6emptin$ the B"P officers from the covera$e of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a and not e6emptin$ the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P, does not classif% based on race, national ori$in, aliena$e or reli$ion. The main opinion ho ever see)s to ,ustif% the application of "trict "crutin% on the theor% that the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P constitute a suspect class :considerin$ that ma,orit% @if not allA of the ran) and file emplo%ees consist of people hose status and ran) in life are less and limited, especiall% in terms of ,ob mar)etabilit%, it is the% - and not the officers ho have the real economic and financial need for the ad,ustment.: The ponencia concludes that since the challen$ed proviso operates on the basis of the salar% $rade or office-emplo%ee status a distinction based on economic class and status is created. 7ith all due respect, the main opinion fails to sho that financial need is an inherentl% suspect trait. The claim that the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P are an economicall% disadvanta$ed $roup is unsupported b% the facts on record. Moreover, as priorl% discussed, classifications based on financial need have been characteri3ed b% the (.". "upreme Court as not suspect. +nstead, the American Court has resorted to the Rational Basis Test. The case of San Antonio !ndependent Sc)ool 7istrict v. #odri*uez.1E is instructive. +n the said case, the financin$ of public elementar% and secondar% schools in Te6as is a product of state and local participation. Almost half of the revenues are derived from a lar$el% state-funded pro$ram desi$ned to provide a basic minimum educational offerin$ in ever% school. Each district supplements state aid throu$h an ad valorem ta6 on propert% ithin its ,urisdiction. A class action suit as brou$ht on behalf of school children said to be members of poor families ho reside in school districts havin$ a lo propert% ta6 base. The% ar$ue that the Te6as s%stem9s reliance on local propert% ta6ation favors the more affluent and violates the e*ual protection clause because of substantial inter-district disparities in per pupil e6penditures resultin$ primaril% from differences in the value of assessable propert% amon$ the districts. The Court held that ealth discrimination alone does not provide ade*uate basis for invo)in$ strict scrutin%. .1F The ealth discrimination discovered b% the !istrict Court in this case, and b% several other courts that have recentl% struc) do n school-financin$ la s in other "tates, is *uite unli)e an% of the forms of ealth discrimination heretofore revie ed b% this Court. Rather than focusin$ on the uni*ue features of the alle$ed discrimination, the courts in these cases have virtuall% assumed their findin$s of a suspect classification throu$h a 0/6,2/0./5 ,-o5e00 o9 &n&2$0/08 0/n5e, un'e- .:e .-&'/./on&2 0$0.e60 o9 9/n&n5/n4 ,u72/5 05:oo20, 0o6e ,oo-e- ,eo,2e -e5e/;e 2e00 e=,en0/;e e'u5&./on0 .:&n o.:e- 6o-e &992uen. ,eo,2e, .:e0e 0$0.e60 '/05-/6/n&.e on .:e 7&0/0 o9 <e&2.:. T:/0 &,,-o&5: 2&-4e2$ /4no-e0 .:e :&-' .:-e0:o2' Cue0./on0, /n52u'/n4 <:e.:e- /. 6&?e0 & '/99e-en5e 9o- ,u-,o0e0 o9 5on0/'e-&./on un'e- .:e Con0./.u./on .:&. .:e 52&00 o9 '/0&';&n.&4e' B,oo-B 5&nno. 7e /'en./9/e' o- 'e9/ne' /n 5u0.o6&-$ eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on .e-60, &n' <:e.:e- .:e -e2&./;e---&.:e- .:&n &70o2u.e--n&.u-e o9 .:e &00e-.e' 'e,-/;&./on /0 o9 0/4n/9/5&n. 5on0eCuen5e. Before a "tate9s la s and the ,ustifications for the classifications the% create are sub,ected to strict ,udicial scrutin%, e thin) these threshold considerations must be anal%3ed more closel% than the% ere in the court belo . T:e 5&0e 5o6e0 .o u0 </.: no 'e9/n/./;e 'e05-/,./on o9 .:e 52&00/9$/n4 9&5.0 o- 'e2/ne&./on o9 .:e '/09&;o-e' 52&00. E6amination of the !istrict Court9s opinion and of appellees9 complaint, briefs, and contentions at oral ar$ument su$$ests, ho ever, at least three a%s in hich the discrimination claimed here mi$ht be described. T:e Te=&0 0$0.e6 o9 05:oo2 9/n&n5/n4 6/4:. 7e -e4&-'e' &0 '/05-/6/n&./n4 D1E &4&/n0. B,oo-B ,e-0on0 <:o0e /n5o6e0 9&22 7e2o< 0o6e /'en./9/&72e 2e;e2 o9 ,o;e-.$ o- <:o 6/4:. 7e 5:&-&5.e-/He' &0 9un5./on&22$ B/n'/4en., o- D2E &4&/n0. .:o0e <:o &-e -e2&./;e2$ ,oo-e- .:&n o.:e-0, o- D3E &4&/n0. &22 .:o0e <:o, /--e0,e5./;e o9 .:e/- ,e-0on&2 /n5o6e0, :&,,en .o -e0/'e /n -e2&./;e2$ ,oo-e- 05:oo2 '/0.-/5.0. &ur tas) must be to ascertain hether, in fact, the Te6as s%stem has been sho n to discriminate on an% of these possible bases and, if so, hether the resultin$ classification ma% be re$arded as suspect. The precedents of this Court provide the proper startin$ point. T:e /n'/;/'u&20, o- 4-ou,0 o9 /n'/;/'u&20, <:o 5on0./.u.e' .:e 52&00 '/05-/6/n&.e' &4&/n0. /n ou- ,-/o- 5&0e0 0:&-e' .<o '/0./n4u/0:/n4 5:&-&5.e-/0./508 7e5&u0e o9 .:e/- /6,e5un/.$ .:e$ <e-e 5o6,2e.e2$ un&72e .o ,&$ 9o- 0o6e 'e0/-e' 7ene9/., &n' &0 & 5on0eCuen5e, .:e$ 0u0.&/ne' &n &70o2u.e 'e,-/;&./on o9 & 6e&n/n49u2 o,,o-.un/.$ .o en>o$ .:&. 7ene9/.. +n 5riffin v. +llinois, -F. (.". .=, 01 ".Ct. FGF, .CC 8.Ed. G/. @./F1A, and its pro$en% the Court invalidated state la s that prevented an indi$ent criminal defendant from ac*uirin$ a transcript, or an ade*uate substitute for a transcript, for use at several sta$es of the trial and appeal process. The pa%ment re*uirements in each case ere found to occasion de facto discrimination a$ainst those ho, because of their indi$enc%, ere totall% unable to pa% for transcripts. And the Court in each case emphasi3ed that no constitutional violation ould have been sho n if the "tate had provided some 9ade*uate substitute9 for a full steno$raphic transcript. 666 &nl% appellees9 first possible basis for describin$ the class disadvanta$ed b% the Te6as school-financin$ s%stem-discrimination a$ainst a class of defineabl% 9poor9 persons--mi$ht ar$uabl% meet the criteria established in these prior cases. Even a cursor% e6amination, ho ever, demonstrates that neither of the t o distin$uishin$ characteristics of ealth classifications can be found here. F/-0., /n 0u,,o-. o9 .:e/- 5:&-4e .:&. .:e 0$0.e6 '/05-/6/n&.e0 &4&/n0. .:e B,oo-,B &,,e22ee0 :&;e 6&'e no e99o-. .o 'e6on0.-&.e .:&. /. o,e-&.e0 .o .:e

,e5u2/&- '/0&';&n.&4e o9 &n$ 52&00 9&/-2$ 'e9/n&72e &0 /n'/4en., o- &0 5o6,o0e' o9 ,e-0on0 <:o0e /n5o6e0 &-e 7ene&.: &n$ 'e0/4n&.e' ,o;e-.$ 2e;e2. +ndeed, there is reason to believe that the poorest families are not necessaril% clustered in the poorest propert% districts. 666 Se5on', ne/.:e- &,,e22ee0 no- .:e #/0.-/5. Cou-. &''-e00e' .:e 9&5. .:&., un2/?e e&5: o9 .:e 9o-e4o/n4 5&0e0, 2&5? o9 ,e-0on&2 -e0ou-5e0 :&0 no. o55&0/one' &n &70o2u.e 'e,-/;&./on o9 .:e 'e0/-e' 7ene9/.. The ar$ument here is not that the children in districts havin$ relativel% lo assessable propert% values are receivin$ no public education> rather, it is that the% are receivin$ a poorer *ualit% education than that available to children in districts havin$ more assessable ealth. Apart from the unsettled and disputed *uestion hether the *ualit% of education ma% be determined b% the amount of mone% e6pended for it, a sufficient ans er to appellees9 ar$ument is that, &. 2e&0. <:e-e <e&2.: /0 /n;o2;e', .:e ECu&2 P-o.e5./on C2&u0e 'oe0 no. -eCu/-e &70o2u.e eCu&2/.$ o- ,-e5/0e2$ eCu&2 &';&n.&4e0. Nor indeed, in vie of the infinite variables affectin$ the educational process, can an% s%stem assure e*ual *ualit% of education e6cept in the most relative sense. Te6as asserts that the Minimum 4oundation Pro$ram provides an 9ade*uate9 education for all children in the "tate. B% providin$ .= %ears of free public-school education, and b% assurin$ teachers, boo)s, transportation, and operatin$ funds, the Te6as 8e$islature has endeavored to 9$uarantee, for the elfare of the state as a hole, that all people shall have at least an ade*uate pro$ram of education. 666 Fo- .:e0e .<o -e&0on0--.:e &70en5e o9 &n$ e;/'en5e .:&. .:e 9/n&n5/n4 0$0.e6 '/05-/6/n&.e0 &4&/n0. &n$ 'e9/n&72e 5&.e4o-$ o9 B,oo-B ,eo,2e o- .:&. /. -e0u2.0 /n .:e &70o2u.e 'e,-/;&./on o9 e'u5&./on--.:e '/0&';&n.&4e' 52&00 /0 no. 0u05e,./72e o9 /'en./9/5&./on /n .-&'/./on&2 .e-60. 666 This brin$s us, then, to the third a% in hich the classification scheme mi$ht be defined--district ealth discrimination. "ince the onl% correlation indicated b% the evidence is bet een district propert% ealth and e6penditures, it ma% be ar$ued that discrimination mi$ht be found ithout re$ard to the individual income characteristics of district residents. Assumin$ a perfect correlation bet een district propert% ealth and e6penditures from top to bottom, the disadvanta$ed class mi$ht be vie ed as encompassin$ ever% child in ever% district e6cept the district that has the most assessable ealth and spends the most on education. Alternativel%, as su$$ested in Mr. #ustice MAR";A889" dissentin$ opinion the class mi$ht be defined more restrictivel% to include children in districts ith assessable propert% hich falls belo the state ide avera$e, or median, or belo some other artificiall% defined level. Ho<e;e- 'e05-/7e', /. /0 52e&- .:&. &,,e22ee0B 0u/. &0?0 .:/0 Cou-. .o e=.en' /.0 6o0. e=&5./n4 05-u./n$ .o -e;/e< & 0$0.e6 .:&. &22e4e'2$ '/05-/6/n&.e0 &4&/n0. & 2&-4e, '/;e-0e, &n' &6o-,:ou0 52&00, un/9/e' on2$ 7$ .:e 5o66on 9&5.o- o9 -e0/'en5e /n '/0.-/5.0 .:&. :&,,en .o :&;e 2e00 .&=&72e <e&2.: .:&n o.:e- '/0.-/5.0. T:e 0$0.e6 o9 &22e4e' '/05-/6/n&./on &n' .:e 52&00 /. 'e9/ne0 :&;e none o9 .:e .-&'/./on&2 /n'/5/& o9 0u0,e5.ne008 .:e 52&00 /0 no. 0&''2e' </.: 0u5: '/0&7/2/./e0, o- 0u7>e5.e' .o 0u5: & :/0.o-$ o9 ,u-,o0e9u2 uneCu&2 .-e&.6en., o- -e2e4&.e' .o 0u5: & ,o0/./on o9 ,o2/./5&2 ,o<e-2e00ne00 &0 .o 5o66&n' e=.-&o-'/n&-$ ,-o.e5./on 9-o6 .:e 6&>o-/.&-/&n ,o2/./5&2 ,-o5e00. 7e thus conclude that the Te6as s%stem does not operate to the peculiar disadvanta$e of an% suspect class. But in reco$nition of the fact that .:/0 Cou-. :&0 ne;e- :e-e.o9o-e :e2' .:&. <e&2.: '/05-/6/n&./on &2one ,-o;/'e0 &n &'eCu&.e 7&0/0 9o- /n;o?/n4 0.-/5. 05-u./n$, appellees have not relied solel% on this contention. 6 6 6.11 @Emphasis and underscorin$ supplied> citations and footnotes omittedA To further bolster the theor% that a classification based on financial need is inherentl% suspect, the main opinion cites a number of international conventions as ell as forei$n and international ,urisprudence, but to no avail. The reliance b% the main opinion on these international conventions is misplaced. The ponencia cites the American Convention on ;uman Ri$hts, the African Charter of ;uman and Peoples9 Ri$hts, the European Convention on ;uman Ri$hts, the European "ocial Charter of .//1 and the Arab Charter on ;uman Ri$hts of .//E. +t should be noted that the Philippines is not a si$nator% to an% of these conventions. The main opinion also cites the (niversal !eclaration of ;uman Ri$hts, the +nternational Covenant on Civil and Political Ri$hts, the +nternational Covenant on Economic, "ocial and Cultural Ri$hts, the +nternational Convention on the Elimination of all 4orms of Racial !iscrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of all 4orms of !iscrimination a$ainst 7omen and the Convention on the Ri$hts of the Child. 7hile it is true that these instruments hich the Philippines is a part% to include provisions prohibitin$ discrimination, none of them e6plicitl% prohibits discrimination on the basis of financial need. 7hile certain conventions mention that distinctions based on :other status: is prohibited, the scope of this term is undefined. Even 5a% Moon, on hom the main opinion relies, e6plains thusD The K(N ;uman Ri$htsL Committee provides little $uidance on ho it decides hether a difference in treatment comes ithin the rubric of :other status:. +ts approach to this issue lac)s consistenc% and transparenc%. .10

4urthermore, the (.B. cases cited in the main opinion are not in point since these cases do not support the thesis that classification based on financial need is inherentl% suspect. +n Hooper v. Secretary o' State 'or 0or- and Pension.1G the discrimination in *uestion as based on $ender, that is, hether the ido ers are entitled to the pension $ranted b% the "tate to ido s. +n Abdulaziz, %abales and +al-andali v. 9nited 8in*dom.1/ the discrimination as based on se6 and race> +n 0ilson and 4t)ers v. 9nited 8in*dom.0C the *uestioned la allo s emplo%ers to discriminate a$ainst their emplo%ees ho ere trade union members. Notabl%, the main opinion, after discussin$ len$thil% the developments in e*ual protection anal%sis in the (nited "tates and Europe, and findin$ no support thereto, incon$ruousl% concluded that :in resolvin$ constitutional disputes, this Court should not be be$uiled b% forei$n ,urisprudence some of hich are hardl% applicable because the% have been dictated b% different constitutional settin$s and needs.: .0. After an e6cessive dependence b% the main opinion to American ,urisprudence it contradicted itself hen it stated that :American ,urisprudence and authorities, much less the American Constitution, are of dubious application for these are no lon$er controllin$ ithin our ,urisdiction and have onl% limited persuasive merit.:.0= n.-/n0/5 Con0./.u./on&2/.$ o9 Se5./on 1*D5E o9 .:e Ne< Cen.-&2 "&n? !5. +s the classification bet een the officers and ran) and file emplo%ees in "ection .F @cA of the Ne violation of the e*ual protection clause< Central Ban) Act in

Petitioner, contendin$ that there are no substantial distinctions bet een these t o $roups of B"P emplo%ees, ar$ues that it is. &n the other hand, the main opinion, appl%in$ the Rational Basis Test, finds the classification bet een the e6ecutive level and the ran) and file of the B"P to be based on substantial and real differences hich are $ermane to the purpose of the la . Thus, it concludesD +n the case at bar, it is clear in the le$islative deliberations that the e6emption of officers @"5 =C and aboveA from the ""8 as intended to address the B"P9s lac) of competitiveness in terms of attractin$ competent officers and e6ecutives. +t as not intended to discriminate a$ainst the ran)-and-file. +f the end-result did in fact lead to a disparit% of treatment bet een the officers and the ran)-and-file in terms of salaries and benefits, the discrimination or distinction has a rational basis and is not palpabl%, purel%, and entirel% arbitrar% in the le$islative sense. and declines to $rant the petition on this $round. 4or her part, #ustice Chico-Na3ario, in her separate concurrin$ opinion, sides ith petitioner believin$ that the difference in treatment is :purel% arbitrar%: and thus violates the Constitutional $uarant% of e*ual protection of the la s. &n this point, + am in accord ith the main opinion.

4or ease of reference, "ection .F @cA is reproduced hereunderD "EC. .F. 6Fercise o' Aut)ority. V +n the e6ercise of its authorit%, the Monetar% Board shallD 666 @cA establish a human resource mana$ement s%stem hich shall $overn the selection, hirin$, appointment, transfer, promotion, or dismissal of all personnel. "uch s%stem shall aim to establish professionalism and e6cellence at all levels of the +an*-o Sentral in accordance ith sound principles of mana$ement. ! 5o6,en0&./on 0.-u5.u-e, 7&0e' on >o7 e;&2u&./on 0.u'/e0 &n' <&4e 0u-;e$0 &n' 0u7>e5. .o .:e "o&-'B0 &,,-o;&2, 0:&22 7e /n0./.u.e' &0 &n /n.e4-&2 5o6,onen. o9 .:e -ang"o Sentral5s :u6&n -e0ou-5e 'e;e2o,6en. ,-o4-&68 Provided, That the Monetar% Board shall ma)e its o n s%stem conform as closel% as possible ith the principles provided for under Republic Act No. 10FG. )rovided, however, T:&. 5o6,en0&./on &n' <&4e 0.-u5.u-e o9 e6,2o$ee0 <:o0e ,o0/./on0 9&22 un'e- 0&2&-$ 4-&'e 19 &n' 7e2o< 0:&22 7e /n &55o-'&n5e </.: .:e -&.e0 ,-e05-/7e' un'e- Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8. @Emphasis suppliedA +t is readil% apparent that "ection .F @cA, b% implicitl% e6emptin$ the e6ecutive corps of the B"P @those ith "5 =C and aboveA from the Compensation Classification "%stem under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , ma)es a classification bet een the officers and the ran) and file of the B"P and, ho, li)e all other $overnment emplo%ees, are s*uarel% ithin the ambit of the Compensation Classification "%stem b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a .

To be valid, therefore, the difference in treatment as to compensation bet een the e6ecutive level and the ran) and file of the B"P must be based on real differences bet een the t o $roups. Moreover, this classification must also have a rational relationship to the purpose of the Ne Central Ban) Act. An e6amination of the le$islative histor% of the Ne Central Ban) Act ma% thus prove useful.

Le4/02&./;e H/0.o-$ o9 .:e Ne< Cen.-&2 "&n? !5. An e6amination of the le$islative deliberations of both the ;ouse of Representatives and the "enate sho s that it as never the intention of both houses to provide all B"P personnel ith a blan)et e6emption from the covera$e of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . Thus, hile ;ouse Bill No. 0C-0 @the ;ouse of Representatives version of the Ne Central Ban) ActA did not e6pressl% mention that the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as to appl% to a particular cate$or% of B"P emplo%ees, the deliberations in the lo er house sho that the position and compensation plans hich the B"P as authori3ed to adopt ere to be in accordance ith the provisions of applicable la s, includin$ the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a D MR. #A'+ER @E.A. No, Mr. "pea)er, e have that phrase in "ection .E @cA. The po er to or$ani3e, the po er to classif% positions, the po er to adopt compensation plans are sub,ect to the provisions of applicable la s. The bill is clear, so + do not thin) e should have a *uarrel on hether the Monetar% Board has absolute po er over the or$ani3ation and compensation plans of the Ban$)o "entral n$ Pilipinas. O9 5ou-0e, .:/0 ,o<e- /0 0u7>e5. .o &,,2/5&72e 2&<0, &n' one o9 .:e0e 2&<0 /0 .:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&<, Mr. "pea)er. MR. ARR&?&. To cut the ar$ument short, Mr. "pea)er, in effect, he is no sa%in$ that the proposed bill authori3e the Ban$)o "entral to fi6 its o n salar% scale for its emplo%ees< MR. #A'+ER @E.A. That is correct, Mr. "pea)er, but in accordance MR. ARR&?&. + am onl% as)in$ if it MR. #A'+ER @E.A. ?es, in accordance MR. ARR&?&. M&$ ith the provisions of applicable la s. ill

ill be able to fi6 its o n salar% scale. ith the provisions of applicable la s.

