CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II REVIEWER

CHAPTER I. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

 Bill of rights
- A declaration and enumeration of the individual rights and privileges which
the constitution is designed to protect against violations by the
government, or by individuals or groups of individuals.
- Governs the relationship not between private individuals but between the
state and the individual.
- Confirm that certain rights of the individual exist without need of
governmental grant, rights that may not be taken away by government,
rights that government has the duty to protect.
- Primarily limitations on government
- Fundamental safeguards against aggressions of arbitrary power, or state
tyranny and abuse of authority.
- Cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals, being directed
against the government and its law enforcement agencies as limitation on
official action.

 Governmental power
- Not unlimited and the Bill of rights lays down these limitations to protect
the individual against aggression and unwarranted interference by any
department of government and its agencies.

 Right to due process

- Meant to protect ordinary citizens against arbitrary government action, but
not from acts committed by private individuals or entities.
- Guards against unwarranted encroachment by the State into the
fundamental rights of citizens and cannot be invoked in private
controversies involving private parties.

 Effectivity under revolutionary government

- Bill of right = not operative during the interregnum.
- During the interregnum:
 The directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the
supreme law.
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (covenant) and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration) = almost the
same rights found in the Bill of rights of the 1973 Constitution. =
 part of the generally accepted principles of Int’l law and binding on
the State.

 POLICE POWER
- State authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty
or property in order to promote the general welfare.
- Populi est suprema lex = the welfare of the people is the supreme law
o an inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually “extends to all
public needs, “ this “least limitable” of governmental powers grants a
wide panoply of instruments thru w/c the State, as parens patriae
gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers.

o Requisites/ validly exercised if:

1. The interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, requires the interference of the State;
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of
the objective sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals.

 Who may exercise police power:

o Is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. It cannot be
exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing
legislative power.
o The national legislature, may delegate this power to the
President and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking
bodies of municipal corporations or local government units.
o Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative
powers are conferred on them by the national lawmaking
body.
- Plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to
promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and
general welfare of the people.

 Police power of Local Governments:

- Delegated by legislature, as agencies of the State.
- Embodied in Republic Act 7160 (LGC of 1991), Section 16 = General
Welfare Clause; has two branches:
1. General legislative power
o Authorizes municipal council to enact ordinances and make
regulations not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into
 effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon the
municipal council by law.
2. Police power proper
o Authorizes the municipality to enact ordinances as may be
necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, morals,
peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality
and its inhabitants, and for the protection of their property.
- Its exercise of police power is valid unless it contravenes:
o the fundamental law of the land or
o an act of the legislature or
o unless it is against public policy, or
o is unreasonable, oppressive partial, discriminating or
o in derogation of a common right.

 Local Government
- A political subdivision of a nation or state which is constituted by law and
has substantial control of local affairs.
o Local Government Code definition
 A body and corporate one endowed with powers as a
political subdivision of the National Government and as a
corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its territory.
- Territorial and political subdivision of the State.
- Provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays.

 MMDA has no police power

- Metro manila was declared by virtue of Republic Act 7924 as a “special
development and administrative region” and the administration of “metro-
wide” basic services affecting the region placed under “a development
authority referred to as MMDA.
- RA 7924 does not grants MMDA police power or any legislative power.
- MMDA is termed as development authority, it is created for the purpose of
laying down policies and coordinating w/ various national gov’t agencies,
etc.
- Its functions are all administrative in nature.
- It is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed with
legislative power and no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the
community.
  Validity of an ordinance
- Ordinance to be valid
1. Must not only be within the corporate powers of the LGU to enact and
pass according to the procedure prescribed by law;
2. It must also conform to the ff substantive requirements:
a. It must not contravene to the constitution or any statute;
b. Must not be unfair or oppressive;
c. Must not be partial or discriminatory;
d. Must not prohibit but regulate trade;
e. Must be general and consistent with public policy; and
f. Must not be unreasonable.
 2 Test to successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for
the enactment of an ordinance and to free it for the imputation of
constitutional infirmity
1. Rational relationship test
o Applied in analysis of equal protection challenges.
o Laws or ordinances are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate
governmental interest.
o Under intermediate review, governmental interest is extensively
examined and the availability of less restrictive measure is
considered
o REQUISITES:
 The interest of the public generally as distinguished from
those of particular class require its exercise ; and
 The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals.
 Meaning there must be concurrence of lawful subject
and lawful method. Lacking a concurrence of the 2
requisites, the police power measure shall be struck
down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights and a
violation of due process clause.
2. Strict scrutiny test
o The focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial,
governmental interest and in the absence of less restrictive means
for achieving that interest.
Cases:
1. Fernando vs St. Scholastica’s college – Ordinance # 192
- The State may not, under guise of police power, infringe on private rights
solely for the sake d the aesthetic appearance of the community.
2. White Light Corporation vs City of Manila - Banning of wash rate admission +
renting out a room more than twice day.
- The desirability of these ends does not sanctify any and all means for their
achievements. Those means must align with the Constitution.
3. Social justice society vs Atienza – Ordinance # 8027
- In the exercise of police power there is a limitation on or restriction of
property interests to promote public welfare for which involves
compensable taking.
- Compensation is necessary only when the state’s power of eminent
domain is exercised.
4. Lucero vs City Government of Pasig –
- One cannot claim a vested right to occupying a market stall by virtue of a
lease contract under a local government ordinance
- The lease and occupation of a stall in a public market is not a right but a
purely statutory privilege governed by laws and ordinances.
- The operation of a market stall by virtue of a license is always subject to
the police power of the city government.
- A public market is one dedicated to the service of the general public and
operated under government control and supervision as a public utility
hence the operation of public market and its facilities is imbued with public
interest.

 Police power and the non-impairment clause

- The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of contracts is limited by the
exercise of police power of the State, in the interest of public health,
safety, morals and general welfare.
o Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership vs Feati Bank and Trust Co.,
 A contractual restrictions on the use of property could not
prevail over the reasonable exercise of police power thru
zonng regulations.
o Freedom to contract
- Is not absolute, all contracts and all rights are subject to the police power
of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be established
by the State, but all such regulation must be subject to change from time
to time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or as the
circumstances may change, or as experience may demonstrate necessity.
- General welfare of the people prevail not only over future contracts but
even over those already in existence, for all private contracts must yield to
the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote public
welfare.
 - This principle will apply only where the contract is so related to the public
welfare that it will be considered congenitally susceptible to change by the
legislature in the interest of the greater number.

