Constitutional Law 2 Transcriptions | Lectures of Atty Montejo | Transcribed by Dana Scully

Consti - Dec 11 considered as violative of the equal protection clause. When we

say, classification with grouping, it is based on certain
similarities which with respect to others they are not similar as
to aspects or quality.
EQUAL PROTECTION

For purposes of classification, your cases will tell you that it’s
The second phrase in section 1 is the Equal Protection clause -
based on 4 requisites:
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the law.

1. there must be a classification based on substantial

Equal protection and due process come together. When
distinction
there is a general violation of “due process” because of
artbitrariness, it is normally questioned under the first phrase
or the due process clause.
2. Germane or important for purposes of the objectives
of the law
In specific instances of arbitrariness, it is questioned under the a) What is substantial is not based solely on the
equal protection clause but both fall under the general difference in characteristics but rather on what is the
category of equal protection. intent of the law in making such a distinction.

Both due process or equal protection is included in the same Q: is gender a valid distinction? for minimum wage?
provision as in due process clause.
A: no. Regardless of gender, it doesn’t mean you’re a better
worker if you’re a woman or man.
Specific example would be if you have read the case of city of Q: maternity leave? Is there a valid distinction?
batangas vs philippine shell, the requirement of providing for a
visa limitation fund applies solely to pilipinas shell targeting it (note that paternity leave is required in paternity leave..
alone and not applicable to any other industry, makes it an
arbitrary imposition and therefor it could laso be inviolation of
equal protection of clause
Just including this here cause it’s fun

If you have read the case of mosqueda vs PBGEA, there was a

So in paternity leave, they require matrimonial loyalty. While in
discussion on the violation of the equal protection clause
maternity benefits, you can be a slut. Is that how it is?
because remember the discussion there on the exercise of
police power, there are 2 operative phrases:

Why is marriage not required in maternity leave?

1. lawfulness of subject - due process requirement

2. Lawfulness of means - speaks of equal protection guarantee; In maternity leave there are 120 days, in paternity leave there
that if the means are not lawful, it becomes an equal are 7 days..because men cannot reach 7 inches anyway
protection violation as well. *laughs laughs*

So they are somehwat interrelated but when there is a general Of patience *laughs laughs*
question of arbitrary use of power, due process is the issue.

A: The distinction is based on the intent of the law. Why is

In specific situations, it will be an equal protection matter. maternity leave given? - for her to heal, care for the kid and
care for herself.

Equal protection is based on the concept that there is a

commitment that everythign is supposed to be created
equally.
But when the law requires a quality, it means that there is
aquality in the impositions both as to rights conferred and
oblgiations imposed.
While for paternity leave, the intent there is to compel the
husband to comply with his essential parental obligation
according to the family code - that rearing the child is a joint
obligation, at least for 7 days
Not to require marriage, will give men license to have many
children which is not the intent - because “family setting”