?no< M-. S,e&?e-, <:&. /0 .:e &,,2/5&72e 2&< .:&. </22 5u-.&/2 .:/0S

MR. #A'+ER @E.A. T:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&<. MR. ARR&?&. So, .:e Gen.2e6&n /0 no< 0u44e0./n4 .:&. .:e S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&< </22 &,,2$ .o .:/0S MR. #A'+ER @E.A. Fe0, M-. S,e&?e-..0- @Emphasis suppliedA +n fact, the deliberations sho that, in )eepin$ ith the reco$nition in "ection / .0E of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a that compensation hi$her than "5 -C mi$ht be necessar% in certain e6ceptional cases to attract and retain competent top-level personnel, the initial intention of the drafters of the ;ouse Bill as to e6empt onl% the 5overnor and the Monetar% Board from the covera$e of the Compensation Classification "%stemD MR. 8AC"&N. M-. S,e&?e-, Se5./on 12 6en./on0 on2$ .:e -e6une-&./on o9 .:e 4o;e-no- &n' .:e 6e67e-0 o9 .:e 6one.&-$ 7o&-'. MR. C;A'E". So, /. </22 no. 5o;e- &n$ o.:e- e6,2o$ee0 o9 .:e Cen.-&2 "&n? 7e5&u0e .:e 2/6/.&./on 0e. 9o-.: un'e- .:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&< </22 &,,2$ .o .:e6. >u0. <&n. .o 6&?e .:&. 0u-e 7e5&u0e /9 /. /0 no. 52e&- /n .:e 2&<, .:en <e 5&n -e9e- .o .:e 'e7&.e0 on .:e 92oo-. MR. 8AC"&N. M-. S,e&?e-, Se5./on 12 6en./on0 on2$ .:e 4o;e-no- &n' .:e 6e67e-0 o9 .:e 6one.&-$ 7o&-'. !22 .:e -e0. /n .:e 2o<e- e5:e2on0 &-e 5o;e-e' 7$ 2&<. MR. C;A'E". +n other ords, + ,ust ant to ma)e it clear hether or not the% are covered b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a because later on if there is an% conflict on the remuneration of emplo%ees lo er than the $overnor and members of the Monetar% Board, e have limits set under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . MR. 8AC"&N. (nder the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . .0F @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA The application of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a to all other personnel of the B"P raised some concerns, ho ever, on the part of some le$islators. The% felt the need to reconcile the demand for competent people to help in the mana$ement of

the econom% ith the provisions of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . .01 The "enate thus sou$ht to address these concerns b% allo in$ the B"P to determine a separate salar% scale for the e6ecutive level. The purpose behind the e6emption of officers ith "5 =C and above from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as to increase the B"P9s competitiveness in the industr%9s labor mar)et such that b% offerin$ attractive salar% pac)a$es, top e6ecutives and officials ould be enticed and competent officers ould be deterred from leavin$. "enator Maceda. 6 6 6 7e have a salar% $rade ran$e, if + am not mista)en, Mr. President, up to 5rade -=. T:o0e e=e5u./;e .$,e0 &-e ,-o7&72$ 7e.<een G-&'e 23 .o G-&'e 32. 9 <e -e&22$ <&n. .o 6&?e 0u-e .:&. .:e ;/5e-,-e0/'en. .$,e0 o9 .:e 7&n?0 </22 5o6e /n, /. 0:ou2' 7e 5u. o99 &. &-oun' G-&'e 23 2e;e2 &n' .:&. .:e S.&n'&-'/H&./on !5. 0:ou2' 0./22 -e9e- .o .:o0e &-oun' G-&'e 22 &n' 7e2o<. But if e cut it off at 5rade / and belo , e are ,ust hittin$ onl% the drivers, the ,anitors, the filin$ cler)s, the messen$ers. The 5entleman Mr. President. ill onl% be cuttin$ off a part of m% heart a$ain if he does that. M% heart bleeds for this people,

Sen&.o- O06eT&. +f that is an amendment, Mr. President, + move that e reconsider the prior approval of m% amendment hich as accepted b% the "ponsor, and + ill accept the amendment of "enator Maceda that the $rade level should not be 5rade / but 5rade == instead. Sen&.o- M&5e'&. !9.e- 5on0u2./n4 .:e ,-/n5/,&2 !u.:o- o9 .:e S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&<, .:e '/0./n4u/0:e' M&>o-/.$ Le&'e-, :e 5on9/-60 .:&. .:e e=e5u./;e 4-ou, /0 -e&22$ G-&'e 23 &n' &7o;e. .:/n? .:&. /0 <:e-e .:e Gen.2e6&n -e&22$ <&n.0 .o :&;e 0o6e 2ee<&$ .o 4e. 0o6e ,eo,2e /n &. .:e e=e5u./;e 2e;e2. So ,-o,o0e .:e &6en'6en. .o .:e &6en'6en. .o G-&'e 22 &n' 7e2o<. .00 @(nderscorin$ supplied> emphasis in the ori$inalA (ltimatel%, the Bicameral Conference Committee on Ban)s, in consultation ith the B"P, determined that the B"P9s e6ecutive level be$an at "5 =C and resolved to e6empt those at that level and above from the Compensation Classification "%stem under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , leavin$ the ran)-and-file emplo%ees, or those personnel a "5 of ./ and belo , under the covera$e of the said compensation s%stem. This is clear from the deliberations as reproduced b% the petitioner itselfD C;A+RMAN R&C&. 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Number E, on compensation of personnel. 7e have chec)ed. The e6emption from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a shall appl% onl% from "alar% 5rade =. and above. The division chief is salar% $rade ==. C;A+RMAN HAM&RA. un'e-0.oo', M-. C:&/-6&n, 9-o6 .:e Cen.-&2 "&n? /.0e29 .:&. .:e/- -&n4e 9o- -&n?&n'-9/2e 0.&-.0 9-o6 -&n4e 19 &n' 'o<n<&-'. So <:&. <e 0:ou2' ,-o,o0e /0 .:&. <e 0u7>e5. &22 ,e-0onne2 .o 0&2&-$ 0.&n'&-'/H&./on 0.&-./n4 9-o6 -&n4e 19 4o/n4 'o<n, &n' e=e6,. .:e6 9-o6 -&n4e 2+ &n' 4o/n4 u,. C;A+RMAN R&C&. That ill cover also assistant division chiefs<

ith

C;A+RMAN HAM&RA. That includes assistant division chiefs, division chiefs, and obviousl% hi$her personnel. C;A+RMAN R&C&. ?es, because in terms of 6 6 6 7e are bein$ more $enerous than ori$inal. "o assistant division chiefs shall be e6empted alread% from the salar% standardi3ation. .0G @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA T:e C2&00/9/5&./on /0 "&0e' on Re&2 #/99e-en5e0 7e.<een .:e O99/5e-0 &n' .:e R&n? &n' F/2e o9 .:e "SP, &n' /0 Ge-6&ne .o .:e Pu-,o0e o9 .:e L&< As pointed out b% the &ffice of the "olicitor 5eneral,.0/ the fore$oin$ classification of B"P personnel into mana$erial and ran)-and-file is based on real differences as to the scope of or) and de$ree of responsibilit% bet een these t o classes of emplo%ees. At the same time, the e6emption of the B"P mana$erial personnel from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a bears a rational relationship to the purpose of the Ne Central Ban) Act. .GC +n the ords of the "olicitor 5eneralD 6 6 6 !-./52e , Se5./on 1* D5E o9 R! 76*3 <&0 ,u-,o0e2$ &'o,.e' .o &..-&5. :/4:2$ 5o6,e.en. ,e-0onne2, .o en0u-e ,-o9e00/on&2/06 &n' e=5e22en5e &. .:e "SP &0 <e22 &0 .o en0u-e /.0 /n'e,en'en5e .:-ou4: 9/05&2 &n' &'6/n/0.-&./;e &u.ono6$ /n .:e 5on'u5. o9 6one.&-$ ,o2/5$. T:/0 ,u-,o0e /0 un'ou7.e'2$ 7e/n4 &00u-e' 7$ e=e6,./n4 .:e e=e5u./;eI6&n&4e6en. 2e;e2 9-o6 .:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&< 0o .:&. .:e 7e0. &n' .:e 7-/4:.e0. 6&$ 7e /n'u5e' .o >o/n .:e "SP. After all, the

mana$ersOe6ecutives are the ones responsible for runnin$ the B"P and for implementin$ its monetar% policies. .G. @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA +n the li$ht of the fore$oin$, #ustice Chico-Na3ario9s conclusion that the distinction is :purel% arbitrar%: does not appear to hold ater. +n support of her vie , #ustice Chico-Na3ario cites "ection F @aA of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , positions in the Professional "upervisor% Cate$or% are assi$ned "5 / to "5 --. Thus, she ar$uesD hich provides that

6 6 6 "5 =C and up do not differ from "5 ./ and do n in terms of technical and professional e6pertise needed as the entire ran$e of positions all 9re*uire intense and thorou$h )no led$e of a speciali3ed field usuall% ac*uired from completion of a bachelor9s de$ree or hi$her courses. Conse*uentl%, if B"P needs an e6emption from R.A. No. 10FG for )e% positions in order that it ma% hire the best and bri$htest economists, accountants, la %ers and other technical and professional people, the e6emption must not be$in onl% in "5 =C. ;o ever, it is clear that hile it is possible to $roup classes of positions accordin$ to the four main cate$ories as provided under "ection F of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , vizD "ECT+&N F. Po0/./on C2&00/9/5&./on S$0.e6. U T:e Po0/./on C2&00/9/5&./on S$0.e6 0:&22 5on0/0. o9 52&00e0 o9 ,o0/./on0 4-ou,e' /n.o 9ou- 6&/n 5&.e4o-/e0, n&6e2$8 ,-o9e00/on&2 0u,e-;/0o-$, ,-o9e00/on&2 non0u,e-;/0o-$, 0u7-,-o9e00/on&2 0u,e-;/0o-$, &n' 0u7-,-o9e00/on&2 non-0u,e-;/0o-$, &n' .:e -u2e0 &n' -e4u2&./on0 9o- /.0 /6,2e6en.&./on. Cate$ori3ation of these classes of positions shall be $uided b% the follo in$ considerationsD @aA P-o9e00/on&2 Su,e-;/0o-$ C&.e4o-$. V This cate$or% includes responsible positions of a mana$erial character involvin$ the e6ercise of mana$ement functions such as plannin$, or$ani3in$, directin$, coordinatin$, controllin$ and overseein$ ithin dele$ated authorit% the activities of an or$ani3ation, a unit thereof or of a $roup, re*uirin$ some de$ree of professional, technical or scientific )no led$e and e6perience, application of mana$erial or supervisor% s)ills re*uired to carr% out their basic duties and responsibilities involvin$ functional $uidance and control, leadership, as ell as line supervision. These positions re*uire intensive and thorou$h )no led$e of a speciali3ed field usuall% ac*uired from completion of a bachelor9s de$ree or hi$her de$ree courses. T:e ,o0/./on0 /n .:/0 5&.e4o-$ &-e &00/4ne' S&2&-$ G-&'e 9 .o S&2&-$ G-&'e 33. @bA P-o9e00/on&2 Non-Su,e-;/0o-$ C&.e4o-$. V This cate$or% includes positions performin$ tas) hich usuall% re*uire the e6ercise of a particular profession or application of )no led$e ac*uired throu$h formal trainin$ in a particular field or ,ust the e6ercise of a natural, creative and artistic abilit% or talent in literature, drama, music and other branches of arts and letters. Also included are positions involved in research and application of professional )no led$e and methods to a variet% of technolo$ical, economic, social, industrial and $overnmental functions> the performance of technical tas)s au6iliar% to scientific research and development> and in the performance of reli$ious, educational, le$al, artistic or literar% functions. These positions re*uire thorou$h )no led$e in the field of arts and sciences or learnin$ ac*uired throu$h completion of at least four @EA %ears of colle$e studies. The positions in this cate$or% are assi$ned "alar% 5rade G to "alar% 5rade -C. @cA Su7-P-o9e00/on&2 Su,e-;/0o-$ C&.e4o-$. V This cate$or% includes positions performin$ supervisor% functions over a $roup of emplo%ees en$a$ed in responsible or) alon$ technical, manual or clerical lines of hich are short of professional or), re*uirin$ trainin$ and moderate e6perience or lo er trainin$ but considerable e6perience and )no led$e of a limited sub,ect matter or s)ills in arts, crafts or trades. These positions re*uire )no led$e ac*uired from secondar% or vocational education or completion of up to t o @=A %ears of colle$e education. The positions in this cate$or% are assi$ned "alar% 5rade E to "alar% 5rade .G. @dA Su7-P-o9e00/on&2 Non-Su,e-;/0o-$ C&.e4o-$. V This cate$or% includes positions involves in structured or) in support of office or fiscal operations or those en$a$ed in crafts, trades or manual or). These positions usuall% re*uire s)ills ac*uired throu$h trainin$ and e6perience of completion of elementar% education, secondar% or vocational education or completion of up to t o @=A %ears of colle$e education. The positions in this cate$or% are assi$ned "alar% 5rade . to "alar% 5rade .C. @Emphasis suppliedA

or)

the same does not preclude classif%in$ classes of positions, althou$h different ith respect to )ind or sub,ect matter of or), accordin$ to level of difficult% and responsibilit% and level of *ualification re*uirements - that is, accordin$ to $rade..G= +t should be borne in mind that the concept of :$rade: from the &ld "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a is maintained in the present one. Thus "ections G and / of the present "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a provide for the $eneral assi$nment of the various salar% $rades to certain positions in the civil service accordin$ to the de$ree of responsibilit% and level of *ualifications re*uiredD "ECT+&N G. S&2&-/e0 o9 Con0./.u./on&2 O99/5/&20 &n' .:e/- ECu/;&2en.. V Pursuant to "ection .0, Article M'+++ of the Constitution, the salar% of the follo in$ officials shall be in accordance ith the "alar% 5rades indicated hereunderD "alar% 5rades President of the Philippines 'ice-President of the Philippines President of the "enate "pea)er of the ;ouse of Representatives Chief #ustice of the "upreme Court "enator Member of the ;ouse of Representatives Associate #ustices of the "upreme Court Chairman of a Constitutional Commission under Article +M, ./G0 Constitution Member of a Constitutional Commission under Article +M, ./G0 Constitution --= -= -= -= -. -. -.

-.

-C

The !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ement is hereb% authori3ed to determine the officials ho are of e*uivalent ran) to the fore$oin$ &fficials, here applicable, and ma% be assi$ned the same "alar% 5rades based on the follo in$ $uidelinesD GR!#E 33 V This 5rade is assi$ned to the President of the Republic of the Philippines as the hi$hest position in the $overnment. No other position in the $overnment service is considered to be of e*uivalent ran). GR!#E 32 V This 5rade is limited to the 'ice-President of the Republic of the Philippines and those positions hich head the 8e$islative and #udicial Branches of the $overnment, namel%D the "enate President, "pea)er of the ;ouse of Representatives and Chief #ustice of the "upreme Court. No other positions in the $overnment service are considered to be of e*uivalent ran). GR!#E 31 V This 5rade is assi$ned to "enators and Members of the ;ouse of Representatives and those ith e*uivalent ran) as follo sD the E6ecutive "ecretar%, !epartment "ecretar%, Presidential "po)esman, &mbudsman, Press "ecretar%, Presidential Assistant ith Cabinet Ran), Presidential Adviser, National Economic and !evelopment Authorit% !irector 5eneral, Court of Appeals Presidin$ #ustice, "andi$anba%an Presidin$ #ustice, "ecretar% of the "enate, "ecretar% of the ;ouse of Representatives, and President of the (niversit% of the Philippines. An entit% ith a broad functional scope of operations and ide area of covera$e ran$in$ from top level polic% formulation to the provision of technical and administrative support to the units under it, ith functions comparable to the aforesaid positions in the precedin$ para$raph, can be considered or$ani3ationall% e*uivalent to a !epartment, and its head to that of a !epartment "ecretar%. GR!#E 3+ V Positions included are those of !epartment (ndersecretar%, Cabinet (ndersecretar%, Presidential Assistant, "olicitor 5eneral, 5overnment Corporate Counsel, Court Administrator of the "upreme Court, Chief of "taff of the &ffice of the 'ice-President, National Economic and !evelopment Authorit% !eput% !irector 5eneral, Presidential Mana$ement "taff E6ecutive !irector, !eput% &mbudsman, Associate #ustices of the Court of

Appeals, Associate #ustices of the "andi$anba%an, "pecial Prosecutor, (niversit% of the Philippines E6ecutive 'ice-President, Mindanao "tate (niversit% President, Pol%technic (niversit% of the Philippines President of and President of other state universities and colle$es of the same class. ;eads of councils, commissions, boards and similar entities hose operations cut across offices or departments or are servin$ a si3eable portion of the $eneral public and hose covera$e is nation ide or hose functions are comparable to the aforecited positions in the precedin$ para$raph, ma% be placed at this level. The e*uivalent ran) of positions not mentioned herein or those that ma% be created hereafter shall be determined based on these $uidelines. The Provisions of this Act as far as the% up$rade the compensation of Constitutional &fficials and their e*uivalent under this section shall, ho ever, ta)e effect onl% in accordance ith the ConstitutionD Provided, That ith respect to the President and 'ice-President of the Republic of the Philippines, the President of the "enate, the "pea)er of the ;ouse of Representatives, the "enators, and the Members of the ;ouse of Representatives, no increase in salar% shall ta)e effect even be%ond .//=, until this Act is amendedD Provided, further, That the implementation of this Act ith respect to Assistant "ecretaries and (ndersecretaries shall be deferred for one @.A %ear from the effectivit% of this Act and for "ecretaries, until #ul% ., .//=D Provided, finall%, That in the case of Assistant "ecretaries, (ndersecretaries and "ecretaries, the salar% rates authori3ed herein shall be used in the computation of the retirement benefits for those ho retire under the e6istin$ retirement la s ithin the aforesaid period. "ECT+&N /. S&2&-$ G-&'e !00/4n6en.0 9o- O.:e- Po0/./on0. V 4or positions belo the &fficials mentioned under "ection G hereof and their e*uivalent, hether in the National 5overnment, local $overnment units, $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations or financial institutions, the !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ement is hereb% directed to prepare the +nde6 of &ccupational "ervices to be $uided b% the Benchmar) Position "chedule prescribed hereunder and the follo in$ factorsD @.A the education and e6perience re*uired to perform the duties and responsibilities of the positions> @=A the nature and comple6it% of the or) to be performed> @-A the )ind of supervision received> @EA mental andOor ph%sical strain re*uired in the completion of the or)> @FA nature and e6tent of internal and e6ternal relationships> @1A )ind of supervision e6ercised> @0A decision-ma)in$ responsibilit%> @GA responsibilit% for accurac% of records and reports> @/A accountabilit% for funds, properties and e*uipment> and @.CA hardship, ha3ard and personal ris) involved in the ,ob. Benchmar) Position "chedule Position Title 8aborer + Messen$er Cler) + !river + "teno$rapher + Mechanic + Carpenter ++ Electrician ++ "ecretar% + Boo))eeper Administrative Assistant Education Research Assistant + Cashier + Nurse + Teacher + A$rarian Reform Pro$ram Technolo$ist "alar% 5rades . = E E F 1 0 G G / .C .C .C .C

Bud$et &fficer + Chemist + A$riculturist + "ocial 7elfare &fficer + En$ineer + 'eterinarian + 8e$al &fficer + Administrative &fficer ++ !entist ++ Postmaster +' 4orester +++ Associate Professor + Rural ;ealth Ph%sician

.. .. .. .. .= ..E .F .1 .0 .G ./ =C

+n no case shall the salar% of the chairman, president, $eneral mana$er or administrator, and the board of directors of $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations and financial institutions e6ceed "alar% 5rade -CD Provided, That the President ma%, in trul% e6ceptional cases, approve hi$her compensation for the aforesaid officials. @Emphasis suppliedA Thus, hile the positions of A$riculturist + ith "5 .. and the President of the Philippines ith "5 -- ma% both belon$ to the Professional "upervisor% Cate$or% because of the nature of their duties and responsibilities as ell as the )no led$e and e6perience re*uired to dischar$e them, nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the level of difficult% and responsibilit% of the latter is si$nificantl% $reater than that of the former. +t ma% be that the le$islature mi$ht have chosen the four cate$ories of the position classification s%stem as the basis for the classification in "ection .F @cA, as su$$ested b% #ustice Chico-Na3ario, or even that no distinction mi$ht have been made at all. But these are matters pertainin$ to the isdom of the le$islative classification and not to its constitutional validit% as measured a$ainst the re*uirements of the e*ual protection clause. As this Court stated in !c)on* v. HernandezD.G6 6 6 So6e 6&$ '/0&4-ee </.: .:e </0'o6 o9 .:e 2e4/02&.u-eB0 52&00/9/5&./on. To .:/0 <e &n0<e-, .:&. .:/0 /0 .:e ,-e-o4&./;e o9 .:e 2&<-6&?/n4 ,o<e-. S/n5e .:e Cou-. 9/n'0 .:&. .:e 52&00/9/5&./on /0 &5.u&2, -e&2 &n' -e&0on&72e, &n' &22 ,e-0on0 o9 one 52&00 &-e .-e&.e' &2/?e, &n' &0 /. 5&nno. 7e 0&/' .:&. .:e 52&00/9/5&./on /0 ,&.en.2$ un-e&0on&72e &n' un9oun'e', it is on dut% bound to declare that the le$islature acted ithin its le$itimate prero$ative and it cannot declare that the act transcends the limit of e*ual protection established b% the Constitution..GE @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA At this ,uncture, it is curious to note that hile the main opinion initiall% states that the classification contained in "ection .F @cA of the Ne Central Ban) Act :has a rational basis and is not palpabl%, purel%, and entirel% arbitrar% in the le$islative sense,: and is thus valid on its face> the same opinion subse*uentl% opines thatD +n the case at bar, .:e 5:&22en4e' proviso o,e-&.e0 on .:e 7&0/0 o9 0&2&-$ 4-&'e o- o99/5e--e6,2o$ee 0.&.u0. . /0 & '/0./n5./on 7&0e' on e5ono6/5 52&00 &n' 0.&.u0, ith the hi$her $rades as recipients of a benefit specificall% ithheld from the lo er $rades. @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA "i$nificantl%, petitioner never advanced this ar$ument an% here in its pleadin$s. Moreover, there is absolutel% nothin$ in the pleadin$s or records of this petition to su$$est thatD @.A petitioner9s members belon$ to a separate economic class than those ith "5 =C and above> and @=A that the distinction bet een the officers and the ran) and file in "ection .F@cA is based on such economic status. 7hat is more, the fore$oin$ statement flies in the face of a basis of classification ,urisprudence. ell-established in our la and