 Real estate mortgage contract

o Goldenway Merchandising Corporation vs Equitable PCI Bank
 The difference in the treatment of juridical person and
natural person was based on the nature of the properties
foreclosed whether these are used as residence, for w/c
the more liberal one-year redemption period is retained, or
used for industrial or commercial purposes, in w/c case a
shorter term is deemed necessary to reduce the period of
uncertainty in the ownership of property and enable
mortgagee-banks to dispose sooner of yes acquired
assets.
 The right of redemption being statutory, it must be
exercised in the manner prescribed by the statute, and
within the prescribed time limit, to make it effective.
Furthermore, s with other individual rights to contract and
to property, it has to give way to police power exercised for
public welfare.

 Franchise
- A simple contract, but a mere privilege.
- It is within the government’s power to regulate and even prohibit through
the exercise of the police power.
o Ongsiako vs Gamboa
 The court emphasize the superiority of the police power of
the state over the sanctity of the contract.

 Police power and eminent domain

o Office of the Solicitor General vs Ayala Land, Inc.
 Held that the State cannot impose the total prohibition
against the collection by respondents of parking fees from
persons who use the mall parking facilities by generally
invoking police power, since said prohibition amounts to a
taking of respondent’s property without payment of just
compensation.

 Undue deprivation of private property

 - The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest,
arbitrarily interfere with private businesses, or impose unusual and
unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations.
- The determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police power is not
final or conclusive but subject to the supervision of the courts.
- A police measure for the regulation of the conduct, control and operation
of a business should not encroach upon the legitimate and lawful exercise
by the citizens of their property rights.
- Police power is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and
enjoyment of the property of the owner. The power to regulate does not
include the power to prohibit and the power to confiscate.
- It does not involve the taking or confiscation of property, w/ the exception
of a few cases where there is necessity to confiscate private property in
order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting peace and order and of
promoting the general welfare.
- Where there is taking or confiscation of private property for public use, the
State is no longer exercising police power but Eminent Domain.

 EMINENT DOMAIN

- From the principle of Jus Regalia, the right to eminent domain is a

fundamental state power that is inseparable from sovereignty.
- State’s inherent power that need not be granted even by the constitution,
and as the government’s right to appropriate, in the nature of compulsory
sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose.
- Enables the state to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use
upon payment of just compensation to the owner.
- Results in taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the
expropriated property, but no cogent reason appears why said power may
not availed of only to impose a burden upon the owner of condemned
property, without loss of title and possession.
- It is a settled rule that neither acquisition of title nor total destruction of
value is essential to taking.
- A regulation that deprives any person of the profitable uses of his property
constitutes a taking and entitles him to compensation, unless the invasion
of rights is so slight as to permit the regulation to be justified under the
police power.
- Similarly, a police regulation that unreasonably restricts the right to use
business property, and the owner may recover therefor.
- Involves a derogation of a fundamental or private right of the people.
- Not an unlimited power
 o Limitations:
 That the taking must be for a public purpose; and
 That just compensation must be paid to the owner.
o Who may exercise eminent domain:
- The power to expropriate pertains to the legislature.
- However, the congress may delegate the exercise of the power to
government agencies, public officials and quasi-public entities.
 Republic Act # 7160 / LGC Section 19:
- Allows LGUs to pass ordinance, not adopt a resolution, for the purpose of
initiating an expropriation proceeding.
- Resolution is not sufficient; must be ordinance.
- Requires that the local chief executive act pursuant to an ordinance.
o Requisites:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing
the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power
of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a
particular private property;
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose,
or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless;
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under the
Constitution, Article 3, Section 9 and other pertinent laws;
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of
the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not
accepted.
 A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution.

Ordinance Resolution

a law Merely a declaration of the

Possesses a general and permanent
character
sentiment or opinion of a
lawmaking body on a specific
matter.
Temporary in nature

A third reading is necessary Not necessary unless decided

otherwise by a majority of all the
Sanggunian members.
 TAXATION
- The power to tax emanates from necessity; w/o taxes, government cannot
fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the
people.
- The enforcement of tax laws and the collection of taxes are of paramount
importance for the sustenance of government.
- It is the lifeblood of the government and should be collected w/o
unnecessary hindrance or delay.
o 3 elements of tax:
1. It is an enforced proportional contribution from persons and
properties;
2. It is imposed by the State by virtue of its sovereignty;
3. It is levied for the support of the government.

o National Internal Revenue Code of 1997

- Provides that no court shall have the authority to grant an injunction to
restrain the collection of any national internal revenue tax, fee, or charge
imposed by the code.
o Exception: obtains only when in the opinion of the Court of Tax
Appeals the collection thereof may jeopardize the interest of the
government and/or the taxpayer.
- The situation is different in the collection of local taxes as there is no
express provision in the LGC prohibiting courts from issuing an injunction
to restrain local government from collecting taxes. However, although
there is no express provision the court should exercise extreme caution on
issuing such injunction.
- Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the exercise of
the State’s power of taxation save only where a tax exemption has been
granted for a valid consideration.

 Police power vs Taxation Power

POLICE POWER TAXATION POWER

Power of the State to enact legislation Power to levy taxes used for public
that may interfere w/ personal liberty purpose
and property in order to promote the
general welfare
Main purpose: is the regulation of a Main purpose: Revenue generation
behavior or conduct
 Tests: lawful subjects and lawful Tests: circumscribed by inherent and
means constitutional limitations.
 Power of taxation can be used as an implement of police power,
however, if the purpose is primarily or at least the real and substantial
purposes, then the exaction is properly called a TAX.

 Interpretation of tax laws

- Tax burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be imposed beyond
what the statute expressly and clearly imports, tax statutes being
construed strictissimi juris (strictly) against the government. (reason:
burden)
- Basic law prevails over the rule or regulation issued to implement the said
law.
- A statute will not be construed as imposing tax unless it does so clearly,
expressly and unambiguously.
- Tax cannot be imposed w/o clear and express words for that purpose.