The quality is not literal but legal and substantial quality. For
so long as the law is applied equally based on a valid
classification or grouping, then the legislation may not be
Constitutional Law 2 Transcriptions | Lectures of Atty Montejo | Transcribed by Dana Scully
So while gender may be a distinction, what makes it
substantial is based on the intent of the legislation. Why is
there a classification.
Q: Age, is it valid classification?
A: Depends on the intent. In your family code, there is a
concept of parental authority and there fore if the child is still
a minor or child, there is some effect on his capacity and thus
parental authority will have to be exercised somehow.
So if it were to be labor laws, then there is a valid classification
in terms of minority.
There’s one old case involving an ordinance requiring the
movie theater operators under penalty to provide for
discounted rates fro children who watch movies.
Q: is that a valid legistation?
A: no. SC said what is the difference between a child watching
a movie and an adult watching a movie - it amounts to a
deprivation of the property right of the theater owners to seek
payment for patrons who watch the movie - age in thsi
legislation is not important for classification.
So it depends on the nature of the purpose/intent of law.
there must be a reasonable connection between the
means to accomplish the purpose or intent of the law -
both objective and means to achieve must be lawful
3. The classification must not be limited to existing
conditions only
a) A legislation must have to address the supposed
objectives of the law.
b) It cannot be applied to the present only because it
will amount to class legislation
4. the classification is applicable equally to all those
belonging to the same class
a) Equal requires application of equal effect of equal
force and not literally the same for everybody.
b) Equality is legal/substantial equality and not literal
A good example is your income tax rates - paid based on an
income bracket.
The 4th condition is usually the basis for declaring an act as
applied to a particular accused as unconstitutional for violative
of the equal protection clause.
For example, if you were to relate this to the cases of de lima,
trillanes, why are they specifically targeted to be charged with
criminal offenses? Of all the people in the world who have
violated the law, why is it that they were specifically targeted?
It’s an example of, if there is an unequal application of the law
then there may be a violation of the equal protection clause.
Why is the state imposing the law only against me? I’m not
saying it is unconstitutional per se, because it is a valid law. But
why apply it to me and not the other offenders?
If that were to be done, there is violation of equal protection
because the 4th condition is not met.
If you relate this to your discussion last semester on the
privilege from arrest
When is the privilege claimable?
1. when the congress is in session
a) When is congress in session?
b) Starting 4th Monday of july and shall continue for 1
year until the mandatory adjournent which shall be
30 days before the opening of the next reqular
session exclusive of saturdays, Sundays and legal
holidays
c) Penalty range for penalty to be claimable - greater
than 6 years
Trillanes argued, when he was detained, that he should be
allowed to serve prior to conviction and must have to be
released. Could a memebr of a senate be released for a non
bailable offense? - NO.
If you remeber the 2 cases there, the first one was the case of
Jalosjos vs people which was reiterated in the case of
trillanes vs people that the privilege from arrest of members
of congress do not place them in a different category - they are
still offenders.
the reason why they cannot be arrested in not because they are
of different class but because the constitution grants them the
privilege.
The reason why they had that privilege is for continuity of
representation in the congress. If you will arrest the
representative, the constituent will not have any representative.
They will not have a voice in congress.
But when the crime or offense is grave/less grave (penalty
morethan 6 years), privilege not anymore granted because of
the gravity of the offense.
Constitutional Law 2 Transcriptions | Lectures of Atty Montejo | Transcribed by Dana Scully
Again, they are not exempt from arrest because of the
different class - they are the same as us - but because of the
reason for the privilege, if the penalty imposable is less than 6
years, then, they cannot be arrested pending their conviction.
In the 1935 constituion, copied in the ‘73, if you remember the
phraseology of that privilege, it has been changed - in the
present it says, for the entrie duration while congress is in
session.
In ‘35 and ‘73, a member of congress must be:
1. going to,
2. Attending or
3. Coming from a session
So that if a member is not (any of 1,2 or 3) a member of
congress could not be arrested.
That’s why when duterte ordered the arrest of trillanes,
nobody arrested him - because congress was in session.
And for so long as he stays in congress, there can be no arrest
- congress in session starting 4th Monday of july and shall
continue for 1 year until the mandatory adjournent which shall
be 30 days before the opening of the next reqular session
exclusive of Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays.
Your consittution has provided for some provisions on equality.
These are supposed to be mandatory provsions,
Art 2, sec 14 - we all know that art 2 is a non self executing
provision - this is a policy statement.
With respect to the policy on equality, if you have noticed,
historically, there are many laws which favor men, than those
which favor women. That is because of the composition of the
national legislature.
It has been mostly men before and then women came later.
A good example would be your law on concubinage as opposed
to adultery.
In your revised penal code, it is quite difficult to prove
concubinage, easy to prove adultery.
Any woman havign sexual intercourse with any man other
than her husband is liable for adultery.
Concubinage there are 3 ways:
1. when you keep a paramour in the conjugal dwelling
2. When the husband commits sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances
3. Cohabiting in any other place as husband and wife
Can a married man who easily got widowed, marry the
following day?
What about a woman, who suddenly became widowed? When
could she be legally married? You have to wait a certain period
of time.
And then, later on, like the act penalizing violence against
women and children, one of the very forst cases there, the case
of drilon vs flores, questioned the validity of RA 9262.
Because the husband charged with violating RA 9262 was
questioning why are women and children protected against
violence and men are not? (wow)
Arguing that there are men who are battered as well and that
they should be protected - the SC said, there was a valid
distinction.
The equal treatment provision as a policy of the constitution
does not mean that for every law, there must be another law for
men or women. It depends on what the intent of the law is.
Besides, if you go to our legal history, there are many laws that
favor men and few for women. If you look at the scheme of
things. How do we equalize the law for both women and men.
Should we legislate laws for both equally?
Sec 11 art 3, - free access - no person shall be denied access to
courts or legal assistance on account of poverty.
There are provisions in the rules of court which require lawyers
to provide pro bono cases - your IBP has its own legal aid
program as mandated by the national IBP chapter.
Your labor code has a provision which allows non lawyers to
represent employees in labor cases.
Rules of court also provide for the limited law student practice
rule - when you finish your 3rd year in law school, you are
allowed to engage in limited law student practice under the
supervision of a lawyer and an accredited legal service
provider.
Constitutional Law 2 Transcriptions | Lectures of Atty Montejo | Transcribed by Dana Scully

So these are part of the provisions on granting equality or

legal aid to persons who cannot afford services of a lawyer.