+ndeed, the distinction bet een :officers: and :emplo%ees: in the $overnment service as clearl% established as earl% as ./.0 ith the enactment of the &ld Revised Administrative Code and later incorporated into the lan$ua$e of the ConstitutionD +n terms of personnel, the s%stem includes both :officers and emplo%ees.: The distinction bet een these t o t%pes of $overnment personnel is e6pressed b% "ection = of the &ld Revised Administrative Code @./.0A thusD 6mployee, hen $enerall% used in reference to persons in the public service, includes an% person in the service of the 5overnment or an% branch thereof of hatever $rade or class. 'fficer, &0 '/0./n4u/0:e' 9-o6 cler" o- e!ployee, -e9e-0 .o .:o0e o99/5/&20 <:o0e 'u./e0, no. 7e/n4 o9 & 52e-/5&2 o6&nu&2 n&.u-e, 6&$ 7e 5on0/'e-e' .o /n;o2;e .:e e=e-5/0e o9 '/05-e./on /n .:e ,e-9o-6&n5e o9 .:e 9un5./on0 o9 4o;e-n6en., <:e.:e- 0u5: 'u./e0 &-e ,-e5/0e2$ 'e9/ne' 7$ 2&< o- no.. 4''icer, hen used ith reference to a person havin$ authorit% to do a particular act or perform a particular function in the e6ercise of $overnmental po er, shall include an% 5overnment emplo%ee, a$ent, or bod% havin$ authorit% to do the act or e6ercise of the function in *uestion. . /0 /n .:e0e 0en0e0 .:&. .:e .e-60 Mo99/5e-0 &n' e6,2o$ee0M &-e u0e' /n .:e Con0./.u./on &n' /. /0 .:/0 0en0e <:/5: 0:ou2' &20o 7e &,,2/e', !utatis !utandis, .o o99/5e-0 &n' e6,2o$ee0 o9 4o;e-n6en.o<ne' &n' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 </.: o-/4/n&2 5:&-.e-. .GF @Emphasis supplied> italics in the ori$inalA Clearl%, classification on the basis of salar% $rade or bet een officers and ran) and file emplo%ees ithin the civil service are intended to be rationall% and ob,ectivel% based on merit, fitness and de$ree of responsibilit%, and not on economic status. As this Court summari3ed in #odri*o v. Sandi*anbayanD.G1 "ection F, Article +M-C of the Constitution provides thatD The Con$ress shall provide for the standardi3ation of compensation of $overnment officials and emplo%ees, includin$ those in $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations ith ori$inal charters, ta)in$ into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired for their positions. This provision is not uni*ue to the ./G0 Constitution. The ./0- Constitution, in "ection 1, Article M++ thereof, contains a ver% similar provision pursuant to hich then President Marcos, in the e6ercise of his le$islative po ers, issued Presidential !ecree No. /GF. ;o ever, ith the advent of the ne Constitution, and in compliance there ith, Con$ress enacted R.A. No. 10FG. "ection = thereof declares it the polic% of the "tate :to provide e*ual pa% for substantiall% e*ual or) and to base differences in pa% upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and *ualification re*uirements of the positions.: To $ive life to this polic%, as ell as the constitutional prescription to :@ta)eA into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired: for the positions of $overnment officials and emplo%ees, Con$ress adopted the scheme emplo%ed in P.!. No. /GF for classif%in$ positions ith comparable responsibilities and *ualifications for the purpose of accordin$ such positions similar salaries. This scheme is )no n as the :5rade,: defined in P.!. No. /GF asD +ncludKin$L all classes of positions hich, althou$h different ith respect to )ind or sub,ect matter of or), are sufficientl% e*uivalent as to level of difficult% and responsibilities and level of *ualification re*uirements of the or) to arrant the inclusion of such classes of positions ithin one ran$e of basic compensation. The 5rade is therefore a means of $roupin$ positions :sufficientl% e*uivalent as to level of difficult% and responsibilities and level of *ualification re*uirements of the or): so that the% ma% be lumped to$ether in :one ran$e of basic compensation.: Thus, Con$ress, under "ection G of R.A. No. 10FG, fi6ed the "alar% 5rades of officials holdin$ constitutional positions, as follo s 666 666 6 6 6 Con$ress dele$ated the rest of this tedious tas) @of fi6in$ "alar% 5radesA to the !BM, sub,ect to the standards contained in R.A. No. 10FG, b% authori3in$ the !BM to :determine the officials ho are of e*uivalent ran) to the fore$oin$ officials, here applicable,: and to assi$n them the same "alar% 5rades sub,ect to a set of $uidelines found in said section.

4or positions belo those mentioned under "ection G, "ection / directs the !BM to prepare the :+nde6 of &ccupational "ervices: $uided b% @aA the Benchmar) Position prescribed in "ection /, and @bA the follo in$ factorsD @.A the education and e6perience re*uired to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position> @=A nature and comple6it% of the or) to be performed>

@-A the )ind of supervision received> @EA mental andOor ph%sical strain re*uired in the completion of the @FA nature and e6tent of internal and e6ternal relationships> @1A )ind of supervision e6ercised> @0A decision-ma)in$ responsibilit%> @GA responsibilit% for accurac% of records and reports> @/A accountabilit% for funds, properties and e*uipment> and @.CA hardship, ha3ard and personal ris) involved in the ,ob. Pursuant to such authorit%, the !BM drafted the ./G/ +nde6 of &ccupational "ervices, Position Titles and "alar% 5rades, later revised in .//0. 6 6 6.G0 @Emphasis suppliedA +n vie of the fore$oin$, the statement in the latter portion of the main opinion to the effect that the classification bet een the officers and the ran) and file of the B"P is founded on economic status, and not on the level of difficult% and responsibilit% as ell as the *ualification re*uirements of the or) to be performed, must be considered e6tremel% suspect - a conclusion ithout le$al or factual tether borderin$ on sophistr%. 6n passant, it ma% be observed that the distinction bet een the mana$erial personnel and the ran) and file of the B"P in the Ne Central Ban) Act is similar to the distinction bet een #ustices, #ud$es and those of e*uivalent ,udicial ran) on the one hand and other court personnel on the other hand in R.A. No. /==0..GG +n furtherance of the declared polic% :to $uarantee the independence of the #udiciar% 6 6 6 ensure impartial administration of ,ustice, as ell as an effective and efficient s%stem orth% of public trust and confidence,: .G/ "ection = of R.A. No. /==0 providesD "ec. =. Grant o' Special Allo(ances. - All ,ustices, ,ud$es and all other positionsR in the #udiciar% ith the e*uivalent ran) of ,ustices of the Court of Appeals and ,ud$es of the Re$ional Trial Court as authori3ed under e6istin$ la s shall be $ranted special allo ances e*uivalent to one hundred percent @.CCSA of the basic monthl% salar% specified for their respective salar% $rades under Republic Act No. 10FG, as amended, other ise )no n as the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , to be implemented for a period of four @EA %ears. The $rant of special allo ances shall be implemented uniforml% in such sums or amounts e*uivalent to t ent%five percent @=FSA of the basic salaries of the positions covered hereof. "ubse*uent implementation shall be in such sums and amounts and up to the e6tent onl% that can be supported b% the fundin$ source specified in "ection - hereof. (nder the fore$oin$, personnel ith ,udicial ran) ./C are entitled to the $rant of certain special allo ances hile the other personnel of the ,udiciar% are not. The reason for the difference in treatment ma% be $leaned from the le$islative deliberations./. herein the le$islature, hile ac)no led$in$ the need to au$ment the salaries and emoluments of members of the ,udiciar% in order to attract and retain competent personnel and insulate them from possible outside influence, nevertheless had to ta)e into consideration the limited resources of the $overnment as ell as the primar% aim of the la , and conse*uentl% prioriti3ed those holdin$ ,udicial offices or ith ,udicial ran) over other court personnel. T:e Su70eCuen. !6en'6en. o9 .:e C:&-.e-0 o9 .:e o.:e- GOCC0 &n' GF 0 #/' No. !2.e- .:e Con0./.u./on&2/.$ o9 Se5./on 1* D5E B% operation of the e*ual protection clause, are the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P entitled to e6emption from the Compensation Classification "%stem provided for under the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as a conse*uence of the e6emption of the ran) and file emplo%ees of certain other 5&CCs and 54+s< or)>

Petitioner ar$ues in the affirmative maintainin$ thatD This ;onorable Court ma% ta)e ,udicial notice of the fact that .:e -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 o9 .:e o.:e4o;e-n6en. 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0, such as the 5overnment "ervice +nsurance "%stem @5"+"A, 8and Ban) of the Philippines @8BPA, !evelopment Ban) of the Philippines @!BPA, and the "ocial "ecurit% "%stem @"""A, to$ether ith the officers of such institutions, &-e e=e6,.e' 9-o6 .:e 5o;e-&4e o9 .:e SSL un'e- .:e/-e0,e5./;e 5:&-.e-0 = = = T:u0, </.:/n .:e 52&00 o9 -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 o9 .:e 4o;e-n6en. 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0, .:e -&n?-&n'-9/2e e6,2o$ee0 o9 .:e "SP &-e &20o '/05-/6/n&.e' u,on. ./= @Emphasis suppliedA The charters of the 5&CCsO54+s adverted to b% petitioner, to$ether ith their relevant provisions are as follo sD

@.A R.A. No. 0/C0, hich too) effect on 4ebruar% =-, .//F and amended "ection /C of R.A. -GEE, the A$rarian 8and Reform Code, $ivin$ the Board of !irectors of the 8BP authorit% to approve the ban)9s o n compensation, position classification s%stem and *ualification standardsD "ECT+&N .C. "ection /C of the same Act is hereb% amended to read as follo sD :"ec. /C. Personnel. V The Board of !irectors shall provide for an or$ani3ation and staff of officers and emplo%ees of the Ban) and upon recommendation of the President of the Ban), appoint and fi6 their remunerations and other emoluments, and remove such officers and emplo%eesD Provided, That the Board shall have e6clusive and final authorit% to promote, transfer, assi$n or reassi$n personnel of the Ban), an% provisions of e6istin$ la to the contrar% not ithstandin$. All positions in the Ban) shall be $overned b% a compensation, position classification s%stem and *ualification standards approved b% the Ban)9s Board of !irectors based on a comprehensive ,ob anal%sis and audit of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable ith the prevailin$ compensation plans in the private sector and shall be sub,ect to periodic revie b% the Board no more than once ever% t o @=A %ears ithout pre,udice to %earl% merit revie s or increases based on productivit% and profitabilit%. T:e "&n? 0:&22 .:e-e9o-e 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 e=/0./n4 2&<0, -u2e0 &n' -e4u2&./on0 on 5o6,en0&./on, ,o0/./on 52&00/9/5&./on &n' Cu&2/9/5&./on 0.&n'&-'0. . 0:&22 :o<e;e- en'e&;o- .o 6&?e /.0 0$0.e6 5on9o-6 &0 52o0e2$ &0 ,o00/72e </.: .:e ,-/n5/,2e0 un'e- Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8. The Ban) officers and emplo%ees, includin$ all members of the Board, shall not en$a$e directl% or indirectl% in partisan activities or ta)e part in an% election e6cept to vote. No officer or emplo%ee of the Ban) sub,ect to the Civil "ervice 8a and Re$ulations shall be removed or suspended e6cept for cause as provided b% la .: @Emphasis suppliedA @=A R.A. No. G=G=, the "ocial "ecurit% "%stem Act of .//0, approved on Ma% ., .//0, "ection - @cA of """ emplo%ees from the provisions of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a D "ection -. 6 6 6 @cA The Commission, upon the recommendation of the """ President, shall appoint an actuar% and such other personnel as ma% be deemed necessar%> fi6 their reasonable compensation, allo ances and other benefits, prescribe their duties and establish such methods and procedures as ma% be necessar% to insure the efficient, honest and economical administration of the provisions and purposes of this ActD Provided, ho ever, That the personnel of the """ belo the ran) of 'ice-President shall be appointed b% the """ PresidentD Provided, further, That the personnel appointed b% the """ President, e6cept those belo the ran) of assistant mana$er, shall be sub,ect to the confirmation b% the CommissionD Provided, further, That the personnel of the """ shall be selected onl% from civil service eli$ibles and be sub,ect to civil service rules and re$ulationsD Provided, finall%, T:&. .:e SSS 0:&22 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 .:e ,-o;/0/on0 o9 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8 &n' Re,u72/5 !5. No. 743+. @(nderscorin$ suppliedA @-A R.A. No. G=/., the 5overnment "ervice +nsurance "%stem Act of .//0, approved on Ma% -., .//0, hich empo ers its Board of Trustees of the 5"+" to approve a compensation and position classification s%stem and *ualifications standards for its emplo%eesD "ECT+&N E-. Po ers and 4unctions of the Board of Trustees. V The Board of Trustees shall have the follo in$ po ers and functionsD 666 @dA upon the recommendation of the President and 5eneral Mana$er, to approve the 5"+"9 or$ani3ational and administrative structures and staffin$ pattern, and to establish, fi6, revie , revise and ad,ust the appropriate hich e6empts all

compensation pac)a$e for the officers and the emplo%ees of the 5"+" ith reasonable allo ances, incentives, bonuses, privile$es and other benefits as ma% be necessar% or proper for the effective mana$ement, operation and administration of the 5"+", <:/5: 0:&22 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 Re,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8, o.:e-</0e ?no<n &0 .:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&< and Republic Act No. 0E-C, other ise )no n as the Attrition 8a > 6 6 6 @Emphasis suppliedA @EA R.A. No. GF=-, hich amended the Charter of the !BP on Ma% -., .//0 and e6empted the ban) from the covera$e of the e6istin$ "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a D "ECT+&N 1. "ection .- of the same Charter is hereb% amended to read as follo sD :"EC. .-. &ther &fficers and Emplo%ees. V The Board of !irectors shall provide for an or$ani3ation and staff of officers and emplo%ees of the Ban) and upon recommendation of the President of the Ban), fi6 their remunerations and other emoluments. All positions in the Ban) shall be $overned b% the compensation, position classification s%stem and *ualification standards approved b% the Board of !irectors based on a comprehensive ,ob anal%sis of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable ith the prevailin$ compensation plans in the private sector and shall be sub,ect to periodic revie b% the Board of !irectors once ever% t o @=A %ears, ithout pre,udice to %earl% merit or increases based on the Ban)9s productivit% and profitabilit%. T:e "&n? 0:&22, .:e-e9o-e, 7e e=e6,. 9-o6 e=/0./n4 2&<0, -u2e0, &n' -e4u2&./on0 on 5o6,en0&./on, ,o0/./on 52&00/9/5&./on &n' Cu&2/9/5&./on 0.&n'&-'. T:e "&n? 0:&22 :o<e;e-, en'e&;o- .o 6&?e /.0 0$0.e6 5on9o-6 &0 ,o00/72e </.: .:e ,-/n5/,2e0 un'e- Co6,en0&./on &n' Po0/./on C2&00/9/5&./on !5. o9 1989 DRe,u72/5 !5. No. 67*8, &0 &6en'e'E. No officer or emplo%ee of the Ban) sub,ect to Civil "ervice 8a b% la .: @(nderscorin$ suppliedA shall be dismissed e6cept for cause as provided

4ollo in$ this second line of ar$ument, it appears that petitioner bases its claim to e6emption from the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a not onl% on @.A a direct challen$e to the constitutionalit% of the proviso in "ection .F@cA of The Ne Central Ban) Act, hich e6pressl% places the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P under the covera$e of the former> but also on @=A an indirect assertion that the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P are entitled to benefit from the subse*uent e6emptions of the ran) and file personnel of certain 5&CCsO54+s from the covera$e of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . This second ar$ument, that the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P ma% benefit from subse*uent classifications in other statutes pertainin$ to other 54+ emplo%ees, on the theor% that the former and the latter are identicall% or analo$ousl% situated @i.e. members of the same classA, is not entirel% ne and is apparentl% founded on the fourth re*uisite of the Rational Basis Test - that is, that a reasonable classification must appl% e*uall% to all members of the same class. Thus, in #ubio v PeopleIs Homesite H Housin* %orporation,./- the Court applied "ection 01 of B.P. Bl$. --0, the old 8ocal 5overnment Code, to benefit emplo%ees of the People9s ;omesite Q ;ousin$ Corporation ho had been ille$all% dismissed some =- %ears earlier, even thou$h the latter ere not local $overnment emplo%ees. The Court, spea)in$ throu$h #ustice @later Chief #usticeA Andres Narvasa heldD Batas Pambansa Bilan$ --0, other ise )no n as the 8ocal 5overnment Code, as passed b% the le$islature and became effective on 4ebruar% .C, ./G-. "ection 01 thereof @under Title 4ourD Personnel AdministrationA provides as follo sD "EC. 01. Abolition of Position. V 7hen the position of an official or emplo%ee under the civil service is abolished b% la or ordinance the official or emplo%ee so affected shall be reinstated in another vacant position ithout diminution of salar%. "hould such position not be available, the official or emplo%ee affected shall be $ranted a separation pa% e*uivalent to one month salar% for ever% %ear of service over and above the monetar% privile$es $ranted to officials and emplo%ees under e6istin$ la . To 7e 0u-e, .:e ,-o;/0/on on /.0 9&5e /0 &,,&-en.2$ /n.en'e' 9o- .:e 7ene9/. on2$ o9 o99/5e-0 &n' e6,2o$ee0 /n .:e 2o5&2 ,o2/./5&2 0u7'/;/0/on0. T:e Cou-. :o<e;e- 0ee0 no -e&0on <:$ /. 0:ou2' no. 7e &,,2/e' &0 <e22 .o o.:e- ,e-0onne2 o9 .:e 4o;e-n6en., /n52u'/n4 .:o0e /n .:e Peo,2eB0 Ho6e0/.e &n' Hou0/n4 Co-,o-&./on, <:/5: <&0 .:en 5on0/'e-e' ,&-. o9 .:e C/;/2 Se-;/5e. ! 5on.-&-$ 5on52u0/on <ou2' 6&?e .:e ,-o;/0/on Cue0./on&72e un'e- .:e eCu&2 ,-o.e5./on 52&u0e o9 .:e Con0./.u./on &0 .:e-e &,,e&-0 .o 7e no 0u70.&n./&2 '/0./n5./on 7e.<een 5/;/2 0e-;&n.0 /n .:e 2o5&2 4o;e-n6en. &n' .:o0e /n o.:e- 7-&n5:e0 o9 4o;e-n6en. .o >u0./9$ .:e/- '/0,&-&.e .-e&.6en.. "ince the petitioners are :emplo%ees under the civil service,: the matter of their reinstatement to their former positions at this time should lo$icall% and ,ustl% be $overned b% the above cited statute althou$h enacted man% %ears after the abolition of their positions. And since, too, it ma% reasonabl% be assumed that reinstatement to their former positions is no lon$er possible, or feasible, or even desired or desirable, the petitioners or their heirs must be deemed entitled to receive the separation pa% provided b% said BP Bl$. --0../E @Emphasis suppliedA

So6e "&0/5 P-/n5/,2e0 o9 Le4/02&./;e C2&00/9/5&./on Considerin$ that the thrust of petitioner9s second ar$ument is that its members belon$ to the same class as other 54+ emplo%ees @such that the% are also entitled to e6emption from the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a A, a brief discussion on le$islative classification is in order. As adverted to earlier, classification has been defined as :the $roupin$ of persons or thin$s similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all other in these same particulars.: ./F To this ma% be added the follo in$ observations of #oseph Tussman and #acobus tenBroe) in their influential article ./1 on The E*ual Protection of the 8a s,./0 vizD 7e be$in ith an elementar% propositionD To 'e9/ne & 52&00 /0 0/6,2$ .o 'e0/4n&.e & Cu&2/.$ o5:&-&5.e-/0./5 o- .-&/. o- -e2&./on, o- &n$ 5o67/n&./on o9 .:e0e, .:e ,o00e00/on o9 <:/5:, 7$ &n /n'/;/'u&2, 'e.e-6/ne0 :/0 6e67e-0:/, /n o- /n52u0/on </.:/n .:e 52&00. A le$islature defines a class, or :classifies,: hen it enacts a la appl%in$ to :all aliens ineli$ible for citi3enship,: or :all persons convicted of three felonies,: or :all citi3ens bet een the a$es of ./ and =F: or :forei$n corporations doin$ business ithin the state.: This sense of :classif%: @i.e., :to define a class:A must be distin$uished from the sense in to the act of determinin$ hether an individual is a member of a particular class, that is, possesses the traits hich define the class. 6 6 6 hich :to classif%: refers hether the individual