 Taxation and estoppel

- It is a well-entrenched principle that estoppel does not apply to the
government, especially on matters of taxation.

 Public purpose
- the heart of a tax law.
- Inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are
exacted only for a public purpose. They cannot be used purely private
purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons.
- Reason: the power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in
its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a public purpose.
- Public purpose does not only pertain to those purposes w/c are
traditionally viewed as essentially government functions, such as building
roads and delivery of basic services, but also includes those purpose
designed to promote social justice. Hence, public money may now be used
for relocation of illegal settlers, low-cost housing and urban or agrarian
reform.
- When a tax law is only a mask to exact fuds from the public but its true
intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a private person or
enterprise, that law will not satisfy the requirement of “public purpose”
- No hard-and-fast rule in determining what constitutes public purpose.

 Tax exemptions
 - Construed strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the
taxing authority.
- It must be shown clearly and based in the language in law too plain to be
mistaken. Clear and unambiguous and unequivocal.
- Taxation is the rule; exemption is the exception.
- Burden of proof: party claiming the exemption; must justify his claim that
the legislature intended to exempt him by unmistakable terms.
o Reason for the strict construction:
 to minimize differential treatment and foster impartiality,
fairness, and equality of treatment among taxpayers.
- No vested right in tax exemption being a mere statutory privilege, a tax
exception may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority
because taxing power of the state is unlimited, plenary, comprehensive,
and supreme.
- LGU has no power to tax instrumentalities of the national government like
the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA).
o If an instrumentalities of a national government leases its property to
a taxable person, the specific property leased becomes subject to
real property tax.

 Tax exclusions
- No essential difference between tax exemption
- Tax exemption is an immunity and privilege, it is the freedom from charge
or burden to w/c the other are subjected.
- An exclusion is the removal of otherwise taxable items from the reach of
taxation; also an immunity or privilege
- Construed strictly against the tax payer and liberally in favor of the taxing
authority.

 Tax amnesty
- General pardon or the intentional overlooking by the State of its authority
to impose penalties on persons otherwise guilty of violation of a tax law.
- An absolute waiver by the government of its rights to collect what is due it
and to give tax evaders who wish to relent a chance to start with a clean
slate.
- Never favor nor presumed.
- Construed strictly against the tax payer and liberally in favor of the taxing
authority.
  Tax refund
- Not founded principally on legislative grace but on the legal principle of
unjust enrichment at the expense of another.
- The government is not exempt from the application of solution indebiti. The
taxpayer expects fair dealings from the government, and the latter has the
duty to refund w/o delay what it has erroneously collected.
- Construed strictly against the tax payer and liberally in favor of the taxing
authority.
o Basis in claiming for tax refund:
1. Erroneously or illegally assessed or collected internal revenue
taxes
2. Penalties imposed w/o authority; and
3. Any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner
wrongfully collected.

 Franchise laws
- “exclusive of this franchise” – not a grant of tax exemption, but an
exclusion of one type of personal property subject to taxes and the
excluded personal property is the franchise.

CHAPTER II – DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
 DUE PROCESS
 Not a mere formality that may be dispensed with at will, but is a matter of
serious concern since it constitutes a safeguard of the highest order in
response to man’s innate sense of justice.
 2 conditions must concur:
1. That there is deprivation
2. That such deprivation is done w/o proper observance of due process.

 Essence:
- That a party is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any
evidence one may have in support of one’s defense.
 o Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the
proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation
of due process.
o If the opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited
w/o violating the constitutional guarantee.
- In administrative proceeding = an opportunity to explain one’s side or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.

- Not the denial of the right to be heard but the denial of the opportunity to
be heard that constituted violation of due process of law.

o Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of

justice and the protection of substantive rights in judicial and
extrajudicial proceedings.
o Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally
guaranteed by due process, whatever source of rights be it the
Constitution or a statue or a rule of court.
o Violation of due process is a personal defense that can only be
asserted by the person whose rights have been allegedly violated.

 Purpose of the guaranty:

1. To prevent governmental encroachment against the life, liberty, and
property of individuals;
2. To secure the individuals from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the
government, unrestrained by the established principles of private rights
and distributive justice
3. To protect property from confiscation by legislative enactments, from
seizure, forfeiture, and destruction w/o a trial and conviction by the
ordinary mode of judicial procedure; and
4. To secure to all persons equal and impartial justice and the benefit of the
general law.

 Private corporations and partnerships are “person” within the scope guaranty
insofar as their property is concerned.

 Procedural due process

- Refers to the methods or manner by which the law is enforced.

o Standards to satisfy procedural due process:

 1. The respondent must be informed in writing of the nature and cause
of any accusation against them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with
the assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
and
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated to hear and decide case. Moreover
the penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense
committed.

 Opportunity to be heard
- Due process as a constitutional precept does not always and in all
situations require trial-type proceedings.
- To be heard does not only mean verbal arguments in court, one may be
heard also through pleadings and if either is accorded, there is no denial of
procedural due process.
o Denial of due process
 Means the total lack of opportunity to be heard or to have
one’s day in court.
 No denial of due process where a party has been given an
opportunity to be heard and to present his case; what is
prohibited is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.
 Cases:
o People vs Castillo
 If an accused has been heard in a court of competent
jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly
processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and
investigation, upon notice to him, w/ opportunity to be
heard, and a judgment awarded within the authority of the
constitutional law, then he has had due process.
o Sumadchat vs Court of Appeals
 In the application of the principle of due process, what is
sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but
the denial of opportunity to be heard. Absence of previous
notice is not itself a substantial defect; what the law abhors
is the lack of opportunity to be heard.
o Maliwat vs CA
 Petitioner could not complain that her constitutional rights
to due processes were violated by reason of the delay in
 the termination of the preliminary investigation; there was a
continuum of the investigatory process but it got snarled
because of complexity of the issues involved.
 The denial of petitioner’s request for a formal investigation
was not tantamount to a denial of his right to due process.
As long as the parties were given the opportunity to be
heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of due
process was sufficiently met.
o Lumiqued vs Hon. Exevea
 As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his
interest in due course, he cannot said to have denied due
process of law, for his opportunity to be heard is the very
essence of due process.
 This constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person
is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.

o Villa Rhecar Bus vs. De La Cruz

 Notice to counsel is notice to the client.
 Not the lack of previous notice but the denial of the
opportunity to be heard.

