Case Title Himagan vs.

People
G.R. no. 113811
Main Topic Equal Protection of the Laws
Other Related Topic STATCON
Date: October 7, 1994

DOCTRINES

 Philippine National Police; Preventive Suspension; Statutes; R.A. No. 6975;

The suspension from office of a member of the PNP charged with grave
offense where the penalty is six years and one day or more shall last until
the termination of the case, and the suspension cannot be lifted before that
time. —

 The preventive suspension of the accused member of the PNP will not be
lifted even if the trial is not terminated within ninety (90) days. —

 The provisions of the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules and
regulations are applicable to members of the PNP insofar as the provisions,
rules and regulations are not inconsistent with R.A. 6975, and Sec. 42 of
P.D. 807 which limits the preventive suspension to ninety (90) days cannot
apply to members of the PNP because Sec. 47 of R.A. 6975 provides
differently. —Petitioner misapplies Sec. 42 of PD 807. A meticulous reading of the
section clearly shows that it refers to the lifting of preventive suspension in pending
administrative investigation, not in criminal cases, as here. What is more, Section 42
expressly limits the period of preventive suspension to ninety (90) days. Sec. 91 of R.A.
6975. Certainly, Section 42 of the Civil Service Decree which limits the preventive
suspension to ninety (90) days cannot apply to members of the PNP because Sec. 47 of
R.A. 6975 provides differently, that is, the suspension where the penalty imposed by law
exceeds six (6) years shall continue until the case is terminated.

 Equal Protection Clause; The imposition of preventive suspension for over

90 days does not violate the suspended policeman’s constitutional right to
equal protection of the laws.—The reason why members of the PNP are treated
differently from the other classes of persons charged criminally or administratively
insofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that
policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or
intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly brought out in the legislative discussions.
If a suspended policeman criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his
post while his case is pending, his victim and the witnesses against him are obviously
exposed to constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the
 accused is in uniform and armed. The imposition of preventive suspension for over 90
days under Section 47 of R.A. 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman’s
constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.

 The equal protection clause does not absolutely forbid classifications, and
a distinction based on real and reasonable considerations related to a
proper legislative purpose is neither unreasonable, capricious nor
unfounded.—The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It
is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing
the existence of real differences among men, the equal protection clause does not demand
absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
Thus, the equal protection clause does not absolutely forbid classifications, such as the
one which exists in the instant case. If the classification is based on real and substantial
differences; is germane to the purpose of the law; applies to all members of the same
class; and applies to current as well as future conditions, the classification may not be
impugned as violating the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. A distinction based
on real and reasonable considerations related to a proper legislative purpose such as that
which exists here is neither unreasonable, capricious nor unfounded.

FACTS:

 Petitioner: ISHMAEL HIMAGAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON.

JUDGE HILARIO MAPAYO, RTC.

 Ishmael Himagan was a policeman assigned in Davao City. He was charged for the
murder of Benjamin Machitar, Jr. and for the attempted murder of Benjamin’s younger
brother, Barnabe. Pursuant to Section 47 of Republic Act No. 6975, Himagan was placed
into suspension pending the murder case. The law provides that:
o Upon the filling of a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance
against a member of the PNP for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law
is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shall immediately suspend the
accused from office until the case is terminated. Such case shall be subject to
continuous trial and shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment
of the accused.
 Himagan assailed the suspension averring that Section 42 of P.D. 807 of the Civil
Service Decree provides that his suspension should be limited to ninety (90) days only.
He claims that an imposition of preventive suspension of over 90 days is contrary to the
Civil Service Law and would be a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection
of laws.
o (Ang punto nya kasi sa Civil Service Decree sabi hanggang 90 days lang
maximum suspension. Yung mga government official nga daw nasususpend
because of Anti-Graft charges max of 90 days lang lift na suspension. Eh bakit
under R.A. 6975, kaming member ng PNP is suspended until the case is
 terminated. Teka mukhang, mali yan! I assail my right to Equal Protection. Mali
yang batas na yan, parehas kaming public officials ah. Unconstitutional yan.”
 His motion was denied and the suspension continues. Due to this he filed a PETITION
for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the orders of the respondent Judge.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not Sec 47, RA 6975 violates equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution
.
HELD:

 NO. It does not violates the equal protection clause guaranteed by the Constitution.
REFER TO DOCTRINES, PHARAGRAPH 5, “The equal protection clause does not
absolutely forbid classifications, and a distinction based on real and reasonable
considerations related to a proper legislative purpose is neither unreasonable, capricious
nor unfounded.”
o Nagkaroon pa ng external aid (Statutory Construction) to help the court know the
intention behind the meaning of the Law. They referred to the deliberation during
the making of the Law (Nandun si Senator Saguisag, MR. RENE, wala lang).
Marami daw kasi nagrereklamo na nakakaloko na yung police na dapat
magtanggol sa kanila, then na-kasuhan ng murder, eh babalik sa position nya after
90 days. Eh, may baril saka badge yan. Pero dahil indefinite suspension until the
trial is terminated, the lawmaker inserted a remedy. DAPAT DAW SPEEDY
TRIAL, SWIFT JUSTICE.
o PERSONAL VIEW: Ang kupal lang, paanu yung mga other govt officals until
90days lang suspension, tapos yung police indefinite till matapos trial? haha. Eh
may private army yan and wealth. LOL. haha

 The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other classes of
persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application of the rule on
preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the
law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly
brought out in the legislative discussions.

 If a suspended policeman criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his

post while his case is pending, his victim and the witnesses against him are obviously
exposed to constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the
accused is in uniform and armed. the imposition of preventive suspension for over 90
days under Sec 47 of RA 6975 does not violate the suspended policeman’s constitutional
right to equal protection of the laws.