. /0 &20o e2e6en.&-$ .:&. 6e67e-0:/, /n & 52&00 /0 'e.e-6/ne' 7$ .:e ,o00e00/on o9 .:e .-&/.0 <:/5: 'e9/ne .:&. 52&00. +ndividual R is a member of class A if, and onl% if, R possesses the traits hich define class A. 7hatever the definin$ characteristics of a class ma% be, ever% member of that class ill possess those characteristics Turnin$ no to the reasonableness of le$islative classifications, the cue is to be ta)en from our earlier reference to the re*uirement that those similarl% situated be similarl% treated. ! -e&0on&72e 52&00/9/5&./on /0 one <:/5: /n52u'e0 &22 <:o &-e 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e' &n' none <:o &-e no.. T:e Cue0./on /0, :o<e;e-, <:&. 'oe0 .:&. &67/4uou0 &n' 5-u5/&2 ,:-&0e M0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e'M 6e&nS !n' /n &n0<e-/n4 .:/0 Cue0./on <e 6u0. 9/-0. '/0,o0e o9 .<o e--o-0 /n.o <:/5: .:e Cou-. :&0 0o6e./6e0 9&22en. F/-0., M0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e'M 5&nno. 6e&n 0/6,2$ M0/6/2&- /n .:e ,o00e00/on o9 .:e 52&00/9$/n4 .-&/..M !22 6e67e-0 o9 &n$ 52&00 &-e 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e' /n .:/0 -e0,e5. &n' 5on0eCuen.2$, &n$ 52&00/9/5&./on <:&.0oe;e- <ou2' 7e -e&0on&72e 7$ .:/0 .e0.. 6 6 6 666 T:e 0e5on' e--o- /n .:e /n.e-,-e.&./on o9 .:e 6e&n/n4 o9 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e' &-/0e0 ou. o9 .:e no./on .:&. 0o6e 52&00e0 &-e unn&.u-&2 o- &-./9/5/&2. T:&. /0, & 52&00/9/5&./on /0 0o6e./6e0 :e2' .o 7e un-e&0on&72e /9 /. /n52u'e0 /n'/;/'u&20 <:o 'o no. 7e2on4 .o .:e 0&6e Mn&.u-&2M 52&00. 7e call this an error ithout pausin$ to fi$ht the ancient controvers% about the natural status of classes. All le$islative classifications are artificial in the sense that the% are artifacts, no matter hat the definin$ traits ma% be. And the% are all real enou$h for the purposes of la , hether the% be the class of American citi3ens of #apanese ancestr%, or the class of ma)ers of mar$arine, or the class of stoc)%ards receivin$ more than one hundred head of cattle per da%, or the class of feeble-minded confined to institutions. The issue is not hether, in definin$ a class, the le$islature has carved the universe at a natural ,oint. +f e ant to )no if such classifications are reasonable, it is fruitless to consider hether or not the% correspond to some :natural: $roupin$ or separate those ho naturall% belon$ to$ether. But if e avoid these t o errors, here are e to loo) for the test of similarit% of situation hich determines the reasonableness of a classification< T:e /ne05&,&72e &n0<e- /0 .:&. <e 6u0. 2oo? 7e$on' .:e 52&00/9/5&./on .o .:e ,u-,o0e o9 .:e 2&<. ! -e&0on&72e 52&00/9/5&./on /0 one <:/5: /n52u'e0 &22 ,e-0on0 <:o &-e 0/6/2&-2$ 0/.u&.e' </.: -e0,e5. .o .:e ,u-,o0e o9 .:e 2&<../G @Emphasis and underscorin$ supplied> italics in the ori$inalA Moreover, Tussman and tenBroe) $o on to describe the tas) of the courts in evaluatin$ the reasonableness of a le$islative classificationD S/n5e /. /0 /6,o00/72e .o >u'4e .:e -e&0on&72ene00 o9 & 52&00/9/5&./on </.:ou. -e2&./n4 /. .o .:e ,u-,o0e o9 .:e 2&<, .:e 9/-0. ,:&0e o9 .:e >u'/5/&2 .&0? /0 .:e /'en./9/5&./on o9 .:e 2&<B0 ,u-,o0e. 6 6 6 666

+t is thus evident that the attempt to identif% the purpose of a la - an attempt made mandator% b% the e*ual protection re*uirement - involves the Court in the thornier aspects of ,udicial revie . At best, the Court must uncriticall% and often unrealisticall% accept a le$islative avo al at its face value. 7t orst, it must challen$e le$islative inte$rit% and push be%ond the e6press statement into unconfined realms of inference. ;avin$ accepted or discovered the elusive :purpose: the Court must then, under the discriminator% le$islation doctrine, ma)e a ,ud$ment as to the purit% of le$islative motive and, under substantive e*ual protection, determine the le$itimac% of the end. &nl% after the purpose of the la has thus been discovered and sub,ected to this scrutin% can the Court proceed ith the classification problem. 6 6 6 E6cept hen the class in the la is itself defined b% the mischief Kto be eliminatedL, .:e &00e-./on .:&. &n$ ,&-./5u2&- -e2&./on :o2'0 7e.<een .:e @52&00/9$/n4 .-&/. &n' .:e ,u-,o0eA /0 &n e6,/-/5&2 0.&.e6en.. The mere assertion that a particular relation e6ists does not establish the truth of the assertion. A le$islature ma% assert that all :three-time felons: are :hereditar% criminals: and that all :hereditar% criminals: are :three-time felons.: But hether this is the case is & Cue0./on o9 9&5., no. 9/&.. Con0eCuen.2$, .:e Cou-., /n 'e.e-6/n/n4 .:e &5.u&2 -e2&./on 7e.<een .:e 52&00e0 Ki.e. the classif%in$ trait and the purpose of the la L /0 en4&4e' /n 9&5.-9/n'/n4 o- /n 5-/./5/06 o9 2e4/02&./;e 9&5. 9/n'/n4. Thus the Court is confronted ith a number of alternative formulations of the *uestionD .A hat is the le$islative belief about the relation bet een the classes< and, =A is this belief reasonable< or simpl%, -A hat relation e6ists bet een the t o classes<.// 7ith the fore$oin$ in mind, the relevant *uestion then @as re$ards petitioner9s second line of ar$umentA is hether in fact petitioner9s members and the other 54+ emplo%ees are so similarl% situated as to members of a sin$le class for purposes of compensation and position classification. T:e-e /0 no "&0/0 9o- .:e C2&00/9/5&./on o9 GF E6,2o$ee0 &0 & #/05-e.e C2&00, en./.2e' .o MS,e5/&2 T-e&.6en.M </.: -e0,e5. .o Co6,en0&./on C2&00/9/5&./on 7ithout identif%in$ the le$islative purpose for e6emption from the covera$e of the Compensation Classification "%stem mandated b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , the main opinion concludes that the classif%in$ trait amon$ those e6empted from the covera$e is their status as 54+ emplo%ees. &n this basis, it ould $rant the instant petition upon the assumption that :there e6ist no substantial distinctions so as to differentiate the B"P ran) and file from the other ran) and file of the KotherL 54+s.: The fore$oin$ tacitl% rests on the assumptions that, ith respect to their compensation, position classification and *ualifications standards, @.A the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the B"P to$ether ith the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the 8BP, """, 5"+" and !BP belon$ to a sin$le class> and @=A there are no reasonable distinctions bet een the ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the B"P and the e6empted emplo%ees of the other 5&CCsO54+s. ;o ever, these assumptions are unfounded, and the assertion that :54+s have lon$ been reco$ni3ed as one distinct class, separate from other $overnmental entities: is demonstrabl% false. As previousl% discussed, "ection = of P.!. /GF=CC cited in support of the fore$oin$ proposition has been e6pressl% repealed b% "ection .1 of "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . "ec. .1. Repeal of "pecial "alar% 8a s and Re$ulations. V !22 2&<0, 'e5-ee0, e=e5u./;e o-'e-0, 5o-,o-&.e 5:&-.e-0, &n' o.:e- /00u&n5e0 o- ,&-.0 .:e-eo9, .:&. e=e6,. &4en5/e0 9-o6 .:e 5o;e-&4e o9 .:e S$0.e6, or that authori3e and fi6 position classification, salaries, pa% rates or allo ances of specified positions, or $roups of officials and emplo%ees or of a$encies, hich are inconsistent ith the "%stem, /n52u'/n4 .:e ,-o;/0o un'e- Se5./on 2, and "ection .1 o9 P-e0/'en./&2 #e5-ee No. 98* &-e :e-e7$ -e,e&2e'. @Emphasis suppliedA Moreover, neither the te6t nor the le$islative record of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a manifests the intent to provide :favored treatment: for 5&CCs and 54+s. Thus, "ection - @bA, erroneousl% cited b% the main opinion, provides for the $eneral principle that compensation for all $overnment personnel, hether emplo%ed in a 5&CCO54+ or not, should $enerall% be comparable ith that in the private sector, to itD "ECT+&N -. 5eneral Provisions. V The follo in$ principles shall $overn the Compensation and Position Classification "%stem of the 5overnmentD @aA All $overnment personnel shall be paid ,ust and e*uitable a$es> and hile pa% distinctions must necessaril% e6ist in )eepin$ ith or) distinctions, the ratio of compensation for those occup%in$ hi$her ran)s to those at lo er ran)s should be maintained at e*uitable levels, $ivin$ due consideration to hi$her percenta$e of increases to lo er level positions and lo er percenta$e increases to hi$her level positions>

@bA "&0/5 5o6,en0&./on 9o- &22 ,e-0onne2 /n .:e 4o;e-n6en. &n' 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0 0:&22 4ene-&22$ 7e 5o6,&-&72e </.: .:o0e /n .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o'o/n4 5o6,&-&72e <o-?, &n' 6u0. 7e /n &55o-'&n5e </.: ,-e;&/2/n4 2&<0 on 6/n/6u6 <&4e0K @cA The total compensation provided for $overnment personnel must be maintained at a reasonable level in proportion to the national bud$et> @dA A revie of $overnment compensation rates, ta)in$ into account possible erosion in purchasin$ po er due to inflation and other factors, shall be conducted periodicall%. @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA +ndeed, "ection E of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a e6pressl% provides the $eneral rule that 54+s, li)e other 5&CCs and all other members of the civil service, are ithin the covera$e of the la D "ECT+&N E. Covera$e. V T:e Co6,en0&./on &n' Po0/./on C2&00/9/5&./on S$0.e6 :e-e/n ,-o;/'e' 0:&22 &,,2$ .o &22 ,o0/./on0, &,,o/n./;e o- e2e5./;e, on 9u22 o- ,&-.-./6e 7&0/0, no< e=/0./n4 o- :e-e&9.e5-e&.e' /n .:e 4o;e-n6en., /n52u'/n4 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' 4o;e-n6en. 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0. The term :$overnment: refers to the E6ecutive, the 8e$islative and the #udicial Branches and the Constitutional Commissions and shall include all, but shall not be limited to, departments, bureaus, offices, boards, commissions, courts, tribunals, councils, authorities, administrations, centers, institutes, state colle$es and universities, local $overnment units, and the armed forces. T:e .e-6 M4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0M 0:&22 /n52u'e &22 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0 o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 7$ .:e N&./on&2 Go;e-n6en., <:e.:e- 0u5: 5o-,o-&./on0 &n' 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0 ,e-9o-6 4o;e-n6en.&2 o- ,-o,-/e.&-$ 9un5./on0. @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA 4urthermore, a readin$ of the deliberations on hat eventuall% became the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a leaves no doubt that one of its $oals as to provide for a common compensation s%stem for all so that the star) disparities in pa% bet een emplo%ees of the 5&CCs and 54+s and other $overnment emplo%ees ould be minimi3ed if not eliminated, as the follo in$ e6cerpt plainl% sho sD Sen&.o- Gu/n4on&. Mrs. President, the PNB and !BP transferred nonperformin$ assets and liabilities to the National 5overnment in the sum of over P.=C billion in ./G1. The% are reportedl% havin$ profits of, + thin) over P. billion. The% have not declared dividends so that the National 5overnment is the one that absorbed the indebtedness. The financial institutions are en,o%in$ clean boo)s and increased profits. ?et, emplo%ees of these institutions are receivin$ far more, hereas, the emplo%ees of the National 5overnment hich absorbed the nonperformin$ assets are receivin$ less. And the Central Ban) is dumpin$ into the National 5overnment liabilities of more than PF billion... Sen&.o- Ro6u2o. Eventuall% P-E billion. Sen&.o- Gu/n4on&. And, %et, the ,anitor in the Central Ban) is receivin$ a hi$her rate of salar% than the cler) or even the minor e6ecutives in some National 5overnment a$encies and bureaus. This does not seem ,ust and violates the e*ual pa% for e*ual or) principle hich the distin$uished "ponsor has nobl% established in the polic% statement.=C. Thus, durin$ the Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations, the sentiment as that e6emptions from the $eneral Compensation Classification "%stem applicable to all $overnment emplo%ees ould be limited onl% to )e% positions in order not to lose these personnel to the private sector. A provision as moreover inserted empo erin$ the President to, in trul% e6ceptional cases, approve hi$her compensation, e6ceedin$ "alar% 5rade -C, to the chairman, president, $eneral man$er, and the board of directors of $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations and financial institutionsD =C= SEC. C!R!GUE. !5.u&22$, <e &-e -eCue0./n4 .:&. 4o;e-n6en. 5o-,o-&./on0 .:&. &-e ,e-9o-6/n4 ,-o,-/e.&-$ 9un5./on0 &n' .:e-e9o-e 5o6,e./n4 </.: .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o- 0:ou2' e;o2;e & 0&2&-$ 0.-u5.u-e /n -e0,e5. .o ?e$ ,o0/./on0. There are some positions in ban)in$, for e6ample, that are not present in the ordinar% $overnment offices. + can understand for e6ample, if the $overnment corporation, li)e N+A, it is performin$ a $overnmental function. + believe it is not strictl% a proprietar% function - N+A and NA7A"A. But there are $overnment corporations that are en$a$ed in ver% obviousl% proprietar% t%pe of function. 4or e6ample, transportation companies of the $overnment> ban)in$ institution> insurance functions. 9ee2 .:&. .:e$ :&;e .o 7e 5o6,e././;e </.: .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o-, no. </.: -e0,e5. .o &22 ,o0/./on0. L/?e, 9o- e=&6,2e, >&n/.o- o- 6e00en4e-, 7e5&u0e .:e-e /0 no '&n4e- o9 2o0/n4 .:/0 ou. .o .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o-K $ou 5&n &2<&$0 4e. .:/0. "u. .:e-e &-e 5e-.&/n ?e$ ,o0/./on - e;en .:e ?e$ 6en o9 .:e 4o;e-n6en. 5o-,o-&./on0 ,e-9o-6/n4 ,-o,-/e.&-$ 9un5./on0, 0o6e./6e0 .:e$ 4o. - .:e 6&-?e. &n&2$0., 5o66o'/./e0 &n&2$0. &n' 0o on - .:e$ :&;e 5e-.&/n 9un5./on0 .:&. &-e no. no-6&2 /n 4o;e-n6en., &n' /. /0 ;e-$ '/99/5u2. .o 4e. .:/0 0,e5/&2/0.0.

"o, + as onderin$ if e could provide a provision that $overnment corporations en$a$ed in proprietar% activities, that positions that are peculiar to them should be allo ed a different compensation structure. THE CH! RM!N DRe,. !n'&$&E. But that can be solved, rate.=C- @(nderscorin$ suppliedA 666 THE CH! RM!N DSen. R&0u2E. Mr. Chairman, + am ,ust onderin$ if perhaps institutions,: not ,ust :$overnment-o ned or controlled corporation.: SEC. C!R!GUE. + thin) it is broad enou$h, Madam "enator. THE CH! RM!N DSen. R&0u2E. Broad enou$h< SEC. C!R!GUE. ?es. THE CH! RM!N DRe,. !n'&$&E. +t covers ever%bod%. Ever%bod% is covered that a%. e should also include :financial hen implemented, %ou ,ust assi$n him a hi$her

REP. L!GU#!. Mr. Chairman, if e $o bac) to the amendment of "enator Rasul, + thin) hat she has put there is that it is the President9s discretion, because in the ;ouse version, it is an across-the-board-thin$. There is no mention of the President9s discretion here. "o ma%be e should accept the amendment of "enator Rasul that :it is the President ho shall decide.: +n other ords, hen she said :the President ma%,: it is the discretion of the President rather than automatic. SEC.C!R!GUE. ?es. 8i)e for e6ample, there are, + thin), *uite a number of 'ice Presidents that reall% are also important because it is ver% difficult if the President ill have a salar% that is so a%, a% above the 'ice Presidents. And usuall% the 'ice Presidents are the ones that support, that provided team or) for the President. "ometimes there are certain ?e$ ,eo,2e, li)e mone% mar)et specialists that are difficult to )eep because the% easil% transfer to another compan%. 666 SEC. C!R!GUE. +n the end, ?our ;onor, it ma% be more e6pensive to limit the salaries of these )ind of people because if %ou don9t $et $ood people, the viabilit% of the corporation, the profitabilit% $oes do n. "o %ou actuall%, in the end, lose more. ?ou don9t see it because it is ,ust loss of revenue, in lac) of profitabilit%, but actuall% it costs %ou more. And that is the problem of this )ind of... =CE @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA 7hat is more, the e6emption of the personnel of the "ecurities and E6chan$e Commission @"ECA: from the covera$e of the Compensation Classification "%stem, as pointed out in the main opinion, =CF onl% underscores the error in maintainin$ emplo%ment in a 54+ as the definin$ trait of emplo%ees e6empted from said "%stem. +n actual fact, the emplo%ees of a number of 54+s remain ithin the covera$e of the Compensation Classification "%stem,=C1 hile emplo%ees of several other 5&CCs=C0 and $overnment a$encies=CG have been e6empted from the same. ;ence, 54+ emplo%ment, as advocated b% the main opinion, cannot be reasonabl% considered to be the basis for e6emption for the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . Curiousl%, ho could the e6emption of the "EC personnel :add insult to petitioner9s in,ur%: hen, $oin$ b% hat the main opinion holds to be the definin$ characteristic of the class to hich petitioner9s members belon$ - that is, emplo%ment in a 54+, the t o $roups of emplo%ees ould obviousl% not be comparable< Me-e E6,2o$6en. /n & GOCC o- GF /0 no. #e.e-6/n&./;e o9 E=e6,./on 9-o6 .:e S&2&-$ S.&n'&-'/H&./on L&< More importantl%, an e6amination of the le$islative proceedin$s leadin$ up to the amendment of the charters of the 5&CCs and 54+s e6empted from the covera$e of the Compensation Classification "%stem discloses that mere emplo%ment in a 54+ as not the decisive characteristic hich prompted the le$islature to provide for such e6emption. Thus, Republic Act No. -GEE @R.A. No. -GEEA other ise )no n as the :A$rarian Reform Code: created the 8and Ban) hich is mandated to be the financin$ arm of the A$rarian Reform Pro$ram of the $overnment. More specificall%, the 8and Ban) is tas)ed to be the primar% $overnment a$enc% in the mobili3ation and the provision of credit to the small farmers and fisher fol) sector in their various economic activities such as production, processin$, stora$e, transport and the

mar)etin$ of farm produce. "ince its inception, the 8and Ban) has transformed into a universal ban), see)in$ to continuall% fortif% the a$ricultural sector b% deliverin$ countr%side credit and support services. +n order to continue performin$ its mandate of providin$ non-traditional ban)in$ services and developmental assistance to farmers and fishermen, Con$ress sa the need to stren$then the ban) b% introducin$ amendments to R.A. No. -GEE. Republic Act No. 0/C0 @R.A. No. 0/C0A amended R.A. No. -GEE b% stren$thenin$ the 8and Ban) not onl% for the purpose of implementin$ a$rarian reform, but also to ma)e it more competitive ith forei$n ban)s. =C/ &ne of the salient points of R.A. No. 0/C0 is the e6emption of all of the 8and Ban)9s personnel from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , authori3in$ at the same time its board of directors to provide compensation, position classification s%stem and *ualification standards. The discussion of the ;ouse of Representatives9 Committee on Ban)s and 4inancial +ntermediaries reveals the surroundin$ circumstances then prevailin$, hich prompted Con$ress to e6empt the 8and Ban) from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . The Committee li)e ise reco$ni3ed theR role of the ran) and file emplo%ees in fulfillin$ its uni*ue tas) of providin$ credit to support the a$ricultural sector. MR. GOLE). Madam "pea)er, the points of the distin$uished sponsor are ver% ell ta)en. But hat + ould li)e to emphasi3e is that the 8and Ban) as alread% stated, is not ,ust almost uni*ue, it is uni*ue. +t cannot be li)ened to a conventional commercial ban) even in the case of the Philippine National Ban) here its emplo%ees can ver% easil% move from one ban) to another. An emplo%ee, an avera$e emplo%ee in the Philippine National Ban) can easil% transfer to a private commercial ban) and vice-versa. So /n 9&5. <e &-e </.ne00/n4 &26o0. on & '&/2$ 7&0/0 .:e0e ,e-/o'/5 .-&n09e-0, ,/-&5$ o9 e=e5u./;e0, e6,2o$ee0 9-o6 one 5o66e-5/&2 7&n? .o &no.:e-. Ho<e;e-, /n .:e 5&0e o9 .:e L&n' "&n? ,-e5/0e2$ 7e5&u0e o9 /.0 ;e-$ un/Cue o,e-&./on0, .:e ;e-$ 2/9e o9 .:e ;/&7/2/.$ o9 .:e L&n' "&n? o9 .:e P:/2/,,/ne0 'e,en'0 'e5/0/;e2$ &n' 5-/./5&22$ on /.0 5o-e 4-ou,, <:/5: /n .:/0 ,&-./5u2&- 5&0e <ou2' 7e .:e -&n? &n' 9/2e, .:e .e5:n/5&2 e6,2o$ee 7e2o< .:e 2e;e2 o9 6&n&4e-0. T:e$ &-e no. 0u70./.u.&72e &. &22. T:e$ &-e ;e-$ 5-/./5&2. And as such, the position of this Representation, Madam "pea)er, ?our ;onor, is that that critical role $ives them the importance as ell as the inherent ri$ht to be represented in the hi$hest polic% ma)in$ bod% of the ban). =.C @Emphasis suppliedA 666 MR. !POSTOL. No , ma% + )no and position classification< MR. FUENTE"ELL!. Are MR. !POSTOL. ?es. MR. FUENTE"ELL!. T:e ,-e0en. 5o6,en0&./on ,&5?&4e o9 .:e e6,2o$ee0 o9 .:e 7&n? &-e no 2on4e5o6,e././;e </.: .:e 7&n?/n4 /n'u0.-$. n 9&5., .:e .u-no;e- o9 7&n? ,e-0onne2 /0 5on5e-ne', .:/n? .:e$ :&' & .u-no;e- o9 6o-e .:&n 127 -&n? &n' 9/2e &n' 6o-e .:&n 43 o- *+ o99/5e- 2e;e2. 4or the reason that the present compensation throu$h ban) officers and personnel are no lon$er competitive ith the other ban)s despite the fact that there is a provision in our Constitution and this is sanctioned b% e6istin$ provisions of the Civil "ervice, that e ma enact la s to ma)e the position classification of certain sectors in the $overnment comparable ith the same industr%. That is the reason h%... MR. !POSTOL. +s it not that the compensation of officials and emplo%ees of the 8and Ban) must be similar or comparable to the salaries and compensation of $overnment ban)s or financial institutions< MR. FUENTE"ELL!. ?es. +n fact, the Philippine National Ban) has a better financial compensation pac)a$e compared to the 8and Ban). MR. !POSTOL. ?es, it should and it must because PNB is alread% privati3ed, 8and Ban) is not %et. MR. FUENTE"ELL!. Not %et, %our ;onor. MR. !POSTOL. +f the compensation pac)a$e of the emplo%ees of 8and Ban) should be similar to PNB, then not privati3e so that 8and Ban) ill be e6empted from this... h% e no h% the emplo%ees of 8and Ban) should be e6empted from the compensation