o Development Bank of the Philippines vs Teston

 Courts cannot grant a relief not prayed for in the pleadings
or in excess of what is being sought by the party. They
cannot also grant a relief w/o first ascertaining the
evidence presented in support thereof.
 Due process considerations require that judgments must
conform to and be supported by the pleadings and
evidence presented in court.
 It is improper to enter an order w/c exceeds the scope of
relief sought by the pleadings, absent notice w/c affords
the opposing party an opportunity to be heard with respect
to the proposed relief.
 The purpose of the requirement is to prevent surprise to
the defendant, who has a right to due process against
unforeseen and arbitrarily issued judgment.
 Respondent’s waiver of their right to present evidence
should never be construed as waiver to contest patently
erroneous award which already transgressed their right to
due process.
 Impartial and competent court
o Gacad vs Clapis
 Found a judge liable for gross ignorance of the law for
conducting bail hearings w/o a petition for bail being filed by the
accused and w/o affording the prosecution an opportunity to
prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. Judge Clapis failed
to observe the proper procedure in granting bail.

o Arroyo vs Department of Justice

 The conduct of preliminary investigation is, like court
proceedings, subject to the requirements of both substantive and
procedural due process.
 Preliminary investigation is considered as a judicial proceeding
wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer, by nature of his
functions, acts as a quasi-judicial order.

 Right to counsel
o Nera vs Auditor General
 The assistance of a lawyers, while desirable, is not
indispensable. The legal profession was bit engrafted in the due
process clause such that without the participation of its
members, the safeguard is deemed ignored or violated. The
ordinary citizen is not that helpless that he cannot validly act at
all except only with a lawyer at his side.
 As a rule, a client is bound by his counsel’s conduct, negligence
and mistake in handling a case. To allow a client to disown his
counsel’s conduct would render proceedings indefinite, tentative,
and subject to reopening by the mere subterfuge of replacing
counsel.
 Exceptions: the client was not bound by the negligence,
incompetence, or mistake of the counsel when the negligence of
the counsel is so gross and palpable as to deprived the client of
his life, liberty, and property w/o due process of law. Hence;
litigation may be reopened for that purpose.
 Cases
 Suarez vs CA
o The negligence of the petitioner’s counsel had deprived her of the
right to present and prove her defense.
  Legarda vs CA
o Failure of her counsel to file an answer and form counsel’s lack of
vigilance in protecting her interests in subsequent proceedings
before the trial court and the CA.
 Amil vs CA
o Client is not bound by the mistakes of his counsel when the
negligence of the counsel is so gross that the client was deprived of
his day in court, thereby also depriving he client of his property w/o
due process of law.

 Court litigation
- Primarily a search for truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules that
gives to both parties the fullest opportunity to adduce proof is the best way
to ferret out such truth.
- A court may suspend its own rules or except a case from them in order to
serve the ends of justice.
- Or it may altogether disregard the rule in a proper case.

 Finality of judgment
- A decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
and cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions fact and law, and whether the modification
is made by the court that rendered it or by the SC as the highest court of
the land.
o Public policy dictates that once a judgment becomes final,
executory, unappealable, the prevailing party should not be
deprived of the fruits of victory by some subterfuge devised by the
losing party.
o Unjustified delay in the enforcement of such judgment sets at
naught the role and purpose of the courts to resolve justiciable
controversies with finality. Indeed all litigation must at some time
end, even at risk of occasional errors.
 Doctrine of immutability of a final judgment has not been
absolute
 Exceptions:
1. The correction of clerical errors;
2. The so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no
prejudice to any party;
3. Void judgments; and
 4. Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of
the decision that render its execution unjust and
inequitable.
 UP vs. Dizon
 SC disregard the declaration of finality of the judgment o
the trial court for being in clear violation of the U.P’s right to
due process.

 Right to appeal
- Alba vs. Nitorreda
o The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it
is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law.
o Therefore, the constitutional requirement of due process may be
satisfied regardless of the denial of the right to appeal for the
essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence in support of one’s case.

 Nuisances
- Unless a thing is nuisance per se, it may not be abated summarily w/o
judicial intervention.
o Nuisance per se
 One w/c affects the immediate safety of persons and
property and may be summarily abated under the
undefined law of necessity.
o Nuisance per accidens
 It may be proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose.

 State’s right to due process

- The state, like any other litigant, is entitled to its day in court; in criminal
proceedings, the public prosecutor acts for and represent the State, and
carries the burden of diligently pursuing the criminal prosecution in a
manner consistent with public interest.
- The state’s right to be heard in court rests to a large extent on whether the
public prosecutor properly undertook his duties in pursuing the criminal
action for the punishment of the guilty.
- The prosecutor’s role in the administration of justice is to lay before the
court, fairly and fully, every fact and circumstance known to him or her to
exist, w/o regard to whether such fact tends to establish the guilt or
innocence of the accused and w/o regard to any personal conviction or
presumption on what the judge may or is disposed to do.
 o Merciales vs CA
 The following circumstances were held to have effectively
resulted in the denial of the State’s right to due process,
attributable to the inaction of the public prosecutor and/or
the trial court:
1. The public prosecutor rested the case knowing fully well
that the evidence adduced was insufficient;
2. The refusal of the public prosecutor to present other
witnesses available to take the stand;
3. The knowledge of the trial court of the insufficiency of
the prosecution’s evidence when the demurrer to
evidence was filed before it; and
4. The trial court’s failure to require the presentation of
additional evidence before it acted on the demurrer to
evidence.
o Valencia vs Sandiganbayan
 Violation of the State’s right to due process in criminal
proceedings because of sufficient showing that the special
prosecutor haphazardly handled the prosecution.
 As a rule, once the court grants an accused’s demurrer to
evidence, the grant amounts to an acquittal; any further
prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy.
 2 grounds where double jeopardy will not attach
1. On the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and/or
2. Where there is denial of a party’s due process right.
o People vs Sandiganbayan
 Gross negligence exist when there is want, or absence of
or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care.
 It involves thoughtless disregard of consequences w/o
exerting any effort to avoid.
 The court held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the Sandiganbayan when it exercised restraint and
did not require the presentation of additional evidence, given the
clear weakness of the case at that point.
 The court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may require or
allow the prosecution to present additional evidence after a
demurrer to evidence is filed. This exercise must be:
1. for good reasons;
 2. in the paramount exercise of justice;
3. would patently result in the denial of due process;
4. if it is newly discovered;
5. if it was omitted thru inadvertence or mistake; or
6. if it is intended to correct the evidence previously offered.