in "ection G0, %our ;onor<

MR. FUENTE"ELL!. 7ell, as + said, %our ;onor, in due time, e can $o into that aspect of privati3ation. 7e are not closin$ our e%es to that possibilit%. But for the moment that the ban) is still tas)ed ith numerous problems, particularl% on a$rarian reform, and for as lon$ as the ban) has not been able to perform its ma,or tas) in helpin$ the $overnment provide the necessar% mechanisms to solve and address the problems of a$rarian reform, then e cannot tal) about privati3ation %et. Because the function of the ban) is not purel% for profit

orientation, %our ;onor. 7hatever profits are $enerated under the commercial ban)in$ transactions are channeled to the a$rarian sector, hich is a losin$ proposition actuall%. =.. @Emphasis suppliedA 8i)e the 8and Ban), the !evelopment Ban) of the Philippines @!BPA, the countr%9s premier development ban), as also e6empt from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . Republic Act No. GF=- @RA GF=-A amended E6ecutive &rder No. G. other ise )no n as the :./G1 Revised Charter of the !evelopment Ban) of the Philippines: to enable !BP to effectivel% contribute to the nation9s attainment of its socio-economic ob,ectives and fill the $aps left b% the private sector hich mi$ht be un illin$ or unprepared to ta)e on critical pro,ects and pro$rams. The bottom line of this bill hich see)s to amend the e6istin$ charter of the !evelopment Ban) of the Philippines is to enable the !BP as the countr%9s premier development ban) to effectivel% contribute to the nation9s attainment of its socio-economic ob,ectives, such as the alleviation of povert%, creation of emplo%ment opportunities, and provision of basic needs such as food, shelter, health and education. 5iven the present state of financial intermediation and capital mar)ets in the Philippines, economic activities and pro,ects still remain hich private financial institutions ma% not be illin$ to finance because of the ris)s involves. And even if some of these private institutions are illin$ to do so, the% ma% not have the capabilit% to assist such pro,ects and activities. !evelopment lendin$ is much more than simpl% providin$ medium to lon$term funds to economicall% viable pro,ects. The proposed !BP charter amendment ill help remodel !BP in the financial communit% as a predominantl% development ban) that or)s closel% ith individuals, institutions and associations hich can provide resources and other t%pes of assistance to pro,ects ith clearl%-defined development impact. =.= +n order to achieve !BP9s vision as the countr%9s premier development ban) in a rapidl% $ro in$ economic environment, the le$islature sou$ht to @.A increase the authori3ed capital of !BP from PF billion to P.C billion> and @=A restructure !BP9s or$ani3ation into one hich is mar)et-responsive, product focused, hori3ontall% ali$ned, and ith a lean, hi$hl% motivated or) force b% removin$ the !BP from the covera$e of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . The !BP9s e6emption from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as ,ustified b% the fact that it is an institution en$a$ed in development activities hich should be $iven the same opportunities as the private sector to compete. =.The e6emption from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a pension funds such as the """ and the 5"+". does not onl% involve ban)s but $overnment entities that mana$e

Republic Act No. ..1. @R.A. No. ..1.A established the """ pursuant to a state polic% of providin$ meanin$ful protection to members and their beneficiaries a$ainst the ha3ards of disabilit%, sic)ness, maternit%, old a$e, death, and other contin$encies, resultin$ in loss of income or financial burden. Republic Act No. G=G= amended R.A. No. ..1. b% providin$ for better benefit pac)a$es, e6pansion of covera$e, fle6ibilit% in investments, stiffer penalties for violators of the la , condonation of penalties of delin*uent emplo%ers and the establishment of a voluntar% provident fund for members. The fund that the """ administers comes from the compulsor% remittances of the emplo%er on behalf of his emplo%ees. The ;ouse of Representatives noted that the fund in .//1 amounted F.F billion dollars, the sheer enormit% of hich necessitated that it be e6empt from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a in order for it to attract *ualit% personnel to ensure that the funds ill not be mismana$ed, abused or dissipated due to the ne$li$ence of its personnel. Moreover, the """, li)e the 8and Ban) and the !BP, as facin$ a massive e6odus of its personnel ho ere mi$ratin$ to $reener pastures. MR. (!LENC !. 6 6 6 No , the other la refers to the la on salar% standardi3ation. !4&/n, <e &-e /n & 0/.u&./on <:e-e <e &-e 5o6,e./n4 9o- ,e-0onne2 </.: .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o-, e0,e5/&22$ .:e 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0. 3e 5o6,e.e </.: 7&n?0, <e 5o6,e.e </.: /n0u-&n5e 5o6,&n/e0 9o- ,eo,2e. So <:&. :&,,en0 /n;&-/&72$ /0 <e 2o0. ou- ,eo,2e &9.e- <e :&;e .-&/ne' .:e6, &9.e- .:e$ :&;e ,-o;en .:e60e2;e0 </.: & .-&5? -e5o-', </.: .:e ;e-$ 2o< ,&$ .:&. /0 7e/n4 4/;en .o ou- ,eo,2e. 3e 7e2/e;e .:&. </.: .:e 6&4n/.u'e o9 .:e &55oun.&7/2/.$ .:&. <e :&;e, D3e &-e &55oun.&72e 9o- *.* 7/22/on 'o22&-0, 0o6e 132 6/22/on ,e0o0E &:, <e .:/n? .:&. <e 'e0e-;e .:e Cu&2/.$ o9 ,eo,2e .o en0u-e .:&. .:e0e 9un'0...&n' .:e ,&$ ou. 7$ .:e 7/22/on0 o9 ,e0o0 /n .e-60 o9 7ene9/.0 &n' <e 5o22e5. 7$ .:e 7/22/on0 o9 ,e0o0, <e 7e2/e;e .:&. .:e 6&4n/.u'e o9 6one$ &n' &55oun.&7/2/.$ <e :&;e /0 e;en :/4:e.:&n .:&. o9 .:e 2o5&2 9/n&n5/&2 /n0./.u./on0. And the pa%, for e6ample, of the Administrator is similar to a small branch in a ban). "o, + don9t thin) our pa% ill be ver% competitive but certainl% it9s too lo considerin$ the accountabilit% that is on the shoulder of the emplo%ees. +f e end up ith poor *ualit% of personnel, hat ould happen is these funds could be mismana$ed, abused or ,ust out of pure ne$li$ence could be dissipated. HON. P!# LL!. Mr. Chairman. THE CH! RM!N. Con$ressman Padilla. HON. P!# LL!. 7ith the "tandardi3ation 8a , ho Administrator< can e resolve that problem ,ust mentioned b% the

MR. (!LENC !. 7hat ill happen, "ir, is that e ill as) outside assistance to or) out a salar% structure that ould be modest but at the same time at least ma)e it more difficult @sicA that ill attract ne people, ne blood to the "%stem - *ualit% personnel, and ill also help ma)e it a bit more difficult for private sector to pirate from the institution.=.E @Emphasis suppliedA As the """ e6ercises the same functions as the 5"+" - the handlin$ of sensitive and important funds - the 5"+"9 e6emption from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as easil% ,ustifiable, vizD HON. TU!)ON. 666 No<, .:e GS S &n' .:e SSS, .:e$ &-e 6o-e o- 2e00 ,e-9o-6/n4 .:e 0&6e 9un5./on0. "o + am as)in$ hether in the proposed amendments on the charter of the 5"+" the% also have similar proposal, because if + still recall, there as a time hen the 5"+" emplo%ees ere the env% - not the """ because the """ has never been the env% of $overnment emplo%ees because the% reall% never have been paid ver% $ood salaries. V There as a time hen the 5"+" as the env% of other $overnment emplo%ees because the% had fat bonuses, the% had *uarterl% bonus, the% had mid-%ear bonus, the% had - months bonus, Christmas bonus and their salaries ere ver% much hi$her than their counterparts in the $overnment and the% are sa%in$, :B% $oll%, the 5"+", the% are onl% usin$ the funds of the $overnment emplo%ees and %et the% are receivin$ fat salaries from the contributions of the $overnment emplo%ees. That as one of the complaints + as hearin$ at that time - + as still 4irst ?ear Colle$e -, so the ne6t time + reali3ed, all these fat salaries of the Central Ban)... Central Ban) as also the env% of the other $overnment emplo%ees, PNB, but """ has never been noted to be pa%in$ fat salaries that ill be sufficient to attract ell *ualified emplo%ees from the other sectors. "o, the reason for m% *uestion is that, if e $rant """, e have also to $rant 5"+" on the rationale that the% are both performin$ the same functions.=.F @Emphasis suppliedA +n sum, the basis for the e6emption of certain emplo%ees of 5&CCs or 54+s from the covera$e of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a rests not on the mere fact that the% are emplo%ees of 5&CCs or 54+s, but on a polic% determination b% the le$islature that such e6emption is needed to fulfill the mandate of the institution concerned considerin$, amon$ others, thatD @.A the 5&CC or 54+ is essentiall% proprietar% in character> @=A the 5&CC or 54+ is in direct competition ith their counterparts in the private sector, not onl% in terms of the provision of $oods or services, but also in terms of hirin$ and retainin$ competent personnel> and @-A the 5&CC or 54+ are or ere e6periencin$ difficulties fillin$ up plantilla positions ith competent personnel andOor retainin$ these personnel. The need for and the scope of e6emption necessaril% varies ith the particular circumstances of each institution, and the correspondin$ variance in the benefits received b% the emplo%ees is merel% incidental. T:e-e &-e -e&2 '/99e-en5e0 7e.<een .:e R&n? J F/2e o9 .:e "SP &n' .:e E=e6,.e' R&n? J F/2e E6,2o$ee0 o9 .:e o.:e- GOCC0IGF 0 There can be no doubt that the emplo%ees of the B"P share a common attribute ith the emplo%ees of the 8BP, """, 5"+" and !BP in that all are emplo%ees of 5&CCs performin$ fiduciar% functions. +t ma% also be reasonable to assume that B"P emplo%ees ith "5 ./ and belo perform functions analo$ous to those carried out b% emplo%ees of the other 5&CCs ith the correspondin$ salar% $rades. Nonetheless, these similarities alone are not sufficient to support the conclusion that ran)-and-file emplo%ees of the B"P ma% be lumped to$ether ith similar emplo%ees of the other 5&CCs for purposes of compensation, position classification and *ualifications standards. The fact that certain persons have some attributes in common does not automaticall% ma)e them members of the same class ith respect to a le$islative classification. Thus, in Jo)nson, et al. v. #obison, et al,.,=.1 involvin$ the alle$ed violation of a conscientious ob,ector9s ri$ht to e*ual protection, the (.". "upreme Court had occasion to observeD &f course, merel% labelin$ the class of beneficiaries under the Act as those havin$ served on active dut% in the Armed "ervices cannot rationali3e a statutor% discrimination a$ainst conscientious ob,ectors ho have performed alternative civilian service, if, in fact, the lives of the latter ere e*uall% disrupted and e*uall% in need of read,ustment. The !istrict Court found that militar% veterans and alternative service performers share the characteristic durin$ their respective service careers of :inabilit% to pursue the educational and economic ob,ectives that persons not sub,ect to the draft la could pursue.: But this findin$ of similarit% i$nores that a common characteristic shared b% beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries ali)e, is not sufficient to invalidate a statute <:en o.:e- 5:&-&5.e-/0./50 ,e5u2/&- .o on2$ one 4-ou, -&./on&22$ e=,2&/n .:e 0.&.u.eB0 '/99e-en. .-e&.6en. o9 .:e .<o 4-ou,0. Con$ress e6pressl% reco$ni3ed that si$nificant differences e6ist bet een militar% service veterans and alternative service performers, particularl% in respect of the Act9s purpose to provide benefits to assist in read,ustin$ to civilian life. These differences :afford the basis for a different treatment ithin a constitutional frame or).:=.0 @(nderscorin$ and emphasis supplied> citations omittedA +ndeed, from the fore$oin$ e6amination of the le$islative records of the amended charters of the e6empt 5&CCs and 54+s, the follo in$ real and material differences are readil% manifestD 4irst, unli)e the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+", the B"P, in particular the Central Monetar% Authorit%, =.G performs a primaril% $overnment function, not a proprietar% or business function. +n this respect it is more similar to the other $overnment a$encies involved in the mana$ement of the econom%, such as the National Economic !evelopment Authorit% @NE!AA, than a commercial ban).

"econd, hile the importance of its functions is undoubted, the B"P, unli)e the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+", is not sub,ect to cut throat competition or the pressures of either the financial or ,ob mar)ets. Third, there is no indication in the record that the B"P, unli)e the 8BP, !BP, """ and 5"+", is e6periencin$ difficult% in fillin$ up or maintainin$ competent personnel in the positions ith "5 ./ and belo . T:e %ue0./one' )roviso C&nno. 7e Con0/'e-e' O,,-e00/;e o- #/05-/6/n&.o-$ /n .0 6,2e6en.&./on 5iven the factual basis for the classification bet een e6empt and non-e6empt emplo%ees @ i.e. real distinctions as to the proprietar% or $overnmental character of the 5&CCO54+, competition ith the private sector, and difficult% in attractin$ and maintainin$ competent personnelA and the reasonable relationship of this classification to the attainment of the ob,ectives of the la s involved, the *uestioned proviso cannot be considered oppressive or discriminator% in its implementation. "i$nificantl%, neither the petitioner nor the main opinion demonstrates hat in,uries petitioner9s members have sustained as a result of the proviso in "ection .F @cA of The Ne Central Ban) Act, hether or not the same is read to$ether ith subse*uent le$islative enactments. This is unsurprisin$ for ho could a provision hich places the B"P ran) and file at par ith all other $overnment emplo%ees in terms of compensation and position classification be considered oppressive or discriminator%< Moreover, Con$ressional records sho that ;ouse Bill .=- has been filed ith the present Thirteenth Con$ress =./ see)in$ to amend The Ne Central Ban) Act b%, amon$ other thin$s, e6emptin$ all positions in the B"P from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . Thus, it cannot be said that Con$ress has closed its mind to all possibilit% of amendin$ the Ne Central Ban) Act to provide for the e6emption of the B"P ran) and file from the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . +n fine, ,ud$ed under the Rational Basis Test, the classification in "ection .F @cA of the Ne Central Ban) Act complies ith the re*uirements of the e*ual protection clause, even ta)en to$ether ith the subse*uent amendments of the charters of the other 5&CCs and 54+s. Pe././one-B0 Me67e-0B Re6e'$ /0 </.: Con4-e00 &n' No. 3/.: T:e Cou-.0 7hile the main opinion ac)no led$es the propriet% of ,udicial restraint :under most circumstances: hen decidin$ *uestions of constitutionalit%, in reco$nition of the :broad discretion $iven to Con$ress in e6ercisin$ its le$islative po er,: it nevertheless advocates active intervention ith respect to the e6emption of the B"P ran) and file emplo%ees from the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . Considerin$, ho ever, that the record fails to sho @.A that the statutor% provision in *uestion affects either a fundamental ri$ht or a suspect class, and, more importantl%, @=A that the classification contained therein as completel% bereft of an% possible rational and real basis, it ould appear that ,udicial restraint is not merel% preferred but is in fact mandator%, lest this Court stra% from its function of ad,udication and trespass into the realm of le$islation. To be sure, inasmuch as e6emption from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a re*uires a factuall% $rounded polic% determination b% the le$islature that such e6emption is necessar% and desirable for a $overnment a$enc% or 5&CC to accomplish its purpose, the appropriate remed% of petitioner is ith Con$ress and not ith the courts. As the branch of $overnment entrusted ith the plenar% po er to ma)e and amend la s, ==C it is ell ithin the po ers of Con$ress to $rant e6ceptions to, or to amend here necessar%, the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , here the public $ood so re*uires. At the same time, in line ith its dut% to determine the proper allocation of po ers bet een the several departments, ==. this Court is naturall% hesitant to intrude too readil% into the domain of another co-e*ual branch of $overnment here the absence of reason and the vice of arbitrariness are not clearl% and unmista)abl% established. The contention in the main opinion that herein petitioner represents the :politicall% po erless,: and therefore should not be compelled to see) a political solution, rin$s hollo . 4irst, as pointed out b% the (.". "upreme Court in %ity o' %leburne $eFas v. %leburne :ivin* %enter,=== :KaLn% minorit% can be said to be po erless to assert direct control over the le$islature, but if that ere a criterion for hi$her level scrutin% b% the courts, much economic and social le$islation ould no be suspect.: =="econd, there is nothin$ of record hich ould e6plain h% the ran) and file emplo%ees of the B"P in particular should be considered more :po erless: than the ran) and file emplo%ees of the other 5&CCs and 54+s, particularl% those to hom Con$ress has $ranted e6emption.

Third, as alread% mentioned, ;ouse Bill .=-, providin$ for, amon$ others, the e6emption of all B"P emplo%ees from the covera$e of the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a is alread% pendin$ in Con$ress. Thus, it ould seem that the petitioner and its members are not ithout an% support from ithin that le$islative bod%. Moreover, in vie of the ti$ht fiscal and bud$etar% situation confrontin$ the national $overnment, both the e6ecutive and le$islative branches of the $overnment are activel% reassessin$ the statutes hich have e6empted certain 5&CCs and 54+s from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a , as reported in a number of ne spapers of $eneral circulation. ==E Thus, in line ith the austerit% pro$ram set under Administrative &rder .-C issued b% the President on Au$ust -., =CCE, the !epartment of Bud$et and Mana$ement is revie in$ the pa% pac)a$es of .,.=1 5&CCs and their subsidiaries, ==F particularl% those hich have been e6empted from the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a ,==1 to brin$ their salaries at par ith national a$encies.==0 Additionall%, the !epartment of Bud$et has moved for the removal of all the e6emptions of the 5&CCs from the "alar% "tandardi3ation la and the slashin$ of salaries of some 5&CC officials to help ease the $overnment9s financial problems. ==G There have also been su$$estions to shift to a performance-based compensation structure, ==/ or to amend the charters of the 5&CCs e6empted from the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a to allo the President to set limits on the compensation =-C received b% their personnel. Bud$et "ecretar% Emilia Boncodin has also disclosed that the President had mandated :a cut in pa% of members of the board and officers of 5&CCs that are not competin$ ith the private sector,: addin$ that those ho :dKoL not compete ith the private sector ould have to observe the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a .: =-. To$ether ith these developments, ;ouse Ma,orit% 8eader Prospero No$rales has called on Con$ress to step in and institute amendments to e6istin$ charters of 54+9s and 5&CCs =-= hich have been e6empted from the Compensation Classification "%stem of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a > and, thereafter, pass a la standardi3in$ the salaries of 5&CC and 54+ emplo%ees and e6ecutives.=-- &ther members of the ;ouse of Representatives, particularl% the part%-list la ma)ers, have su$$ested a cut on the salar% schemes of 5&CC e6ecutives, ith the funds saved to be channeled to a :special fund: for $ivin$ lo l% paid $overnment emplo%ees a salar% increase. =-E 7hether an% of the fore$oin$ measures ill actuall% be implemented b% the Con$ress still remains to be seen. ;o ever, hat is important is that Con$ress is activel% revie in$ the policies concernin$ 5&CCs and 54+s ith respect to the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . ;ence, for this Court to intervene no , hen no intervention is called for, ould be to prematurel% curtail the public debate on the issue of compensation of the emplo%ees of the 5&CCs and 54+s, and effectivel% substitute this Court9s polic% ,ud$ments for those of the le$islature, ith hom the :po er of the purse: is constitutionall% lod$ed. "uch ould not onl% constitute an improper e6ercise of the Court9s po er of ,udicial revie , but ma% also effectivel% stunt the $ro th and maturit% of the nation as a political bod% as ell. +n this re$ard, it ma% be orth hile to reflect upon the dissentin$ opinion in Plyler v. 7oe,=-F to itD ords of Mr. Chief #ustice Ber$er of the American Court in his