 Due process in administrative proceedings

o Requisites of procedural due process in administrative proceedings:
1. The right to a hearing, w/c includes the right to present one’s cause
and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the
hearing or at least contained in the record and disclose to the
parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy,
and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various issued involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered.
 Technical rules of procedure not strictly applied
- In quasi-judicial proceedings before the NLRC and its arbitration branch,
procedural rules governing service of summons are not strictly construed.
- Substantial compliance thereof is sufficient.
- The constitutional requirement of due process w/ respect to service of
summons only exacts that the service of summons be such as may
reasonably be expected to give the notice desired.
- In labor case, the intention of the Labor code it to ascertain the facts of
each case speedily and objectively w/o resort to technical rules.

 Opportunity to be heard
- In administrative proceeding
o The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain
one’s side or an opportunity to seek for reconsideration of the action
or ruling complained of and any seeming defect in its observance is
cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.
o Cross-examine is not indispensable aspect of due process.
 o Actual hearing is not always an indispensable aspect of due
process. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his
interest in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied of
due process of law, for his opportunity to be heard is the very
essence of due process.
o Actual adversarial proceeding become necessary only for
clarification or when there is a need to propound searching
questions to unclear witnesses. This is a procedural right w/c the
respondent must, however, ask for it is not an inherent, and
summary proceedings may be conducted.
o NASECO Guards Association vs National Service Corp
 Respondent’s right to due process had not been denied
 A reevaluation is a process by w/c a person or office
revisits is own initial pronouncement and make another
assessment of its findings. Or in simple terms, to
reevaluate is to take another look at a previous matter in
issue.
o It is a continuation of the original case and not a
new proceeding.

 Disbarment Cases
- Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis in that het are
neither purely civil nor purely criminal.
- There is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor
- May be initiated by the Court motu proprio
- Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for
determination is WON the atty is still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such.
- Complainant is not a direct party to the case but a witness who brought the
matter to the attention of the Court.
- Not mandatory to have a formal hearing in w/c the complaint must adduce
evidence.

 Employee termination cases

- The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be
dismissed with the two written notices before the termination of the
employee can be legally effected:
1. Notice w/c apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for
which his dismissal is sought;
2. The subsequent notice which informs the employee of the employer’s
decision to dismiss him.
 - Failure to comply with the requirements taints the dismissal w/ illegality.
This procedure is mandatory.
- The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential
elements of due process. This means that the employer shall afford the
worker ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative, if he so desires.
o Ample opportunity
 Connotes every kind of assistance that management must
accord the employee to enable him to prepare adequately
for his defense including legal representation.

 Deportation proceedings
- The power to deport an alien is an act of the State.
- An act by or under the authority of the sovereign.
- A police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the
country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility
of the people.
- Although not in a nature of criminal action, considering that it is harsh and
extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty
of a person, right to due process should not be denied.
- Provisions of the Rules of Court on criminal procedure are thus applicable
o Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, Section 37©
 (c) No alien shall be deported without being informed of the
specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a
hearing under rules of procedure to be prescribed by the
Commissioner of Immigration.
- The intervention of a private prosecutor should not be allowed in
deportation cases because of the possibility of oppression, harassment,
and persecution.

 Student disciplinary proceedings

- Not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions
and proceedings in court of justice
- It may be summary, and cross-examination is not even an essential part
thereof.
o Minimum standards laid down by the SC:
1. The students must be informed in writing the nature and cause of
any accusation against the,;
 2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them, w/
the assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
and
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear
and decide the case.

 Substantive due process

- Requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law
would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just.
- Asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a
persons’ life, liberty, or property.
- Whether there is a justification depends very much on the level of scrutiny
used.
o Rational basis review
 Is met so long as the law is rationally related to a legitimate
government purpose.
o Strict scrutiny
 Is used, such as for protecting fundamental rights, then the
government will meet substantive due process only if it can
prove that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling
government purpose.
- If due process were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would
arise absurd situation of arbitrary government action, provided the proper
formalities are followed.

 Vested right
o is one whose existence, effectively, and extent do not depend upon
events foreign to the will of the holder or to the exercise of which no
obstacle exists, and w/c is immediate and perfect in itself and not
dependent upon a contingency.
o Its concept is a consequence of the constitutional guaranty of due
process that expresses a present fixed interest w/c in right reason and
natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action.
o It includes not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a
demand but also exemptions from new obligations created after the
right has become vested.
  Rights are considered vested when the right to enjoyment is a
present interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect or fixed and
irrefutable.
 While one may not be deprived of his vested right he may lose
the same if there is due process and such deprivation is founded
in law and jurisprudence.

 A valid ordinance must be:

1. Within the corporate powers of the municipality to enact
2. Must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law
3. Must be in consonance w/ certain established and basic principles of
substantive nature.

 A municipal ordinance:
1. Must not contravene the constitution or any statute;
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. Must be general and consistent w/ public policy; and
6. Must not be unreasonable.

 Prohibition on certain forms of entertainment and services

o City of Manila vs Laguio
 The closing down/ transfer of business or their conversion into
business allowed under the ordinance had no reasonable
relation to the accomplishment of its purpose.
 The means employed by the ordinance for the achievement of it
purposes, the governmental interference itself, infringed on the
constitutional guarantees of a person’s fundamental right to
liberty and property.
 Liberty should be the rule and restraint the exception
 Liberty in the constitutional sense not only means freedom from
unlawful government restraint; it must include privacy as well, if t
is to be repository freedom. The right to be let alone is the
beginning of all freedom – it is the most comprehensive of rights
and the right most valued by civilized men.

 Reduced prices for movie tickets

o While it is true that a business may be regulated, it is equally true
that such regulation must be within the bounds of reason, that is
regulatory ordinance must be reasonable, and its provisions cannot
 be oppressive amounting to an arbitrary interference with the
business or calling subject of regulation.
o A lawful business or calling may not, under the guise of regulation,
be unreasonably interfered with even by the exercise of police
power.
o A police measure for the regulation of the conduct, control and
operation of a business should not encroach upon the legitimate
and lawful exercise by the citizens of their property rights.