T:e Cou-. 6&?e0 no &..e6,. .o '/04u/0e .:&. /. /0 &5./n4 .o 6&?e u, 9o- Con4-e00B 2&5? o9 Me99e5./;e 2e&'e-0:/,M in dealin$ ith the serious national problems caused b% the influ6 of uncountable millions of ille$al aliens across our borders. The failure of enforcement of the immi$ration la s over more than a decade and the inherent difficult% and e6pense of sealin$ our vast borders have combined to create a $rave socioeconomic dilemma. +t is a dilemma that has not %et been full% assessed, let alone addressed. Ho<e;e-, /. /0 no. .:e 9un5./on o9 .:e Ju'/5/&-$ .o ,-o;/'e Me99e5./;e 2e&'e-0:/,M 0/6,2$ 7e5&u0e .:e ,o2/./5&2 7-&n5:e0 o9 4o;e-n6en. 9&/2 .o 'o 0o. T:e Cou-.B0 :o2'/n4 .o'&$ 6&n/9e0.0 .:e >u0.2$ 5-/./5/He' >u'/5/&2 .en'en5$ .o &..e6,. 0,ee'$ &n' <:o2e0&2e 9o-6u2&./on o9 M-e6e'/e0M 9o- .:e 9&/2u-e0 - o- 0/6,2$ .:e 2&44&-' ,&5e - o9 .:e ,o2/./5&2 ,-o5e00e0 o9 ou- 0$0.e6 o9 4o;e-n6en.. T:e Cou-. e6,2o$0, &n' /n 6$ ;/e< &7u0e0, .:e Fou-.een.: !6en'6en. /n &n e99o-. .o 7e5o6e &n o6n/,o.en. &n' o6n/05/en. ,-o72e6 0o2;e-. T:&. .:e 6o./;e0 9o- 'o/n4 0o &-e no72e &n' 5o6,&00/on&.e 'oe0 no. &2.e- .:e 9&5. .:&. .:e Cou-. '/0.o-.0 ou5on0./.u./on&2 9un5./on .o 6&?e &6en'0 9o- .:e 'e9&u2.0 o9 o.:e-0. 666 T:e Con0./.u./on 'oe0 no. ,-o;/'e & 5u-e 9o- e;e-$ 0o5/&2 /22, no- 'oe0 /. ;e0. >u'4e0 </.: & 6&n'&.e .o .-$ .o -e6e'$ e;e-$ 0o5/&2 ,-o72e6. Mo-eo;e-, <:en .:/0 Cou-. -u0:e0 .o -e6e'$ <:&. /. ,e-5e/;e0 .o 7e .:e 9&/2/n4 o9 .:e ,o2/./5&2 ,-o5e00e0, /. 'e,-/;e0 .:o0e ,-o5e00e0 o9 &n o,,o-.un/.$ .o 9un5./on. 3:en .:e ,o2/./5&2 /n0./.u./on0 &-e no. 9o-5e' .o e=e-5/0e 5on0./.u./on&22$ &22o5&.e' ,o<e-0 &n' -e0,on0/7/2/./e0, .:o0e ,o<e-0, 2/?e 6u052e0 no. u0e', .en' .o &.-o,:$. To'&$B0 5&0e0, -e4-e. .o 0&$, ,-e0en. $e. &no.:e- e=&6,2e o9 un<&--&n.e' >u'/5/&2 &5./on <:/5: /n .:e 2on4 -un .en'0 .o 5on.-/7u.e .o .:e <e&?en/n4 o9 ou- ,o2/./5&2 ,-o5e00e0. =-1@Emphasis supplied> citations and footnotes omittedA

T:e So5/&2 Ju0./5e P-o;/0/on0 o9 .:e Con0./.u./on 'o no. Ju0./9$ .:e G-&n. o9 .:e n0.&n. Pe././on Ma% this Court depart from established rules in e*ual protection anal%sis to $rant a $roup of $overnment emplo%ees, the Ban$)o "entral n$ Pilipinas9 ran) and file, ad,ustments in their salaries and a$es< Can the e6emption from a la mandatin$ the salar% standardi3ation of all $overnment emplo%ees be ,ustified based on the economic and financial needs of the emplo%ees, and on the assertion that those ho have less in life should have more in la < Can the social ,ustice provisions in the Constitution override the stron$ presumption of constitutionalit% of the la and place the burden, under the test of :strict scrutin%:, upon the $overnment to demonstrate that its classification has been narro l% tailored to further compellin$ $overnmental interests< Not ithstandin$ the lac) of support from both local and forei$n ,urisprudence to ,ustif% the $rant of the instant petition, the main opinion maintains that the polic% of social ,ustice and the special protection afforded to labor =-0 re*uire the use of e*ual protection as a tool of effective intervention, and the adoption of a less deferential attitude b% this Court to le$islative classification.=-G The citation of the social ,ustice provisions of the Constitution are non se*uitur. As previousl% discussed, neither the petitioner nor the main opinion has clearl% e6plained ho a provision placin$ the ran) and file of the B"P on e*ual footin$ ith all other $overnment emplo%ees in terms of compensation and position classification can be considered oppressive or discriminator%. +n this re$ard, the citation of !nternational Sc)ool Alliance o' 6ducators v. Guisumbin* =-/ is doubl% ironic. 4or to demonstrate the institutionali3ation of the principle of :e*ual pa% for e*ual or): in our le$al s%stem, footnote == of the decision refers specificall% to the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a as embod%in$ said principleD +ndeed, the $overnment emplo%s this rule :e*ual pa% for e*ual or): in fi6in$ the compensation of $overnment emplo%ees. Thus, Republic Act No. 10FG @An Act Prescribin$ a Revised Compensation and Position Classification "%stem in 5overnment and for &ther PurposesA declares it :the polic% of the "tate to provide e*ual pa% for substantiall% e*ual or) and to base differences in pa% upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and *ualification re*uirements of the positions. "ee also the Preamble of Presidential !ecree No. /GF @A !ecree Revisin$ the Position Classification and Compensation "%stems in the National 5overnment, and +nte$ratin$ the sameA=EC At the same time, the 5eneral Provisions of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a social ,ustice provisions cited in the main opinion, to itD clearl% incorporate the spirit and intent of the

"ECT+&N -. 5eneral Provisions. V The follo in$ principles shall $overn the Compensation and Position Classification "%stem of the 5overnmentD @aA All $overnment personnel shall be paid ,ust and e*uitable a$es> and hile pa% distinctions must necessaril% e6ist in )eepin$ ith or) distinctions, the ratio of compensation for those occup%in$ hi$her ran)s to those at lo er ran)s should be maintained at e*uitable levels, $ivin$ due consideration to hi$her percenta$e of increases to lo er level positions and lo er percenta$e increases to hi$her level positions> @bA Basic compensation for all personnel in the $overnment and $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations and financial institutions shall $enerall% be comparable ith those in the private sector doin$ comparable or), and must be in accordance ith prevailin$ la s on minimum a$es> @cA The total compensation provided for $overnment personnel must be maintained at a reasonable level in proportion to the national bud$et> @dA A revie of $overnment compensation rates, ta)in$ into account possible erosion in purchasin$ po er due to inflation and other factors, shall be conducted periodicall%. ;o then are the aims of social ,ustice served b% removin$ the B"P ran) and file personnel from the ambit of the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a < +n the alternative, hat other public purpose ould be served b% orderin$ such an e6emption< "urel% to $rant the ran) and file of the B"P e6emption solel% for the reason that other 5&CC or 54+ emplo%ees have been e6empted, ithout re$ard for the reasons hich impelled the le$islature to provide for those e6emptions, ould be to cr%stalli3e into our la hat #ustice ;olmes sardonicall% described as :merel% ideali3in$ env%.: =E. "imilarl%, the ,ustification that petitioner and its members represent :the more impotent ran) and file $overnment emplo%ees ho, unli)e emplo%ees in the private sector, have no specific ri$hts to or$ani3e as a collective bar$ainin$ unit and ne$otiate for better terms and conditions for emplo%ment, nor the po er to hold a stri)e to protest unfair labor practices: is unconvincin$. This Court9s discussion of the differences bet een emplo%ment in the 5&CCsO54+s and the private sector, to m% mind, is more insi$htfulD

The $eneral rule in the past and up to the present is that :the terms and conditions of emplo%ment in the 5overnment, includin$ an% political subdivision or instrumentalit% thereof are $overned b% la : @"ection .., the +ndustrial Peace Act, R.A. No. G0F, as amended and Article =00, the 8abor Code, P.!. No. EE=, as amendedA. S/n5e .:e .e-60 &n' 5on'/./on0 o9 4o;e-n6en. e6,2o$6en. &-e 9/=e' 7$ 2&<, 4o;e-n6en. <o-?e-0 5&nno. u0e .:e 0&6e <e&,on0 e6,2o$e' 7$ <o-?e-0 /n .:e ,-/;&.e 0e5.o- .o 0e5u-e 5on5e00/on0 9-o6 .:e/- e6,2o$e-0. T:e ,-/n5/,2e 7e:/n' 2&7o- un/on/06 /n ,-/;&.e /n'u0.-$ /0 .:&. /n'u0.-/&2 ,e&5e 5&nno. 7e 0e5u-e' .:-ou4: 5o6,u20/on 7$ 2&<. Re2&./on0 7e.<een ,-/;&.e e6,2o$e-0 &n' .:e/e6,2o$ee0 -e0. on &n e00en./&22$ ;o2un.&-$ 7&0/0. Su7>e5. .o .:e 6/n/6u6 -eCu/-e6en.0 o9 <&4e 2&<0 &n' o.:e- 2&7o- &n' <e29&-e 2e4/02&./on, .:e .e-60 &n' 5on'/./on0 o9 e6,2o$6en. /n .:e un/on/He' ,-/;&.e 0e5.o- &-e 0e..2e' .:-ou4: .:e ,-o5e00 o9 5o22e5./;e 7&-4&/n/n4. n 4o;e-n6en. e6,2o$6en., :o<e;e-, /. /0 .:e 2e4/02&.u-e &n', <:e-e ,-o,e-2$ 4/;en 'e2e4&.e' ,o<e-, .:e &'6/n/0.-&./;e :e&'0 o9 4o;e-n6en. <:/5: 9/= .:e .e-60 &n' 5on'/./on0 o9 e6,2o$6en.. !n' .:/0 /0 e99e5.e' .:-ou4: 0.&.u.e0 o- &'6/n/0.-&./;e 5/-5u2&-0, -u2e0, &n' -e4u2&./on0, no. .:-ou4: 5o22e5./;e 7&-4&/n/n4 &4-ee6en.0 . 666 Pe-0onne2 o9 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 &-e no< ,&-. o9 .:e 5/;/2 0e-;/5e. . <ou2' no. 7e 9&/- .o &22o< .:e6 .o en4&4e /n 5on5e-.e' &5./;/./e0 .o <-/n4 :/4:e- 0&2&-/e0 o- 9-/n4e 7ene9/.0 9-o6 Go;e-n6en. e;en &0 o.:e- 5/;/2 0e-;/5e ,e-0onne2 0u5: &0 .:e :un'-e'0 o9 .:ou0&n'0 o9 ,u72/5 05:oo2 .e&5:e-0, 0o2'/e-0, ,o2/5e6en, :e&2.: ,e-0onne2, &n' o.:e- 4o;e-n6en. <o-?e-0 &-e 'en/e' .:e -/4:. .o en4&4e /n 0/6/2&- &5./;/./e0. To sa% that the ords :all emplo%ers: in P.!. No. GF. includes the 5overnment and all its a$encies, instrumentalities, and $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations ould also result in ni$htmarish bud$etar% problems. 4or instance, the "upreme Court is tr%in$ its best to alleviate the financial difficulties of courts, ,ud$es, and court personnel in the entire countr% but it can do so onl% ithin the limits of bud$etar% appropriations. Public school teachers have been resortin$ to hat as formerl% unthin)able, to mass leaves and demonstrations, to $et not a .-th-month pa% but promised increases in basic salaries and small allo ances for school uniforms. The bud$et of the Ministr% of Education, Culture and "ports has to be supplemented ever% no and then for this purpose. The point is, salaries and frin$e benefits of those embraced b% the civil service are fi6ed b% la . An% increases must come from la , from appropriations or savin$s under the la , and not from concerted activit%. The 5overnment Corporate Counsel, #ustice Manuel 8a3aro, in his consolidated comment for respondents 5"+", M7"", and P'TA $ives the bac)$round of the amendment hich includes ever% $overnment-o ned or controlled corporation in the embrace of the civil serviceD 666 9:Moreover, determination of emplo%ment conditions as ell as supervision of the mana$ement of the public service is in the hands of le$islative bodies. +t is further emphasi3ed that $overnment a$encies in the performance of their duties have a ri$ht to demand undivided alle$iance from their or)ers and must al a%s maintain a pronounced esprit de corps or firm discipline amon$ their staff members. +t ould be hi$hl% incompatible ith these re*uirements of the public service, if personnel too) orders from union leaders or put solidarit% ith members of the or)in$ class above solidarit% ith the 5overnment. This ould be inimical to the public interest. 666 :"imilarl%, !ele$ate 8eandro P. 5arcia, e6pressin$ support for the inclusion of $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations in the Civil "ervice, ar$uedD MB . /0 6e-e.-/5/ou0 .o 5on.en' .:&. 7e5&u0e Go;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 $/e2' ,-o9/.0, .:e/- e6,2o$ee0 &-e en./.2e' .o 7e..e- <&4e0 &n' 9-/n4e 7ene9/.0 .:&n e6,2o$ee0 o9 Go;e-n6en. o.:e- .:&n Go;e-n6en.-o<ne' &n' 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 <:/5: &-e no. 6&?/n4 ,-o9/.0. T:e-e /0 no 4&/n0&$/n4 .:e 9&5. .:&. .:e 5&,/.&2 .:e$ u0e /0 .:e ,eo,2eB0 6one$.B @seeD Records of the ./0. Constitutional ConventionA. :"ummari3in$ the deliberations of the ./0. Constitutional Convention on the inclusion of 5overnment-o ned or controlled corporations, !ean #oa*uin 5. Bernas, "#., of the Ateneo de Manila (niversit% Professional "chool of 8a , stated that 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' 5o-,o-&./on0 5&6e un'e- &..&5? &0 6/2?/n4 5o<0 o9 & ,-/;/2e4e' 9e< en>o$/n4 0&2&-/e0 9&- :/4:e- .:&n .:e/- 5oun.e-,&-.0 /n .:e ;&-/ou0 7-&n5:e0 o9 4o;e-n6en., <:/2e .:e 5&,/.&2 o9 .:e0e 5o-,o-&./on0 7e2on40 .o .:e Go;e-n6en. &n' 4o;e-n6en. 6one$ /0 ,u6,e' /n.o .:e6 <:ene;e- on .:e 7-/n? o9 '/0&0.e-, &n' .:e$ 0:ou2' .:e-e9o-e 5o6e un'e- .:e 0.-/5@.A 0u-;e/22&n5e o9 .:e C/;/2 Se-;/5e S$0.e6. @Bernas, The ./0- Philippine Constitution, Notes and Cases, ./0E ed., p. F=EA.:

666 Se5./on 6, !-./52e G -" o9 .:e Con0./.u./on 4/;e0 &''e' -e&0on0 <:$ .:e 4o;e-n6en. e6,2o$ee0 -e,-e0en.e' 7$ .:e ,e././one-0 5&nno. e=,e5. .-e&.6en. /n 6&..e-0 o9 0&2&-/e0 '/99e-en. 9-o6 .:&. e=.en'e' .o &22 o.:e-0 4o;e-n6en. ,e-0onne2. The provision statesD :"EC. 1. The National Assembl% shall provide for the standardi3ation of compensation of $overnment officials and emplo%ees, includin$ those in $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations, ta)in$ into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired for the positions concerned.: . /0 .:e 2e4/02&.u-e o-, /n ,-o,e- 5&0e0, .:e &'6/n/0.-&./;e :e&'0 o9 4o;e-n6en. &n' no. .:e 5o22e5./;e 7&-4&/n/n4 ,-o5e00 no- .:e 5on5e00/on0 <-un4 7$ 2&7o- un/on0 9-o6 6&n&4e6en. .:&. 'e.e-6/ne :o< 6u5: .:e <o-?e-0 /n 4o;e-n6en.-o<ne' o- 5on.-o22e' 5o-,o-&./on0 6&$ -e5e/;e /n .e-60 o9 0&2&-/e0, 13.: 6on.: ,&$, &n' o.:e- 5on'/./on0 o- .e-60 o9 e6,2o$6en.. There are $overnment institutions hich can afford to pa% t o ee)s, three ee)s, or even .-th-month salaries to their personnel from their bud$etar% appropriations. ;o ever, these pa%ments must be pursuant to la or re$ulation. =E= @Emphasis suppliedA Certainl%, social ,ustice is more than pic)in$ and choosin$ lines from Philippine and forei$n instruments, statutes and ,urisprudence, li)e ripe cherries, in an effort to ,ustif% preferential treatment of a favored $roup. +n the immortal ords of #ustice 8aurel in %alalan* v. 0illiamsD=EThe petitioner finall% avers that the rules and re$ulations complained of infrin$e upon the constitutional precept re$ardin$ the promotion of social ,ustice to insure the ell-bein$ and economic securit% of all the people. T:e ,-o6o./on o9 0o5/&2 >u0./5e, :o<e;e-, /0 .o 7e &5:/e;e' no. .:-ou4: & 6/0.&?en 0$6,&.:$ .o<&-'0 &n$ 4/;en 4-ou,. So5/&2 >u0./5e /0 Mne/.:e- 5o66un/06, no- 'e0,o./06, no- &.o6/06, no- &n&-5:$,M 7u. .:e :u6&n/H&./on o9 2&<0 &n' .:e eCu&2/H&./on o9 0o5/&2 &n' e5ono6/5 9o-5e0 7$ .:e S.&.e 0o .:&. >u0./5e /n /.0 -&./on&2 &n' o7>e5./;e2$ 0e5u2&- 5on5e,./on 6&$ &. 2e&0. 7e &,,-o=/6&.e'. "ocial ,ustice means the promotion of the elfare of all the people, the adoption b% the 5overnment of measures calculated to insure economic stabilit% of all the competent elements of societ%, throu$h the maintenance of a proper economic and social e*uilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the communit%, constitutionall%, throu$h the adoption of measures le$all% ,ustifiable, or e6tra-constitutionall%, throu$h the e6ercise of po ers underl%in$ the e6istence of all $overnments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema leF=EE @Emphasis and underscorin$ suppliedA Po0.05-/,. + a$ree holeheartedl% ith the main opinion9s statement that :KtLhere should be no hesitation in usin$ the e*ual protection clause as a ma,or cuttin$ ed$e to eliminate ever% conceivable irrational discrimination in our societ%.: ;o ever, because + find that the classification contained in the *uestioned proviso is based on real differences bet een the e6ecutive level and the ran) and file of the B"P> is rationall% related to the attainment of the ob,ectives of the ne Central Ban) Act> and, further, that the subse*uent amendments to the charters of certain other 5&CCs and 54+s did not materiall% affect the rational basis for this classification, + do not believe that the classification in the case at bar is impressed ith the vice of irrationalit%. The mere fact that petitioner9s members are emplo%ees of the +an*-o Sentral n* Pilipinas, admittedl% perhaps the bi$$est amon$ the 54+s, does not, to m% mind, automaticall% ,ustif% their e6emption from the Compensation Classification "%stem provided for b% the "alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . +n m% humble vie , the e*ual protection clause ou$ht not to be used as a means of :reservin$ $reener pastures to sacred co s: in contravention of the Constitutional mandate to :provide for the standardi3ation of compensation of $overnment officials and emplo%ees, includin$ those in $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations ith ori$inal charters, ta)in$ into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired for their positions.: 3HEREFORE, + vote to den% the instant petition.
Foo.no.e0
.

#ollo, p. 0. !d., p. /.

i.e., @.A ma)e the salar% of the B"P personnel competitive to attract hi$hl% competent personnel> @=A establish professionalism and e6cellence at all levels in the B"P> and @-A ensure the administrative autonom% of the B"P as the central monetar% authorit%
E

#ollo, pp. G-.C.

!d., pp. .C-.=, 3uotin* 4ormer "enator Maceda, Record of the "enate, 4irst Re$ular "ession, March .F to #une .C, .//-, 'ol. +', No. G1, p. .CG0.
F 1

!d., pp. .=-.E. !d., p. .E. !d., pp. =-F. !d., pp. .E-.F. !d., pp. 1=-0F. !d., pp. 01-/C. ./G0 Constitution, Art. +++, W .. No. 8-=F=E1, F/ "CRA FE, 00-0G @"eptember .=, ./0EA.

.C

..

.=

.-

Basa v. 4ederacion &brera de la +ndustria Taba*uera % &tros Traba,adores de 4ilipinas @4&+TA4A, No. 8-=0..-, 1. "CRA /-, ..C-... @November ./, ./0EA> Anucension v. National 8abor (nion, No. 8-=1C/0, GC "CRA -FC, -0=--0- @November =/, ./00A> 'ille$as v. ;iu Chion$ Tsai Pao ;o, No. 8-=/1E1, G1 "CRA =0C, =0F @November .C, ./0GA> !umlao v. Comelec, No. 8-F==EF, /F "CRA -/=, ECE @#anuar% ==, ./GCA> Ceni3a v. Comelec, 5.R. No. 8-F=-CE, /F "CRA 01-, 00=-00- @#anuar% =G, ./GCA> ;ima$an v. People, 5.R. No. ..-G.., =-0 "CRA F-G @&ctober 0, .//EA> The Conference of Maritime Mannin$ A$encies, +nc. v. P&EA, 5.R. No. ..E0.E, =E- "CRA 111, 100 @April =., .//FA> #MM Promotion and Mana$ement, +nc. v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .=CC/F, =1C "CRA -./, --.P--= @Au$ust F, .//1A> and Tiu v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .=0E.C, -C. "CRA =0G, =GG-=G/ @#anuar% =C, .///A. See also +chon$ v. ;ernande3, No. 8-0//F, .C. Phil. ..FF @Ma% -., ./F0A> 'era v. Cuevas, Nos. 8---1/--/E, /C "CRA -0/, -GG @Ma% -., ./0/A> and Tolentino v. "ecretar% of 4inance, 5.R. Nos. ..FEFF, ..FF=F, ..FFE-, ..FFEE, ..F0FE, ..F0G., ..FGF=, ..FG0-, and ..F/-., =-F "CRA 1-C, 1GE @Au$ust =F, .//EA.
.E

Association of "mall 8ando ners in the Philippines, +nc. v. "ecretar% of A$rarian Reform, 5.R. Nos. 0G0E=, 0/-.C, 0/0EE, and 0/000, .0F "CRA -E- @#ul% .E, ./G/A. See Tiu v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .=0E.C, -C. "CRA =0G @#anuar% =C, .///A.
.F

+chon$, etc., et al. v. ;ernande3, etc. and "armiento, No. 8-0//F, .C. Phil. ..FF @Ma% -., ./F0A, citin* = Coole%, Constitutional 8imitations, pp. G=E-G=F.
.1

Tiu v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .=0E.C, -C. "CRA =0G @#anuar% =C, .///A> !umlao v. Comelec, No. 8-F==EF, /F "CRA -/=, ECE @#anuar% ==, ./GCA> and ;ima$an v. People, 5.R. No. ..-G.., =-0 "CRA F-G @&ctober 0, .//EA. See also #MM Promotion and Mana$ement, +nc. v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .=CC/F, =1C "CRA -./, --.---= @Au$ust F, .//1A> The Conference of Maritime Mannin$ A$encies, +nc. v. P&EA, 5.R. No. ..E0.E, =E- "CRA 111, 100 @April =., .//FA> Ceni3a v. Comelec, No. 8F=-CE, /F "CRA 01-, 00= @#anuar% =G, ./GCA> 'era v. Cuevas, Nos. 8---1/--/E, /C "CRA -0/ @Ma% -., ./0/A> and Tolentino v. "ecretar% of 4inance, 5.R. Nos. ..FEFF, ..FF=F, ..FFE-, ..FFEE, ..F0FE, ..F0G., ..FGF=, ..FG0- and ..F/-., =-F "CRA 1-C @Au$ust =F, .//EA.
.0

!umlao v. Comelec, No. 8-F==EF, /F "CRA -/=, ECF @#anuar% ==, ./GCA, citin* Peralta v. Comelec, No. 8-E000., No. 8-E0GC-, No. 8-E0G.1, No. 8-E0010, No. 8-E00/. and No. 8-E0G=0, G= "CRA -C @March .., ./0GA> Rafael v. Embroider% and Apparel Control and +nspection Board, No. 8-.//0G, =. "CRA --1 @"eptember =/, ./10A> and +chon$, etc., et al. v. ;ernande3, etc. and "armiento, No. 8-0//F, .C. Phil ..FF @Ma% -., ./F0A. See also #MM Promotion and Mana$ement, +nc. v. Court of Appeals, 5.R. No. .=CC/F, =1C "CRA -./ @Au$ust F, .//1A> Philippine #ud$es Association v. Prado, 5.R. No. .CF-0., ==0 "CRA 0C@November .., .//-A> and 'ille$as v. ;iu Chion$ Tsai Pao ;o, No. 8-=/1E1, G1 "CRA =0C, =0F @November .C, ./0GA.
.G ./

People v. Carlos, No. 8-=-/, 0G Phil. F-F @#une -C, ./E0A.