 Publication requirement of laws

o Laws must be published to be valid.
o Publication is an indispensable condition for the effectivity of a law.
o The conclusive presumption that every person knows the law
presupposes that the law has been published, if the presumption is
to have any legal justification at all.
o All statutes including those of local application and private laws,
presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the
President in the exercise of legislative powers, administrative rules
and regulations, if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing
law must be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall
begin 15 days after the publication unless a different effectivity date
is fixed by the legislature.
o Publication must be of full text of the law since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the law.

 Licenses
o All licenses may be revoked or rescinded by executive action.
o It is not a contract, property, or a property right protected by the due
process clause.
o It is a mere permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be
unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state,
or municipal, granting it and the person to whom it is granted.
o Neither is it property or a property right, nor does it create vested
right nor is it taxation.
o Granting licenses does not create irrevocable rights.

 EQUAL PROTECTION
- Does not demand absolute equality it simply requires that all persons or
things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed.
 - The equality guaranteed under this clause is equality under the same
conditions and among persons similarly situated.
- It is equality among equals, not similarity of treatment of persons who are
different from one another on the basis of substantial distinctions related to
the objective of the law;
- When things or persons are different in facts or circumstances, they may
be treated differently in law.
- Aimed at all official state actions, not just those of the legislature. Its
inhibition cover all the departments of the government including the
political and executive departments, and extends to all actions of a state
denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever agency or
whatever guise is taken.
- Its purpose is to secure every person within a state’s jurisdiction against
intentional and arbitrary discrimination whether occasioned by the express
terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the state’s duly
constituted authorities.
- It exists to prevent undue favor or privilege and it is intended to eliminate
discrimination and oppression based on inequality.
- No violation of equal protection if there is a reasonable classification.
 By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things
similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all
others in these same particulars.

 For a classification to be reasonable:

1. It rests on substantial distinctions;
2. It is germane to the purpose of the law;
3. It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. It applies equally to all members of the same class.

- It is not necessary that the classification be made with absolute symmetry,

in the sense that the members of the class should possess the same
characteristics in equal degree.
- Substantial similarity will suffice.

 Rational basis test

- A legislative classification, to survive an equal protection challenge, must
be shown to rationally further a legitimate state interest.
- The classification must be reasonable and rest upon some ground of
difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the
legislation.
 - Since every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, the
burden of proof is on the one attacking the constitutionality of the law to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legislative classification is w/o
rational basis.
- The presumption of constitutionality can be overcome only by the most
explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive
discrimination against particular persons and classes, and that there is no
conceivable basis w/c might support it.
- For as long as the legislative classification is rationally related to furthering
some legitimate state interest, the rational-basis test is satisfied and the
constitutional challenge is perfunctorily defeated.
- Courts may not strike down a law merely because the legislative aim
would have been more fully achieved by expanding the class. There is no
constitutional requirement that regulation must reach each and every class
to w/c it might be applied that the legislature must be held rigidly to the
choice of regulating all or none.
- Any person who poses an equal protection challenge must convincingly
show that the law creates a classification that is “palpably arbitrary or
capricious.” He must refute all possible rational bases for the differing
treatment, WON the legislature cited those bases as reasons for
enactment, such that the constitutionality of the law must be sustained
even if the reasonableness of the classification is “fairly debatable”

 Juridical and natural persons

- The period for the exercise of the right to redeem foreclosed properties is
different for judicial persons and natural persons
- Act No. 3135 provided for a one year period of redemption.
- RA 8791, or the General Banking Law of 2000, Section 47 provided an
exception in the case of juridical persons, w/c are allowed to exercise the
right of redemption only “until but not after, the registration of the certificate
of foreclosure sale” and in no case more than 3 months after foreclosure,
whichever comes first.
- The difference in the treatment of juridical persons and natural persons
was based on the nature of the properties foreclosed - whether these are
used as residence, for w/c the more liberal one-year redemption period is
retained, or used for industrial or commercial purposes, in w/c case a
shorter term is deemed necessary to reduce the period of uncertainty in
the ownership of property and enable mortgagee-banks to dispose sooner
or these acquired assets.

 Relative constitutionality
 - Can a provision of law, initially valid, become subsequently
unconstitutional, on the ground that its continued operation would violate
the equal protection of the law?
o Central Bank Employee Association, Inc. vs BSP
 w/ the passage of the subsequent laws amending the
charter of seven other governmental financial institutions,
the continued operation of the last proviso of RA 7653,
Article 2, Section 15© constitutes invidious discrimination
on the 2,994 rank-and-file employees of the BSP.
 The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance,
be determined by a mere comparison of its provisions with
applicable provisions of the Constitution, since the statute
may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts
and invalid in its application to another.
 A statute valid at one time may become void at another
time because of altered circumstances. Thus if a statute in
its practical operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its
validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is
open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed
conditions.
 Statute may be adjudged unconstitutional because of their
effect in operation. If a law has the effect of denying the
equal protection of the law it is unconstitutional.
 It bears no moment that the unlawful discrimination was
not a direct result arising from one law – No one is allowed
to do indirectly what he is prohibited to do directly.

 Investigation and prosecution of certain crimes

o Biraogo vs PTC
 The Office of the Ombudsman is granted virtually plenary
investigatory powers by the Constitution and by law and thus
may, for every particular investigation, whether commenced by
complaint or on its own initiative, decide how best to pursue each
investigation. Since the Office of the Ombudsman is granted
such latitude, its varying treatment of similarly situated
investigations cannot by itself be considered a violation of any of
the parties’ right to the equal protection of the laws.
 Every election is distinct and requires different guidelines in
order to ensure that the rules are updated to respond to existing
circumstances.
  It has been a practiced that complaints for violation of election
laws may be filed either w/ the COMELEC or with the DOJ, the
varying procedures and treatment do not mean that the
respondents are not treated alike.

 Rights of the accused

o There is no substantial difference between those who are convicted of
offenses w/c are criminal in nature under military courts and the civil
courts.

 Anti-cybercrime law
o Disini vs Secretary of Justice
 RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012
 No real differences whether a person uses “Julio
Gandolfo” which happens to be his real name, or use it as
a pseudo-name, for it is the evil purpose for which he uses
that the law condemns. The law is reasonable in
penalizing him for acquiring the domain in bad faith to
profit, mislead, destroy reputation or deprive others who
are not ill-motivated of the rightful opportunity of
registering the same.
 Public officers
o Presidential appointees
 Come under the direct disciplining authority of the President.
 Settled principle: in the absence of a contrary law, the power to
remove or to discipline is lodged in the same authority on w/c the
power to appoint is vested.
 President has the authority to investigate such public officials
and look into their conduct in office.
o Pichay vs Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs
 There are substantial distinction between presidential appointees
occupying upper-level positions in government from non-
presidential appointees and those occupy the lower positions in
government.
o Salumbides vs Office of the Ombudsman
 Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective
officials and appointive officials. The former occupy their
office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate. They are
elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed
 therefrom only upon stringent conditions. On the other
hand, appointive officials hold their office by virtue of their
designation thereto by an appointing authority. Some
appointive officials hold their office in a permanent capacity
and are entitled to security of tenure while others serve at
the pleasure of the appointing authority.

 An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps

the purest expression of the sovereign power of the
people. It involves the choice or selection of candidates to
public office by popular vote. Considering that elected
officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite
term, x x x complete deference is accorded to the will of the
electorate that they be served by such officials until the end
of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there is
no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are
concerned.

 Election officers
o De Guzman vs COMELEC
 The singling out of election officers in order to ensure the
impartiality of election officials by preventing them from
developing familiarity with the people of their place of
assignment does not violate the equal protection clause.
 The legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere
to a policy of “all or none.” This is so for under inclusiveness
is not an argument against a valid classification.

 Elective officials and appointive officials

o Quinto vs COMELEC
 The deemed-resigned provisions in our elections laws do
not violate the equal protection clause.
 Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective
officials and appointive officials.

ELECTIVE OFFICIALS APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Occupy their office by Hold their office by virtue of

virtue of the mandate of their designation thereto
the electorate. by an appointing authority
They are elected to an Some hold in permanent
office for a definite term capacity
 may remove therefrom Entitled to security of
only upon stringent tenure while others serve
conditions at the pleasure of the
appointing authority.
Obviously expressly Strictly prohibited from
allowed to take part in engaging in any partisan
political and electoral political activity or from
activities. taking part in any election
except to vote.

 Customs and internal revenue officials

o Bureau of Customs Employees Association vs Teves
 Equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification,
that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or
rational basis and not arbitrary.
 Both BIR and BOC are bureaus under the DOF. They
principally perform the special function of being the
instrumentalities thru which the State exercises one of its
great inherent functions- taxation. Such substantial
distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose
of the law. The classification and treatment accorded to the
BIR and the BOC under RA 9335 fully satisfy the demand of
equal protection.

 Police Officers
- 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 and which
may easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accuse is in
uniform and armed.

 Administrative sanctions
o Soriano vs Laguardia
 Petitioner could not, under the premises, place himself in the
same shoes as the INC ministers, who, for one, were not
facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB. For
another, he offered no proof that the said ministers, in their
TV programs, use language similar to that which he used in
his own, necessitating the MTRCB’s disciplinary action. If
the immediate result of the preventive suspension order was
that petitioner was temporarily gaged and was unable to
 answer his critics, this did not become a deprivation of the
equal protection guarantee.

 Tax and duty incentives

o Equal protection of the law is not violated by an executive order,
issued pursuant to law, granting tax and duty incentives only to
businesses and residents within the “secured area” of the Subic
Special Economic Zone and denying them to those who live within
the zone but outside such “fenced-in” territory.
o It was reasonable for the President to have delimited the
application of some incentives to the confines of the former Subic
military base.
o Investors are the ones who can pour huge investments to spur
economic growth in the country and to generate employment
opportunities for the Filipinos, the ultimate goals of the government
for such conversion. The classification is, therefore, germane to
the purposes of the law. And as the legal maxim goes “The intent
of a statute is the law.”

 Gambling activities
o Basco vs Pagcor
 The mere fact that some gambling activities like
cockfighting, horse racing, etc. are legalized under certain
conditions, while others are prohibited, does not render the
applicable laws, PD No. 1869 or the Pagcor charter for ne,
unconstitutional.
 The equal protection clause does not mean that all
occupations called by the same name must be treated the
same way; the State may do what it can to prevent which is
deemed as evil and stop short of those cases in which harm
of the few concerned is not less than the harm to the public
that would insure if the rule laid down were made
mathematically exact.

 Medical profession
- There can be no question that a substantial distinction exists between
medical students and other student who are not subjected to the
NMAT and the three-flunk rule.
- The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the people,
unlike other career which, for no reason, do not inquire more vigilant
regulation.

 Special protection for women and children

o The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of
equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the State.
 o It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the
constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man,
woman, and child should be affected alike by a statute.
o Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate on
persons merely as such, but on persons according to the
circumstances surrounding them.
o It guarantees equality, not identity of rights.
o Garcia vs Drilon
 RA 9262 (VAWC) is based on substantial distinction
 The unequal power relationship between women and men;
the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims
of violence; and widespread gender bias and prejudice
against women all make for real differences justifying the
classification under the law.

 Reproductive health law

o Imbong vs Executive Secretary
 To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the
government’s reproductive health care program is not
a violation of the equal protection clause.
 In fact, it is pursuant to the constitution that recognizes
the distinct necessity to address the needs of the
underprivileged by providing that they be given priority
in addressing the health development of the people.

 Employment policies
o Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of
particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can
show that sex, religion, or nation origin is an actual qualification for
performing the job,
o The qualification is called bona fide occupational qualification
(BFOQ).

 2 types of employment policies:

1. No-spouse employment policies
 Banning only spouses from working for the same
company.
2. Anti-nepotism employment policies
 Banning all immediate family members, including
spouses, from working in the same company.