See Mabana$ v. 8ope3 'ito, No. 8-..=-, 0G Phil. . @March F, ./E0A> Casco Philippine Chemical Co., +nc. v. 5imene3, No. 8.0/-., 0 "CRA -E0 @4ebruar% =G, ./1-A> Morales v. "ubido, No. 8-=/1FG, =0 "CRA .-. @4ebruar% =0, ./1/A> and Philippine #ud$es Association v. Prado, 5.R. No. .CF-0., ==0 "CRA 0C- @November .., .//-A.
=C =.

People v. 'era, No. EF1GF, 1F Phil. F1 @November .1, ./-0A.

!d., citin* (. ". v. Ten ?u, =E Phil. ., .C @!ecember =G, ./.=A> Case v. Board of ;ealth, =E Phil. =FC, =01 @4ebruar% E, ./.-A> and (. ". v. #oson, No. 0C./, =1 Phil. . @&ctober =/, ./.-A.
== =-

!umlao v. C&ME8EC, No. 8-F==EF, /F "CRA -/=, ECE @#anuar% ==, ./GCA. ith reservations b%, +n re Coo), .-G B.R. /E- KBan)r. !. Minn.

Medill v. "tate, E00 N.7.=d 0C- @Minn. .//.A @follo ed .//=LA.


=E =F

Nashville, C. Q "t. 8. R%. v. 7alters, =/E (.". ECF, FF ". Ct. EG1, 0/ 8. Ed. /E/ @./-FA > Atlantic Coast 8ine R. Co. v. +ve%, .EG 4la. 1GC, F "o. =d =EE, .-/ A.8.R. /0- @./E.A> 8ouisville Q N. R. Co. v. 4aul)ner, - 5.R. No. 8-=/1E1 C0 ".7.=d ./1 @B%. ./F0A> and 'ernon Par) Realt% v. Cit% of Mount 'ernon, -C0 N.?. E/-, .=. N.E.=d F.0 @./FEA.

=1

Murph% v. Edmonds, -=F Md. -E=, 1C. A.=d .C= @.//=A -C0 N.?. E/-, .=. N.E.=d F.0 @./FEA. !d. No. 8--0CG, /- Phil. 1G @Ma% .G, ./F-A.

=0

=G

=/

&n the constitutionalit% of Republic Act No. -E=, "ection = provides that all debts and other monetar% obli$ations contracted before !ecember G, ./E., an% provision in the contract creatin$ the same or in an% subse*uent a$reement affectin$ such obli$ation to the contrar% not ithstandin$, shall not be due and demandable for a period of ei$ht @GA %ears from and after settlement of the ar dama$e claim of the debtor b% the Philippine 7ar !ama$e Commission> and "ection - of said Act provides that should the provision of "ection = be declared void and unenforceable, then as re$ards the obli$ation affected thereb%, the provisions of E6ecutive &rder No. =F dated November .G, ./EE, as amended b% E6ecutive &rder No. -=, dated March .C, ./EF, relative to debt moratorium, shall continue to be in force and effect, an% contract affectin$ the same to the contrar% not ithstandin$, until subse*uentl% repealed or amended b% a le$islative enactment. +t thus clearl% appears in said Act that the nullification of its provisions ill have the effect of revivin$ the previous moratorium orders issued b% the President of the Philippines.
-C -.

Rutter v. Esteban, 5.R. No. 8--0CG, /- Phil. 1G @Ma% .G, ./F-A. .EG 4la. 1GC, F "o. =d =EE, .-/ A.8.R. /0- @./E.A. -C0 ".7.=d ./1 @B%. ./F0A. !d. People v. !ela Piedra, 5.R. No. .=.000, -FC "CRA .1- @#anuar% =E, =CC.A.

-=

--

-E

-F

People v. 'era, No. EF1GF, 1F Phil. F1 @November .1, ./-0A. Parentheticall%, this doctrine as first enunciated in the .GG1 case of Yic- 0o v. Hop-ins @..G (.". -F1, 1 ".Ct. .C1E, -C 8.Ed. ==CA, herein the (.". "upreme Court, spea)in$ throu$h #ustice Matthe s, declaredD :NThou$h the la itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearances, %et, if it is applied and administered b% public authorit% ith an evil e%e and an une*ual hand, so as practicall% to ma)e un,ust and ille$al discriminations bet een persons in similar circumstances, material to their ri$hts, the denial of e*ual ,ustice is still ithin the prohibition of the Constitution.:
-1 -0

#ollo, pp. .=-.E. 4ormerl% the ;ome +nsurance and 5uarant% Corporation @;+5CA.

-G

R.A. No. G0// @=CCCA, "ection 0.= providesD All positions of the Commission shall be $overned b% a compensation and position classification s%stems and *ualification standards approved b% the Commission based on a comprehensive ,ob anal%sis and audit of actual duties and responsibilities. The compensation plan shall be comparable ith the prevailin$ compensation plan in the Ban$)o "entral n$ Pilipinas and other $overnment financial institutions and shall be sub,ect to periodic revie b% the Commission no more than once ever% t o @=A %ears ithout pre,udice to %earl% merit revie s or increases based on productivit% and efficienc%. The Commission shall, therefore, be e6empt from la s, rules, and re$ulations on compensation, position classification and *ualification standards. The Commission shall, ho ever, endeavor to ma)e its s%stem conform as closel% as possible ith the principles under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of ./G/ @Republic Act No. 10FG, as amendedA.
-/ EC

People v. !ela Piedra, 5.R. No. .=.000, -FC "CRA .1- @#anuar% =E, =CC.A. People v. 'era, No. EF1GF, 1F Phil. F1 @November .1, ./-0A. P.!. No. /GF @Au$ust ==, ./01A.

E.

E=

R.A. No. 10FG, "ection =, the polic% of hich is to :provide e*ual pa% for substantiall% e*ual or) and to base differences in pa% upon substantive differences in duties and responsibilities, and *ualification re*uirements of the positions.:
E-

"ection -@aA provides that :All $overnment personnel shall be paid ,ust and e*uitable a$es> and hile pa% distinctions must necessaril% e6ist in )eepin$ ith or) distinctions, the ratio of compensation for those occup%in$ hi$her ran)s to those at lo er ran)s should be maintained at e*uitable levels $ivin$ due consideration to hi$her percenta$es of increases to lo er level positions and lo er percenta$e increases to hi$her level positions.:
EE

"ection -@bA states that :Basic compensation for all personnel in the $overnment, and $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations @5&CCsA and financial institutions @54+sA shall $enerall% be comparable ith those in the private sector doin$ comparable or), and must be in accordance ith prevailin$ la s on minimum a$es.:
EF E1

!d., "ection /.

"ection F of the ./G0 Constitution providesD :The Con$ress shall provide for the standardi3ation of compensation of $overnment officials, includin$ those in $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations ith ori$inal charters, ta)in$ into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired for their positions.:
E0 EG

R.A. No. 01F-, "ections . and -. !d., "ections ..C and ..-. R.A. No. 01F-, "ection FC. !d., "ections . and -. R.A. No. G=G/ K"B54CL, "ection G> R.A. No. /-C= KP!+CL, "ection =. R.A. No. G0// @=CCCA, "ection 0.=. E.F (.". -1. @./0EA. !d. Philippine #ud$es Association v. Prado, 5.R. No. .CF-0., ==0 "CRA 0C- @November .., .//-A. 5.R. No. .E1E/E @ #ul% .E, =CCEA. Constitution, Article '+++, "ection .. See Philippine #ud$es Association v. Prado, 5.R. No. .CF-0., ==0 "CRA 0C-, 0.--0.F @November .., .//-A. K=CC=L E7;C ./. @AdminA.

E/

FC

F.

F=

F-

FE

FF

F1

F0

FG

F/

1C

!d. The si$nificance of international human ri$hts instruments in the European conte6t should not be underestimated. +n Hooper for e6ample, the case as brou$ht on the alle$ed denial of a ri$ht $uaranteed b% the EC;R, $iven domestic effect in the (.B. throu$h its ;uman Ri$hts Act .//G @;RAA, and the EC;R, as one of the contractin$ parties. Also, in 0ilson v 9nited 8in*dom, @-C11GO/1A @=CC=A -F E.;.R.R. =C @EC;RA, the European Court of ;uman Ri$hts too) into account the re*uirements of +8& Conventions Nos. G0 and /G, and of the European "ocial Charter of ./1., in rulin$ that the (nited Bin$dom had breached the applicants9 freedom of association. See Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A.
1. 1=

#.M. Tuason and Co., +nc. v. 8and Tenure Administration, No. 8-=.C1E, -. "CRA E.-, E-F @4ebruar% .G, ./0CA.

See Association of "mall 8ando ners in the Philippines v. "ecretar% of A$rarian Reform, 5.R. Nos. 0G0E=, 0/-.C, 0/0EE, and 0/000 @#ul% .E, ./G/A.
1-

People v. 'era, supra, citin* (. ". v. Ten ?u, =E Phil. ., .C @!ecember =G, ./.=A> Case v. Board of ;ealth and ;eiser, supra> and (. ". v. #oson, supra. See Peralta v. C&ME8EC, No. 8-E000., No. 8-E0GC-, No. 8-E0G.1, No. 8-E0010, No. 8-E00/. and No. 8-E0G=1, G= "CRA -C @March .., ./0GA, citin* Cooper v. Telfair, E !all. .E> !odd, Cases on Constitutional 8a F1 @- rd ed. ./E=A.
1E 1F

5erald 5unther, Constitutional 8a

FG1-FG/ @..th ed. ./GFA.

11

"an Antonio +ndependent "chool !istrict v. Rodri$ue3, E.. (.". . @./0-A.

See 5a% Moon, %omplyin* (it) !ts !nternational Human #i*)ts 4bli*ations/ $)e 9nited 8in*dom and Article >D o' t)e !nternational %ovenant on %ivil and Political #i*)ts, - E.;.R.8.R. =G---C0 @=CC-A.
10 1G

@No.=A @AO1A . E.;.R.R. =F= @./0/-GCA @EC;RA.

The European Court has also ta)en an even more restricted approach to Article .E, as)in$ onl% hether the treatment at issue had a ,ustified aim in vie or hether the authorities pursued :other and ill-intentioned desi$ns.: National (nion of Bel$ian Police v. Bel$ium, . E.;.R.R. F0G @./0/-GCA> and " edish En$ine !rivers9 (nion v. " eden . E.;.R.R. 1.0 @./0/-GCA.
1/ 0C

Abdula3i3 v. (nited Bin$dom, @AO/EA 0 E.;.R.R. E0. @./GFA @EC;RA. =- E.;.R.R. -1E @.//0A. !d. Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A.

0.

0=

0-

Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A. See Tuf%al Choudhur%, !nterpretin* t)e #i*)t to 63uality under Article >D o' t)e !nternational %ovenant on %ivil and Political Ri$hts, . E.;.R.8.R. =E-F= @=CC-A.
0E 0F

Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A. Article =1 of the +CCPR provides thatD

01

:All persons are e*ual before the la and are entitled ithout an% discrimination to the e*ual protection of the la . +n this respect, the la shall prohibit an% discrimination and $uarantee to all persons e*ual and effective protection a$ainst discrimination on an% $round such as race, colour, se6, lan$ua$e, reli$ion, political or other opinion, national or social ori$in, propert%, birth or other status.: Article F@bA of CER! re*uires "tates to protect individuals from @raciall% discriminator%A violence : hether inflicted b% $overnment officials or b% an% individual $roup or institution.:
00 0G

Article . of the American Conventions on ;uman Ri$hts provides thatD :The "tates Parties to this Convention underta)e to respect the ri$hts and freedoms reco$ni3ed herein and to ensure to all persons sub,ect to their ,urisdiction the free and full e6ercise of those ri$hts and freedoms, ithout an% discrimination for reasons of race, color, se6, lan$ua$e, reli$ion, political or other opinion, national or social ori$in, economic status, birth, or an% other social condition>N:

Article =1 of the +CCPR is echoed in its broad proscription of discrimination b% Article - of the African Charter thatD
0/

hich provides

:.. Ever% individual shall be e*ual before the la . =. Ever% individual shall be entitled to e*ual protection of the la .:
GC

Article .E of the European Conventions on ;uman Ri$hts provides thatD :The en,o%ment of the ri$hts and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured ithout discrimination on an% $round such as se6, race, colour, lan$ua$e, reli$ion, political or other opinion, national or social ori$in, association ith a national minorit%, propert%, birth or other status.:

See Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A> and Tuf%al Choudhur%, !nterpretin* t)e #i*)t to 63uality under Article >D o' t)e !nternational %ovenant on %ivil and Political Ri$hts, . E.;.R.8.R. =E-F= @=CC-A.
G.

Also, Articles = and - of the +CCPR re*uire that Contractin$ "tates a$ree to :respect and to ensure to all individuals ithin its territor% and sub,ect to its ,urisdiction the ri$hts reco$ni3ed in the present Covenant, ithout distinction of an% )ind, such as race, colour, se6, lan$ua$e, reli$ion, political or other opinion, national or social ori$in, propert%, birth or other status,: and @Article -A :to ensure the e*ual ri$ht of men and omen to the en,o%ment of all civil and political ri$hts set forth in the present ma% not involve discrimination solel% on the $round of race, colour, se6, lan$ua$e, reli$ion or social ori$in.: &ther e6amples includeD Article = of CE!A7, hich re*uire "tates Parties to the Convention not onl% to :embod% the principle of the e*ualit% of men and omen in their national constitutions or other appropriate le$islation: but also :to ensure, throu$h la and other appropriate means, the practical reali3ation of this principle:> and Article F@bA of CER! re*uires "tates to protect individuals from @raciall% discriminator%A violence : hether inflicted b% $overnment officials or b% an% individual $roup or institution.: See also Articles = and - C"ECR, and Article = of the African Charter, hich is similar to Article = of the +CCPR. Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A.
G= G-

Article 0 of the +CE"CR provides the ri$htD :. . . to the en,o%ment of ,ust and favourable conditions of or) ... in particular ... fair a$es and e*ual remuneration for or) of e*ual value ithout distinction of an% )ind, in particular omen bein$ $uaranteed conditions of or) not inferior to those en,o%ed b% men, ith e*ual pa% for e*ual or) KandL ... e*ual opportunit% for ever%one to be promoted in his emplo%ment to an appropriate hi$her level, sub,ect to no considerations other than those of seniorit% and competence.:

See Convention Nos. .CC of ./F., .C- of ./F=, ... of ./FG, ..G of ./1= and .F1 of ./G. hich deal respectivel% ith e*ual pa% for men and omen> maternit% ri$hts> discrimination in emplo%ment and occupation> e*ualit% of treatment in social securit%> and or)ers ith famil% responsibilities. Convention No. .CC has been ratified b% no less than .F/ countries and Convention No. ... b% .F1 @these bein$ t o of the ei$ht fundamental Conventions the ratification of hich is all but compulsor%A. Conventions Nos. .C-, ..G and .F1 have been ratified b% EC, -G and -E countries, respectivel%.
GE

4or e6ample, Articles .., .= and .- of CE!A7 re*uire the ta)in$ of :all appropriate measures: to eliminate discrimination a$ainst omen in the fields of emplo%ment, health care, and other areas of economic life includin$ the ri$ht to benefits and financial services. Article .F of the African Charter provides a ri$ht for :ever% individual: to :e*ual pa% for e*ual or),: hich, li)e Article 0 of the +CE"CR, applies hether an individual is emplo%ed b% the state or b% a private bod%. The Council of Europe9s Revised "ocial Charter provides for the :ri$ht to e*ual opportunities and e*ual treatment in matters of emplo%ment and occupation ithout discrimination on the $rounds of se6: and to the protection of or)ers ith famil% responsibilities. The "ocial
GF

Charter of the Council of Europe also incorporates a commitment on the part of Contractin$ "tates to :reco$nise the ri$ht of men and omen or)ers to e*ual pa% for or) of e*ual value: as ell as that of children, %oun$ persons and omen to protection in emplo%ment @the latter $roup in connection ith pre$nanc% and childbirthA, and ri$hts for mi$rant or)ers. Article F CER! does not merel% re*uire Contractin$ "tates to eliminate race discrimination in their o n practices but also obli$es them to prohibit race discrimination :in all its forms and to $uarantee the ri$ht of ever%one, ithout distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic ori$in, to e*ualit% before the la , notabl% in the en,o%ment of economic, social and cultural ri$hts,: in particular, emplo%ment ri$hts includin$ ri$hts to :,ust and favourable conditions of or):, protection a$ainst unemplo%ment, :,ust and favourable remuneration: and to form and ,oin trade unions. See Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A. Tuf%al Choudhur%, !nterpretin* t)e #i*)t to 63uality under Article >D o' t)e !nternational %ovenant on %ivil and Political Ri$hts, . E.;.R.8.R. =E-F= @=CC-A.
G1 G0

"7M Broe)s v. the Netherlands @.0=O./GEA. 4.;. H aan-de 'ries v. the Netherlands @.G=O./GEA. ".7.M. Broe)s v. Netherlands @.0=O./GEA, para$raph .=.E. ;uman Ri$hts Committee, 5eneral Comment No. .G @./G/A.

GG

G/

/C

!d. +n the +el*ian :in*uistics case, @No.=A @AO1A @./0/-GCA . E.;.R.R. =F= @EC;RA, the European Court of ;uman Ri$hts referred to the :aims and effects: of the measure challen$ed under Article.E of the European Convention, impl%in$ that indirect as ell as direct discrimination could be contrar% to the provision. And in $)limmenos v Greece, -. E.;.R.R. .F @=CC.A, the European Court ruled that discrimination contrar% to the European Convention had occurred hen a man ho had been criminalised because of his refusal @as a #ehovah9s 7itness and, therefore, a pacifistA to ear a militar% uniform durin$ compulsor% militar% service, as subse*uentl% refused access to the chartered accountanc% profession because of a rule hich barred those ith criminal convictions from bein$ chartered. Accordin$ to the CourtD
/.