 2 theories of employment discrimination:

1. Disparate treatment
  Plaintiff must prove that an employment policy is
discriminatory on its face
 No spouse employment policies requiring an
employee of a particular sex to either quit, transfer, or
be fired are facially discriminatory.
2. Disparate impact
 Complainants must prove that a facially neutral policy
has a disproportionate effect on a particular class.
o The court who construe marital status discrimination to include
only whether a person is single, married, divorce, or widowed and
not the “identity, occupation, and place of employment of one’s
spouse.”
 It upheld the questioned policies and ruled that they did not
violate the marital statues discrimination provision of their
respective state statutes.
o The courts however, who construed the term marital status rule
that it encompassed the identity, occupation, and place of
employment of one’s spouse, strike down the “no-spouse
employment policies” based on the broad legislative intent of the
state status.
 They reason that the no-spouse employment policies
violate the marital status provision because it
arbitrarily discriminates against all spouses present
employees w/o regard to the actual effect on the
individual’s qualification or work performance.
 Unless the employer can prove that the reasonable
demands of business require a distinction based on
marital status and there is no better available or
acceptable policy w/c would better accomplish the
business purpose, an employer may not discriminate
against an employee based on the identity of the
employee’s spouse. This is known as bona fide
occupational qualification exception.

o 2 factors to justify a bona fide qualification

1. That the employment qualification is reasonably related to
the essential operation of the job involved;

2. That there is a factual basis for believing that all or

substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be
unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

o Philippine telegram and telephone company vs NLRC

  The company violates the right against discrimination
afforded to all women workers under the labor code, Article
136 but it established a permissible exception: a
requirement that a woman employee must remained
unmarried could be justified a bona fide occupational
qualification if:
 The particular requirements of the job would justify
the same but not on the ground of a general principle,
such as the desirability of spreading work in the
workplace.
 Provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably
necessary for the satisfactory job performance.

o Star Paper Corporation vs Simbol

o The employer failed to show how the marriage of the
employees, who had different work assignments, could be
detrimental to its business operations.
o If it were to uphold the questioned rule without valid justification,
the employer can create policies based on an unproven
presumption of a perceived danger at the expense of an
employee’s right to security of tenure.

 Retirement benefits of AFP personnel

o Military personnel from the AFP and who loses his citizenship
shall be removed from the retired list and his retirement benefits
terminated upon loss of Filipino citizenship. (PD 1638)
o There is a substantial difference between retirees who are
citizens of the Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino
citizenship by naturalization in another country.
o A retiree who had lost his Filipino citizenship already renounced
his allegiance to the State hence he may no longer be
compelled by the state to render compulsory military service
when the need arise.
o PD 1638 was not oppressive, discriminatory, or contrary to
public policy. The state has the right to impose a reasonable
condition that is necessary for national defense. To rule
otherwise would be detrimental to the State.

 Overseas Filipino workers

o There can be no dispute about dissimilarities between land-
based and sea-based Filipino workers in terms of, among other
 things, work environment, safety, dangers and risks to life and
limb, and accessibility to social, civic, and spiritual activities.
o Constitutional provisions translate to economic security and
parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by
workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations
should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be
denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared
the burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.

o Three levels of scrutiny

1. Deferential or rational basis scrutiny
 The challenged classification needs only be shown to
be rationally related to serving a legitimate state
interest.
2. Middle-tier or intermediate scrutiny
 Which the government must show that the challenged
classification serves an important state interest and
that the classification is at least substantially related to
serving that interest.
3. Strict judicial scrutiny
 Which a legislative classification which
impermissibility interferes with the exercise of a
fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed
unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the
government to prove that the classification is
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and
that it is the least restrictive means to protect such
interest.

o Foreign decisions and authorities are not per se controlling in this

jurisdiction. They are persuasive and have been used to support
many of our decisions.
o Our laws must be construed in accordance w/ the intention of our
lawmakers and such intent may be deduced from the language of
each law and the context of other local legislation related thereto.
o The y must be construed to serve our own public interest which is
the be-all and the end-all laws. And our public interest is distinct
and different from others.

o Social Justice
- Calls for the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
 Term of OFW’s employment contract
o RA 8043 SEC. 10. MONEY CLAIMS.- ….In case of termination of
overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause as
defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent
(12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the
unexpired term, whichever is less.

o The enactment of the subject clause in RA 8042 introduced a

differentiated rule of computation of the money claims of legally
dismissed OFWs based on their employment periods, in the
process singling out one category whose contracts have an
unexpired portion of one-year or more and subjecting them to the
peculiar disadvantage of having their monetary awards limited to
their salaries for 3 months or for the unexpired portion thereof,
whichever is less, but all the while sparing the other category form
such prejudice, simply because the latter’s unexpired contracts fall
short of one year.

 OFWs with employment contracts of more than one year

- The subject clause creates a sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs
whose contract periods are for more than 1 year those who are
illegally dismissed with less than one year left in their contracts shall
be entitled to their salaried for the entire unexpired portion thereof,
while those who are illegally dismissed with one year or more
remaining in their contracts shall be covered by the subject clause,
and their monetary benefits limited to their salaries for 3 months only.

 OFWs vis-à-vis local workers with fixed period employment.

- The subject clause contains a suspect classification, in that, in the
computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who
are illegally discharges, it imposes a three-month cap on the claims of
OFWs w/ an unexpired potion of one-year or more in their contracts,
but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term
employees.
- The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and
burdens it w/ peculiar disadvantage.
- There being a suspect classification involving a vulnerable sector
protected by the Constitution, the Court subjected the classification to
a strict judicial scrutiny to determine whether it serves a compelling
state interest through the least restrictive means.
- What constitutes compelling state interest is measured by the scale of
rights and powers arrayed in the Constitution and calibrated by
history. It is akin to paramount interest of the state for which some
individual liberties must give way, such as the public interest in
safeguarding health or maintaining medical standards, or in
maintaining access to information on matters of public concern.

- The court held that RA 8042 Section 10 (5) was violative of the right
of the OFWs to equal protection. There can never be a justification for
any form of government action that alleviates the burden of one
sector, it imposes the same burden to another sector, especially when
the favored sector is composed of private businesses such as
placement agencies, while the disadvantage sector is compose of
OFWs whose protection no less than the Constitution commands.
Even if the purpose is to lessen solidarity liability o placement
agencies vis-à-vis their foreign principals, there are mechanisms
already in place that can be employed to achieve that purpose w/o
infringing on the constitutional rights of OFWs.