:K7e haveL so far considered that the ri$ht under Article .E not to be discriminated a$ainst in the en,o%ment of the ri$hts $uaranteed under the Convention is violated hen "tates treat differentl% persons in analo$ous situations ithout providin$ an ob,ective and reasonable ,ustification ... ;o ever, the Court considers that this is not the onl% facet of the prohibition of discrimination in Article .E. The ri$ht not to be discriminated a$ainst in the en,o%ment of the ri$hts $uaranteed under the Convention is also violated hen "tates ithout an ob,ective and reasonable ,ustification fail to treat differentl% persons hose situations are si$nificantl% different.: See also #ordan v. (nited Bin$dom @App. No. =E0E1O/EA, para..FE. Aileen McCol$an, Principles o' 63uality and Protection 'rom 7iscrimination , = E.;.R.8.R. .F0 @=CC-A.
/=

The ./G0 Constitutional provisions pertinent to social ,ustice and the protection $ranted to 8abor areD PREAMB8ED 7e, the soverei$n 4ilipino people, implorin$ the aid of Almi$ht% 5od, in order to build a ,ust and humane societ% and establish a 5overnment that shall embod% our ideals and aspirations, promote the common $ood, conserve and develop our patrimon%, and secure to ourselves and our posterit% the blessin$s of independence and democrac% under the rule of la and a re$ime of truth, ,ustice, freedom, love, e*ualit% and peace, do ordain and promul$ate this Constitution. ART+C8E ++D !eclaration of Principles and "tate PoliciesD Principles "ECT+&N /. The "tate shall promote a ,ust and d%namic social order that ill ensure the prosperit% and independence of the nation and free the people from povert% throu$h policies that provide ade*uate social services, promote full emplo%ment, a risin$ standard of livin$, and an improved *ualit% of life for all. "ECT+&N .C. The "tate shall promote social ,ustice in all phases of national development. "ECT+&N ... The "tate values the di$nit% of ever% human person and $uarantees full respect for human ri$hts. "ECT+&N .G. The "tate affirms labor as a primar% social economic force. +t shall protect the ri$hts of promote their elfare. ART+C8E +++D Bill of Ri$hts "ECT+&N .. No person shall be deprived of life, libert% or propert% denied the e*ual protection of the la s. ithout due process of la , nor shall an% person be or)ers and

ART+C8E +MD Constitutional Commissions B. The Civil "ervice Commission

"ECT+&N F. The Con$ress shall provide for the standardi3ation of compensation of $overnment officials and emplo%ees, includin$ those in $overnment-o ned or controlled corporations ith ori$inal charters, ta)in$ into account the nature of the responsibilities pertainin$ to, and the *ualifications re*uired for their positions. ART+C8E M++D National Econom% and Patrimon% "ECT+&N .. The $oals of the national econom% are a more e*uitable distribution of opportunities, income, and ealth> a sustained increase in the amount of $oods and services produced b% the nation for the benefit of the people> and an e6pandin$ productivit% as the )e% to raisin$ the *ualit% of life for all, especiall% the underprivile$ed. The "tate shall promote industriali3ation and full emplo%ment based on sound a$ricultural development and a$rarian reform, throu$h industries that ma)e full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and hich are competitive in both domestic and forei$n mar)ets. ;o ever, the "tate shall protect 4ilipino enterprises a$ainst unfair forei$n competition and trade practices. +n the pursuit of these $oals, all sectors of the econom% and all re$ions of the countr% shall be $iven optimum opportunit% to develop. Private enterprises, includin$ corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective or$ani3ations, shall be encoura$ed to broaden the base of their o nership. "ECT+&N ==. Acts hich circumvent or ne$ate an% of the provisions of this Article shall be considered inimical to the national interest and sub,ect to criminal and civil sanctions, as ma% be provided b% la . ART+C8E M+++D "ocial #ustice and ;uman Ri$hts "ECT+&N .. The Con$ress shall $ive hi$hest priorit% to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the ri$ht of all the people to human di$nit%, reduce social, economic, and political ine*ualities, and remove cultural ine*uities b% e*uitabl% diffusin$ ealth and political po er for the common $ood. To this end, the "tate shall re$ulate the ac*uisition, o nership, use, and disposition of propert% and its increments. 8abor "ECT+&N -. The "tate shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, or$ani3ed and unor$ani3ed, and promote full emplo%ment and e*ualit% of emplo%ment opportunities for all. +t shall $uarantee the ri$hts of all or)ers to self-or$ani3ation, collective bar$ainin$ and ne$otiations, and peaceful concerted activities, includin$ the ri$ht to stri)e in accordance ith la . The% shall be entitled to securit% of tenure, humane conditions of or), and a livin$ a$e. The% shall also participate in polic% and decision-ma)in$ processes affectin$ their ri$hts and benefits as ma% be provided b% la . The "tate shall promote the principle of shared responsibilit% bet een or)ers and emplo%ers and the preferential use of voluntar% modes in settlin$ disputes, includin$ conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance there ith to foster industrial peace. The "tate shall re$ulate the relations bet een or)ers and emplo%ers, reco$ni3in$ the ri$ht of labor to its ,ust share in the fruits of production and the ri$ht of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to e6pansion and $ro th.
/-

+nternational "chool Alliance of Educators v. 2uisumbin$, 5.R. No. .=GGEF, --- "CRA .- @#une ., =CCCA.

See Association of "mall 8ando ners in the Philippines, +nc. v. "ecretar% of A$rarian Reform, 5.R. Nos. 0G0E=, 0/-.C, 0/0EE, and 0/000, .0F "CRA -E- @#ul% .E, ./G/A.
/E /F

Republic v. MERA8C&, 5.R. Nos. .E.-.E and .E.-1/, EC. "CRA .-C @April /, =CC-A. "anders v. 'eridiano ++, No. 8-E1/-C, .1= "CRA GG @#une .C, ./GGA. Republic v. MERA8C&, 5.R. Nos. .E.-.E and .E.-1/, EC. "CRA .-C @April /, =CC-A. 4rancisco v. ;ouse of Representatives, 5.R. No. .1C=1., @November .C, =CC-A. !d. #oa*uin 5. Bernas, ".#., The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines .1C @=CC-A. 5lobe-Mac)a% Cable and Radio Corp. v. N8RC, 5.R. No. G=F.., =C1 "CRA 0C. @March -, .//=A. (% v. C&A, 5.R. No. .-C1GF, -=G "CRA 1C0 @March =., =CCCA.

/1

/0

/G

//

.CC

.C.

.C=

.C-

!bid. Calalan$ vs. 7illiams, No. E0GCC, 0C Phil. 0=1 @!ecember =, ./ECA.

.CE

See !umlao v. C&ME8EC, No. 8-F==EF, /F "CRA -/=, ECE @#anuar% ==, ./GCA> Peralta v. Comelec, Nos. 8-E000., 8-E0GC-, 8E0G.1, 8-E0010, 8-E00/., and 8-E0G=0, G= "CRA -C @March .., ./0GA> 4el a v. "alas, No. 8-=1F.., .G "CRA 1C1 @&ctober =/, ./11A> Rafael v. Embroider% and Apparel Control and +nspection Board, No. 8-.//0G, =. "CRA --1, @"eptember =/, ./10A> People v. Carlos, No. 8-=-/, 0G Phil. F-F @#une -C, ./E0A> and +chon$, etc., et.al. v. ;ernande3, etc. and "armiento, No. 8-0//F, .C. Phil. ..FF @Ma% -., ./F0A.
.CF .C1

Belarmino v. Emplo%ees9 Compensation Commission, 5.R. No. /C=CE, .GF "CRA -CE @Ma% .., .//CA. #avellana v. The E6ecutive "ecretar%, No. 8--1.E=, 8--1.1E, 8--1.1F, 8--1=-1 and 8--1=G-, FC "CRA -C @March -., ./0-A. ./G0 Constitution, Article ++, "ection /.

.C0

.CG

CH CO-N!)!R O, J.:
.

Ne

Central Ban) Act.

"alar% "tandardi3ation 8a . People v. 'era, 1F Phil. F1. ' Records of the ;ouse of Representatives, /th Con$ress, .st "ession 0G- @-. March .//-A at .11. "ection F@aA, Rep. Act No. 10FG. "ections 0 and G, ibid. +' Records of the "enate, /th Con$ress, .st "ession .CG1-G0 @CF #une .//-A.

P!NG!N "!N, J.:


.

"ee ponencia footnote nos. =E, =F, =1, =0 and =G. Medill v. "tate, E00 N7 =d 0C-, November ==, .//.. !d., p. 0CE. !bid. !d., pp. 0C1-0C0. !d., pp. 0CF-0CG. !d., p. 0CG. !d., p. 0C/, per ?et)a, J. These rulin$s !bid. !bid. !n re %oo-, .-G BR /E-, April .F, .//=. !d., p. /E1, per Bressel, %J. ere on fraternal benefit and homestead e6emptions. !d., p. 0CG.

.C

..

.=

.-

These are dama$es accruin$ at the time a petition is filed and include e6istin$ medical costs> actual lost income> e6istin$ nonmedical costs and e6penses> and propert% lost, dama$ed or destro%ed in the incident that caused the in,ur%. !d., p. /EF.
.E

These dama$es include temporar% or permanent ph%sical and mental loss or impairment> pain or sufferin$> and future medical costs. !d., pp. /EF-/E1.
.F

.1

As to $eneral dama$es, ho ever, reliance

as made upon Medill. !d., p. /E1.

+n fact, in Medill it as held that because special dama$es reimbursed an individual for e6penses that ould ordinaril% be dischar$ed in a ban)ruptc% proceedin$, their e6emption ould be a indfall to the debtor. Medill v. "tate> supra, p. 0C1.
.0 .G

Nashville, Chattanoo$a, Q "t. 8ouis Rail a% v. 7alters, =/E (" ECF, E.F, 0/ 8.ed. /E/, /FF, March E, ./-F. !d., p. E.-. !d., p. E-E. !d., p. E--. !d., pp. E.F-E.1. !d., pp. E=G-E=/. !d., p. E=/. Atlantic Coast 8ine R. Co. v. +ve%, F "o.=d, =EE, =E0, #anuar% G, ./E=. !d., pp. =EF-=E1. !d., p. =E0. !d., p. =E1. !bid. !d., p. =E0. !bid. !bid. 8ouisville Q Nashville Railroad Co. v. 4aul)ner, -C0 "7 =d. ./1, November .F, ./F0. !d., pp. ./1-./0. !d., p. ./0. !d., p. ./G. !d., pp. ./0-./G. !d., p. ./0. 'ernon Par) Realt%, +nc. v. Cit% of Mount 'ernon, .=. N.E.=d F.0, -C0 N? E/-, #ul% .E, ./FE. !d., p. F.G. !d., pp. F=C-F=.. !d., p. F./. !bid., per !%e, J. !bid. !d., pp. F.G-F./. Murph% v. Edmonds, 1C. A.=d .C=, -=F Md. -E=, 4ebruar% 0, .//=.

./

=C

=.

==

=-

=E

=F

=1

=0

=G

=/

-C

-.

-=

--

-E

-F

-1

-0

-G

-/

EC

E.

E=

E-

EE

EF

E1

E0

!d., p. .CE. !d., pp. .CF-.C1, ..1 Q ../. ithin its ,urisdiction the

EG

This amendment to the (.". Constitution provides that :KnLo "tate shall 6 6 6 den% to an% person e*ual protection of the la s.:
E/ FC

Murph% v. Edmonds> supra, p. .C0. !d., pp. .CF Q ..=. !d., pp. .CF-.C1. !d., p. .CG. !d., pp. ... Q ..E. !d., p. ..F, per Eldrid$e, J. !bid. !n re %oo-> supra, p. /EF @citin$ Medill v. State> supra, p. 0CGA. Medill v. "tate, supra, p. 0CG. This refers to !n re +ailey decided in ./GG in the state of Minnesota. !d., pp. 0CF-0C1 and 0CG. !n re %oo-> supra, pp. /EE-/EF. Cru3, %onstitutional :a( @=CC- ed.A, p. -0. !d., p. E/. Nashville, Chattanoo$a, Q "t. 8ouis Rail a% v. 7alters> supra, p. E.F. A$palo, Statutory %onstruction @=nd ed., .//CA, p. =0. !d., p. 0G.

F.

F=

F-

FE

FF

F1

F0

FG

F/

1C

1.

1=

1-

1E

1F

:!n interpretin* and applyin* t)e bul- o' t)e (ritten la(s o' t)is 2urisdiction, and in renderin* its decisions in cases not covered by t)e letter o' t)e (ritten la(, t)is court relies upon t)e t)eories and precedents o' An*lo-American cases, sub2ect to t)e limited eFception o' t)ose instances ()ere t)e remnants o' t)e Spanis) (ritten la( present (ell-de'ined civil la( t)eories and o' t)e 'e( cases ()ere suc) precedents are inconsistent (it) local customs and institutions. : !n re S)oop, E. Phil. =.-, =FE-=FF, November =/, ./=C, per Malcolm, J.
11

:Stare decisis: means one should follo /=.


10 1G

past precedents and should not disturb

hat has been settled. See A$palo, supra, p.

To be controllin$, the rulin$ must be cate$oricall% rendered b% our "upreme Court on an issue e6pressl% raised b% the parties. +bid.
1/

Article G of the Civil Code. Murph% v. Edmonds> supra, p. ..=, per Eldrid$e, J. !n re S)oop> supra, pp. ==C-==., per Malcolm, J.

0C

0.

7hile it ma% be ar$ued that e are not a common la countr%, our peculiar national le$al s%stem has blended both civil and common la principles. 5amboa, An !ntroduction to P)ilippine :a(, 0th ed., ./1/ p. F/.
0=

"alas v. #arencio, .FC-B Phil. 10C, 1/C, Au$ust -C, ./0=. A$palo, supra, p. =C. !n re %oo-> supra, p. /EE.

0-

0E

0F

Medill v. "tate> supra, p. 0CE. Rutter v. Esteban, /- Phil. 1G, Ma% .G, ./F-. Rutter v. Esteban> supra, p. 0C. !d., p. 0.. !d., p. 0C. Approved b% Con$ress on #ul% =1, ./EG. Rutter v. Esteban> supra, p. 0.. !d., p. G-. ere respectivel% voided. W. of

01

00

0G

0/

GC

G.

G=

Moreover, E6ecutive &rder Nos. =F and -=, issued on November .G, ./EE and March .C, ./EF, RA -E=, EF &5 No. E, p. .1GC.
G-

W= of RA -E=, EF &5 No. E, p. .1G.. Rutter v. Esteban> supra, pp. G.-G=. !d., p. 00. !bid.

GE

GF

G1

:%onventions and la(s are F F F needed to 2oin ri*)ts to duties and re'er 2ustice to its ob2ect. F F F !n t)e state o' society all ri*)ts are 'iFed by la( F F F.: Rousseau, $)e Social %ontract, .01=, translated b% 5.!.;. Cole. httpDOO .constitution.or$O,,r Osocon.htm @8ast visited "eptember .1, =CCE> .=DCEDFC p.m. P"TA.
G0

Atlantic Coast 8ine R. Co. v. +ve%> supra, per Buford, J. @citin$ Nashville, Chattanoo$a, Q "t. 8ouis Rail a% v. 7alters> supra, per Brandeis, J.A
GG G/

Cru3, !nternational :a( @.//CA, p. .> and "alon$a and ?ap, Public !nternational :a( @.//=A, p. ..

+nternational le$al sub,ects -- in the modern sense of international la as a process rather than as a set of rules -- refer to states, international or$ani3ations, insur$ents, peoples represented b% liberation movements, and individuals b% virtue of the doctrine of human ri$hts and its implicit acceptance of their ri$ht to call upon states to account before international bodies. !efensor"antia$o, !nternational :a( (it) P)ilippine %ases and Materials and AS6AN !nstruments @.///A, pp. .F-=E.
/C

Peralta v. C&ME8EC, G= "CRA -C, 00, March .., ./0G, per concurrin$ and dissentin$ opinion of 4ernando, J. @later %J.A.

:!ndeed, ()et)er an enactment is (ise or un(ise, ()et)er it is based on sound economic t)eory, ()et)er it is t)e best means to ac)ieve t)e desired results, ()et)er, in s)ort, t)e le*islative discretion (it)in its prescribed limits s)ould be eFercised in a particular manner are matters 'or t)e 2ud*ment o' t)e le*islature, and t)e serious con'lict o' opinions does not su''ice to brin* t)em (it)in t)e ran*e o' 2udicial co*nizance. : ariLas v. $)e 6Fecutive Secretary, 5R No. .E0-G0, !ecember .C, =CC-, per Calle,o "r., J. !d., p. 0G, per concurrin$ and dissentin$ opinion of 4ernando, J. @later %J> citin$ Manila 6lectric %o. v. Pasay $ransportation %o., !nc., F0 Phil. 1CC, 1CF, November =F, ./-=, per Malcolm, J.A.
/. /=

!bid., per concurrin$ and dissentin$ opinion of 4ernando, J. @later %J> citin$ ibid., per Malcolm, J.A. "ee ponencia . Cru3, %onstitutional :a(, supra, pp. E1-E0.

/-

/E

: or protection a*ainst abuses by le*islatures t)e people must resort to t)e polls, not to t)e courts. : Munn v. +llinois> supra, .-E, per 7aite, %J.
/F

Cit% of Cleburne, Te6as v. Cleburne 8ivin$ Center, E0- (" E-=, EEC, .CF ".Ct. -=E/, -=FE, #ul% ., ./GF, per 7hite, J.

4ederal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, +nc., FCG (" -C0, -.E, ..- ".Ct. =C/1, =.C., #une ., .//@citin$ 'ance v. Bradle%, EEC (" /-, /0, // ".Ct. /-/, /E=-/E-, 4ebruar% ==, ./0/A.
/1 /0

Pei) v. Chica$o and North-7estern Rail a% Co.> supra, p. .0G, per 7aite, %J.

/G

Cru3, %onstitutional :a(, supra, p. E0. Romer v. Evans, F.0 (" 1=C, 1-=, ..1 ".Ct. .1=C, .1=0, Ma% =C, .//1, per Benned%, J. Cru3, %onstitutional :a(, supra, p. E0. Calder v. Bull> supra, p. -//> p. G, per seriatim opinion of +redell, J. @citin$ . Bl. Com. /.A. Rousseau, supra.

//

.CC

.C.

.C=

+n fact, under W. of pendin$ ;ouse Bill No. ==/F, it is proposed that : PaQll o''icials and employees o' *overnment o(ned or controlled corporations and *overnment 'inancial institutions ()ic), by virtue o' t)eir %)arters, are eFempted 'rom t)e %ompensation and Position %lassi'ication System Por t)e SS:Q providin* 'or t)e salary standardization o' *overnment employees s)all receive compensation o' no more t)an t(ice t)e salaries o' e3uivalent ran-s and positions in ot)er *overnment a*encies. : This proves that Con$ress can, inter alia, put a statutor% limit to the salaries currentl% bein$ received b% such officials and emplo%ees.
.C.CE

W.G of Art. M'+++ of the ./G0 Constitution.

4ederal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, +nc.> supra, p. -.1> supra, p. =.C= @citin$ 7illiamson v. 8ee &ptical of &)lahoma, +nc., -EG (" EG-, EG/, 0F ".Ct. E1., E1F, March =G, ./FFA.
.CF .C1

Cit% of Cleburne, Te6as v. Cleburne 8ivin$ Center> supra, p. EEF> supra, p. -=F0, per 7hite, #.

4ederal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, +nc.> supra, pp. -.---.E> supra, p. =.C., per Thomas, J. @citin$ (nited "tates Railroad Retirement Board v. 4rit3, EE/ (" .11, .0/, .C. ".Ct. EF-, E1., !ecember /, ./GC, per Rehn*uist, J.A.
.C0 .CG

This la as approved on #une .E, .//- and published on Au$ust /, .//-. G/ &5 -=, p. EE=F. See also 'ille$as, Global inance %apital and t)e P)ilippine inancial System @=CCCA, p. EG.

These 54+s are the 8BP and !BP mentioned earlier, as ell as the "ocial "ecurit% "%stem @"""A> the "mall Business 5uarantee and 4inance Corporation @"B54CA> the 5overnment "ervice +nsurance "%stem @5"+"A> the ;ome 5uarant% Corporation @;5C, formerl% the ;ome +nsurance and 5uarant% Corporation K;+5CLA> and the Philippine !eposit +nsurance Corporation @P!+CA. "ee ponencia.
.C/ ..C

"ee ponencia . The last proviso of the =nd para$raph of W.F@cA of RA 01F-, copied verbatim includin$ italics, providesD

...

:Provided, )o(ever, That compensation and a$e structure of emplo%ees hose positions fall under salar% $rade ./ and belo shall be in accordance ith the rates prescribed under Republic Act No. 10FG.:
..=

Petition, p. .-> rollo, p. .F.

A :salar% $rade: under W-.s. of Pres. !ecree No. @P!A /GF refers to : t)e numerical place on t)e Salary F F F Sc)edule representin* multiple steps or rates F F F assi*ned to a class ,: hile a :position: under W-.m. means the :set o' duties and responsibilities, assi*ned or dele*ated by competent aut)ority and per'ormed by an individual eit)er on 'ull-time or part-time basis.:
....E

Petition, p. -> rollo, p. F. !d., pp. .C Q .=. !d., pp. E-F Q 1-0. WF@aA of RA 10FG. !bid. WF@bA of RA 10FG.

..F

..1

..0

..G

../

A :class of position: is :t)e basic unit o' t)e Position %lassi'ication System: under W-.c. of P! /GF. +t :consists o' all t)ose positions in t)e system ()ic) are su''iciently similar as to "5& -ind or sub2ect matter o' (or-, ">& level o' di''iculty and responsibility, and "@& t)e 3uali'ication re3uirements o' t)e (or-, to (arrant similar treatment in personnel and pay administration.:
.=C

A :$rade,: on the other hand, under W-.h. thereof, :includes all classes o' positions ()ic), alt)ou*) di''erent (it) respect to -ind or sub2ect matter o' (or-, are su''iciently e3uivalent as to level o' di''iculty and responsibility and level o' 3uali'ication re3uirements o' t)e (or- to (arrant t)e inclusion o' suc) classes o' positions (it)in one ran*e o' basic compensation. :
.=.

Petition, p. F> rollo, p. 0.

The B"P, on the one hand, has authorit% and responsibilit% over the Philippine financial s%stem. Aside from credit control, monopol% of currenc% issues, clearin$ functions, and custod% and mana$ement of forei$n e6chan$e reserves, it also re$ulates and supervises the entire ban)in$ s%stem. 7or)ers !es), +B&N !ataban) and Research Center, +B&N 4oundation, +nc., $)e P)ilippine +an-in* Sector @=CC-A, pp. .--.E.
.==

The cited 54+s, on the other, perform under special charters purel% ban)in$, finance, or related insurance functions that ma% include safe)eepin$, acceptin$ deposits and drafts, issuin$ letters of credit, discountin$ and ne$otiatin$ notes and other evidences of indebtedness, lendin$ mone% a$ainst real or personal propert%, investin$ in e*uities of allied underta)in$s, insurin$ ban) deposits of insolvent ban)s, and e6tendin$ social securit% protection to or)ers or emplo%ees and their beneficiaries. 7or)ers !es), +B&N !ataban) and Research Center, +B&N 4oundation, +nc., $)e P)ilippine +an-in* Sector> supra, pp. .1-.0. See also 'ille$as, Global inance %apital and t)e P)ilippine inancial System> supra, p. =0> WW= and E of RA G=G=, other ise )no n as the :"ocial "ecurit% 8a of .//0,: hich amended RA ..1.> and RA G=/., other ise )no n as :The 5overnment "ervice +nsurance "%stem Act of .//0,: hich amended P! No. ..E1.
.=-

4or a lon$er discourse on this point, see the !issentin$ &pinion of Carpio Morales, J. Consolidated Repl%, p. .C> rollo, p. .CF. See 7or)ers !es), +B&N !ataban) and Research Center, +B&N 4ounda