Sec 1 - Equal Protection of The Laws - 9-22 PDF

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
from gross income of single

EQUAL PROTECTION proprietorships and professionals.
CLAUSE It was held that uniformity of
taxation does not prohibit
classification, provided the
requirements of valid classification
Equal Protection of the laws.[Sec. 1. Art. are complied with.
Ill: “x x x nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws”.] b) Political. See constitutional provisions
on: free access to courts [Sec. 11, Art. Ill];
Meaning; persons protected. All bona fide candidates being free from
persons or things similarly situated harassment or discrimination [Sec. 10, Art.
should be treated alike, both as to rights IX-C]; reduction of social, economic and
conferred and responsibilities imposed. political inequities [Sec. 1, Art. XIII].
Natural and juridical persons are entitled
to this guarantee; but with respect to i) The Constitution, as a general
artificial persons, they enjoy the rule, places the civil rights of aliens
protection only insofar as their property on an equal footing with those of
is concerned. citizens; but their political rights
do not enjoy the same protection
Scope of Equality. [Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil
534]. In Peralta v. Comelec, 82
a) Economic. See constitutional SCRA 30, the Court upheld the
provisions on: (i) Free access to courts adoption of block voting, saying
[Sec. 11, Art. Ill]; (ii) Marine wealth
that if a candidate wishes to avail
reserved for Filipino citizens; and
of the advantage of block voting he
Congress may reserve certain areas of
was free to join a party. In Ceniza v.
investments [Sec. 2, par. 2, and Sec. 10,
Comelec, 95 SCRA 763, the law
Art. XII]; (iii) Reduction of social,
excluding residents of Mandaue
economic and political inequities [Secs. 1,
City from voting for provincial
2 and 3, Art. XIII]. See Ichong v.
officials was justified as a “matter
Hernandez, supra., Villegas v. Hiu Chiong,
of legislative discretion”, and that
86 SCRA 275; Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 equal protection would be violated
SCRA 392. i) only if groups within the city were
allowed to vote while others were
i) In Tan v. Del Rosario, 237 SCRA not. In Unido v. Comelec, 104 SCRA
324, the Supreme Court upheld the 17, the Court denied the request of
constitutionality of RA 7496 the opposition for equal time and
limiting the allowable deductions
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"One Small Crack does not mean that you are broken, it means that you were put to the test
and you did not fall apart."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
media coverage for its Plaza Valid Classification. Persons or things

Miranda rally (as that given to ostensibly similarly situated may,
President Marcos), because “the nonetheless, be treated differently if there
head of state of every country in is a basis for valid classification. The
the world must, from the very requisites are:
nature of his position, be accorded
certain privileges not equally a) Substantial distinctions which make
available to those who are for real differences.
opposed to him”.
i) In Mirasol v. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793,
ii) In the criminal process, Sec. 11, June 8, 2006, where the petitioners
Art. Ill,insures free access to the assailed the validity of DPWH
courts. In Gumabon v. Director of Administrative Order No. 1, which
Prisons, 37 SCRA 420, petitioners prohibited motorcycles on limited access
who had been sentenced to life highways on the basis of RA 2000
imprisonment for the complex (Limited Access Highway Act), the
crime of rebellion with murder Supreme Court held that there is a real
were ordered released after 12 and substantial distinction between a
years of incarceration when, in motorcycle and other motor vehicles.Not
People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, all motorized vehicles are created equal
the Supreme Court ruled that there — real and substantial differences exist
is no complex crime of rebellion between a motorcycle and other forms of
with murder, inasmuch as transport sufficient to justify its
common crimes are deemed classification among those prohibited
absorbed in the crime of rebellion. from plying the toll ways.
In Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111
SCRA 433, the constitutional ii) In Philippine Association of Service
mandate for the creation of a Exporters v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386, it was
special court to hear offenses held that Filipino female domestics
committed by public officers was working abroad were in a class by
the authority to make a distinction themselves, because of the special risks to
between prosecution for which their class was exposed. In
dishonesty in public service and Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies
prosecution for crimes not v. POEA, 243 SCRA 666, there was found
connected with public office. substantial distinctions between land-
based and sea-based Filipino overseas
c) Social. See Sec. 1, Art. XIII. workers, because of dissimilarities in
work environment, safety, danger to life

Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and limb, and accessibility to social, civil the former cannot. In Ichong v. Hernandez,
and spiritual activities. In JMM Promotion supra.,the Court upheld the validity of the
and Management v. Court of Appeals, Retail Trade Nationalization Law despite
supra.,the Court upheld the classification the objection that it violated the equal
on the ground that the DOLE Order protection clause, because there exist real
applies to all performing artists and and actual, positive ,and fundamental
entertainers destined for jobs abroad, as differences between an alien and a
they are prone to exploitation and abuse national.
being beyond the physical reach of
government regulatory agencies. In iii) The preventive suspension of a
Dumlao v. Comelec, supra.,the Court policeman lasting until termination of the
upheld the validity of the law criminal case against him, as provided in
disqualifying from running for the same Sec. 47, RA 6975 (DILG Act of 1990), does
elective office from which he retired, any not violate the policeman’s right to equal
retired elective provincial or municipal protection of the laws. There is
official who has received payment of substantial distinction between
retirement benefits and who shall have policemen and other government
been 65 years of age at the employees; policemen carry weapons and
commencement of the term of office to the badge of the law, which can be used to
which he seeks to be elected. In its harass or intimidate witnesses against
Resolution (on the Motion for them. Besides, Sec. 42 of P.D. 807 (Civil
Reconsideration), October 30, 1995, in Service Law), which was raised as
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, argument for equal treatment, refers to
supra.,the Court rejected the contention preventive suspension in administrative
that the exemption from VAT of electric cases, not in criminal cases [Himagan v.
cooperatives and sales of realty to the People, 237 SCRA 538].In Almonte v.
“homeless poor” violated the equal Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286, it was held that
protection clause. The classification the fact that the Ombudsman may start an
between electric and other cooperatives investigation on the basis of an
rests on a Congressional determination anonymous letter does not violate the
that there is greater need to provide equal protection clause. Firstly, there can
cheaper electric power to as many people be no objection to this procedure because
as possible, especially in the rural areas; it is provided in the Constitution itself;
and there is a difference between the secondly, in permitting the filing of
“homeless poor” and the “homeless less complaints “in any form and in any
poor”, because the latter class can afford manner”, the framers of the Constitution
to rent houses in the meantime that they took into account the well-known
cannot yet buy their own homes, while reticence of people which keep them from

Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
complaining against official wrongdoing; reasonable basis for valid classification in

finally, the Office of the Ombudsman is criminal law enforcement. The functions
different from other investigatory and and duties of the office are not substantial
prosecutory agencies of government distinctions which lift him from the class
because those subject to its jurisdiction of prisoners interrupted in their freedom
are public officials who, through official and restricted in liberty of movement.
pressure and influence, can quash, delay Lawful arrest and confinement are
or dismiss investigations held against germane to the purposes of the law and
them. In Telecommunications and apply to all those belonging to the same
Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. class. Likewise, in International School
Comelec, 289 SCRA 337, the Supreme Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, G.R.
Court found substantial distinction No. 128845, June 1, 2000, it was held that
between the print and the broadcast there was no reasonable distinction
media which would justify different between the services rendered by
treatment under B.P. 881, viz: the physical “foreign hires" and “local hires” as to
limitations of the broadcast spectrum, the justify the disparity in salaries paid to
pervasive presence of the broadcast these teachers. In GSIS v. Montesclaros,
media in the lives of Filipinos, and the 434 SCRA 441, in declaring as invalid Sec.
earlier ruling that the freedom of 18 of PD 1146 — which provides that a
television and radio broadcasting is surviving spouse has no right to
somewhat lesser than the freedom survivorship pension benefits if the
accorded to the print media. In Lacson v. surviving spouse contracted marriage
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, with the pensioner within three years
January 20, 1999, it was held that the before the pensioner qualified for the
petitioner’s and intervenors’ right to pension — theSupreme Court said that
equal protection of the law was not the classification does not rest on
violated by the enactment of R.A. 8249 substantial distinctions. If the purpose of
because the law was not directed only to the proviso is to prevent deathbed
the Kuratong Baleleng cases. Every marriages, there is no reason why the
classification made by law is presumed proviso reckons the 3-year prohibition
reasonable, and the party who challenges from the date the pensioner qualified for
the law must present proof of the pension and not from the date the
arbitrariness. pensioner died. It lumps all marriages
contracted within three years before the
iv) On the other hand, in People v. Jalosjos, pensioner qualified for pension as having
G.R. Nos. 13287576, February 3, 2000, the been contracted primarily for financial
Supreme Court ruled that election to the convenience. In Re: Request of Assistant
position of Congressman is not a Court Administrators, 40 SCRA 16, the

Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Supreme Court held that there is no which withdrew franking privileges

reasonable basis for the exclusion of the formerly granted to the judiciary but
Assistant Court Administrator, the remained with the executive and
Assistant Clerks of Court and Division legislative departments, was declared
Clerks of Court of the Court of Appeals unconstitutional, because the three
and the Division Clerks of the Court of the branches of government are similarly
Sandiganbayan from the grant of special situated. In Villegas v. Hui Chiong,
allowances provided in R.A. 9227. supra.,the ordinance imposing a work
permit fee of P50.00 upon all aliens
b) Germane to the purpose of the law. desirous of obtaining employment in the
The distinctions which are the bases City of Manila was declared
for the classification should have a unconstitutional, because the fee imposed
reasonable relation to the purpose of was unreasonable and excessive, and it
the law. failed to consider valid substantial
differences in situation among individual
c) Not limited to existing conditions aliens who were required to pay it. In
only. Olivarez v. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700,
it was held that when the Mayor issued a
i) In People v. Cayat, 68 Phil 12, the
permit in favor of unidentified vendors
Supreme Court upheld the validity of the
while imposing numerous requirements
law prohibiting members of non-Christian upon the Baclaran Credit Cooperative, he
tribes from drinking foreign liquor, on the violated the equal protection clause
ground that their low degree of culture because he failed to show that the two
and unfamiliarity with the drink rendered
were not similarly situated.
them more susceptible to its effects. In
Ormoc Sugar Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc ii) The constitutional right to equal
City, 22 SCRA 603, the ordinance was protection of the law is not violated by an
declared invalid because it taxes only executive order, issued pursuant to law,
centrifugal sugar produced and exported granting tax and duty incentives only to
by the Ormoc Sugar Company, and none businesses and residents within the
other, such that if a new sugar central is “secured area” of the Subic Special
established in Ormoc, it would not be Economic Zone and denying them to
subject to the ordinance. those who live within the Zone but
outside such “fenced-in” territory. The
d) Must apply equally to all members
Constitution does not require absolute
of the same class.
equality among residents; it is enough
i) In Philippine Judges Association v. that all persons under like circumstances
Prado, 227 SCRA 703, Sec. 35, R.A. 7354, or conditions are given the same

Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
privileges and required to follow the same sententiously observes the Supreme
obligations. In short, a classification based Court of the United States, "is a pledge of
on valid and reasonable standards does the protection of equal laws." Of course,
not violate the equal protection clause what may be regarded as a denial of the
[Tiu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127410, equal protection of the laws is a question
January 20, 1999]. This was reiterated in not always easily determined. No rule that
Coconut Oil Refiners Association v. Torres, will cover every case can be formulated.
G.R. No. 132527, July 29, 2005. Class legislation discriminating against
some and favoring others is prohibited.
iia) But the compromise agreement But classification on a reasonable basis,
between the PCGG and the Marcos family and not made arbitrarily or capriciously,
providing that the assets to be retained by is permitted. The classification, however,
the Marcos family are exempt from all to be reasonable must be based on
taxes violates the equal protection clause. substantial distinctions which make real
Any special grant of tax exemption in differences; it must be germane to the
favor of the Marcos family would purposes of the law; it must not be limited
constitute class legislation [Chavez v. to existing conditions only, and must
PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, apply equally to each member of the class.
1998].
A LAW MAY APPEAR FAIR ON ITS FACE
OR IMPARTIAL IN APPEARANCE, YET IF
IT PERMITS UNJUST AND ILLEGAL
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS DISCRIMINATION, IT IS STILL SUBJECT
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL
DOCTRINE: PROHIBITION. - In the case at bar,
People vs. Vera [G.R. No. 45685, however, the resultant inequality may be
November 16, 1937] said to flow from the unwarranted
delegation of legislative power, although
EQUAL PROTECTION AND VALID perhaps this is not necessarily the result
CLASSIFICATION. This basic individual in every case. Adopting the example given
right sheltered by the Constitution is a by one of the counsel for the petitioners
restraint on all the three grand in the course of his oral argument, one
departments of our government and on province may appropriate the necessary
the subordinate instrumentalities and fund to defray the salary of a probation
subdivisions thereof, and on many officer, while another province may
constitutional powers, like the police refuse or fail to do so. In such a case, the
power, taxation and eminent domain. The Probation Act would be in operation in
equal protection of the laws, the former province but not in the latter.

Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
This means that a person otherwise necessary result. But whatever may be
coming within the purview of the law the case, it is clear that section 11 of the
would be liable to enjoy the benefits of Probation Act creates a situation in which
probation in one province while another discrimination and inequality are
person similarly situated in another permitted or allowed. There are, to be
province would be denied those same sure, abundant authorities requiring
benefits. This is obnoxious discrimination. actual denial of the equal protection of the
Contrariwise, it is also possible for all the law before courts should assume the task
provincial boards to appropriate the of setting aside a law vulnerable on that
necessary funds for the salaries of the score, but premises and circumstances
probation officers in their respective considered, we are of the opinion that
provinces, in which case no inequality section 11 of Act No. 4221 permits of the
would result for the obvious reason that denial of the equal protection of the law
probation would be in operation in each and is on that account bad. We see no
and every province by the affirmative difference between a law which denies
action of appropriation by all the equal protection and a law which permits
provincial boards. On that hypothesis, of such denial. A law may appear to be fair
every person coming within the purview on its face and impartial in appearance,
of the yet, if it permits of unjust and illegal
discrimination, it is within the
Probation Act would be entitled to avail constitutional prohibition. In other words,
of the benefits of the Act. Neither will statutes may be adjudged
there be any resulting inequality if no unconstitutional because of their effect in
province, through its provincial board, operation. If a law has the effect of
should appropriate any amount for the denying the equal protection of the law it
salary of the probation officer — which is is unconstitutional. Under section 11 of
the situation now — and, also, if we the Probation Act, not only may said Act
accept the contention that, for the be in force in one or several provinces
purposes of the Probation Act, the City of and not be in force in the other provinces,
Manila should be considered as a but one province may appropriate for the
province and that the municipal board of salary of a probation officer of a given
said city has not made any appropriation year — and have probation during that
for the salary of a probation officer. These year — and thereafter decline to make
different situations suggested show, further appropriation, and have no
indeed, that while inequality may result in probation in subsequent years. While this
the application of the law and in the situation goes rather to the abuse of
conferment of the benefits therein discretion which delegation implies, it is
provided, inequality is not in all cases the here indicated to show that the Probation

Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Act sanctions a situation which is Court assailing the constitutionality of the

intolerable in a government of laws, and Act for being violative of the equal
to prove how easy it is, under the Act, to protection clause.
make the guaranty of the equality clause
but "a rope of sand". Issue: Whether or not there is a violation
of the equal protection guarantee?
Atty Gabs: People vs. Vera
“No existing controversy yet” – applicable Held: Yes. The probation act is in
to equal protection clause (EPC). violation of the said constitutional
“As applied doctrine” – all elements of guarantee. It constitutes as a class
judicial inquiry need not satisfied. legislation which discriminates against
A law may appear on its face or impartial persons of the same class and favor
in appearance, yet if permits unjust and others. Person’s with similar
illegal discrimination, it is still subject to circumstances may be afforded with the
the constitutional prohibition. privilege of probation merely due to the
discretion of the provincial officers. Hence,
the Court ruled that the said order is not
constitutional.
PEOPLE VS VERA GR 45685, Nov. 16,
1937 In the case at bar, the resultant inequality
may be said to flow from the unwarranted
Facts: The instant petition stems from the delegation of legislative power, although
application for bail filed by Co Unjieng. He perhaps this is necessarily the result in
claims that he is innocent of the crime every case. In the instant case, one
charged against him, that he has no province may appropriate the necessary
existing criminal record and that he fund to defray the salary of a probation
would observe proper conduct in the officer, while another province may
future if his application for bail is granted. refuse or fail to do so. In such a case, the
The application was referred to the Probation Act would be in operation in
Insular Probation Office, but was the former province but not in the latter.
consequently denied. This means that a person otherwise
coming within the purview of the law
The denial was premised on the ground would be able to enjoy the benefits of
that Act No. 4221 provides probation only probation in one province while another
to those provinces with available funds for person similarly situated in another
the salary of probation officers, and the province would be denied those same
province referred to has no sufficient funds. benefits. This is obnoxious discrimination.
Thus, petitioner now comes before the While inequality may result in the

Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
application of the law and in the requires that all persons shall be treated
conferment of the benefits therein alike, under like circumstances and
provided, inequality is not in al cases the conditions both as to privileges conferred
necessary result. Whatever may be the and liabilities enforced. The equal
case, it is clear that Section 11 of the protection clause is not infringed by
Probation Act creates a situation in which legislation which applies only to those
discrimination and inequality are persons falling within a specified class, if
permitted or allowed. it applies alike to all persons within such
class, and reasonable grounds exists for
We are of the opinion that Section 11 of making a distinction between those who
Act. 4221 permits of the denial of the fall within such class and those who do
equal protection of the law and is on that not.
account bad. We see no difference
“ BETWEEN A LAW WHICH DENIES CITIZENSHIP IS A VALID
EQUAL PROTECTION” and a “ LAW CLASSIFICATION. The above
WHICH PERMITS OF SUCH DENIAL” . A objectionable characteristics of the
law may appear to be fair on its face exercise of the retail trade by the aliens,
and impartial in appearance, yet, if it which are actual and real, furnish
permits of unjust and illegal sufficient grounds for legislative
discrimination, it is within the classification of retail traders into
constitutional prohibition. nationals and aliens. Some may disagree
with the wisdom of the legislature's
classification. To this we answer, that this
is the prerogative of the law-making
DOCTRINE: power. Since the Court finds that the
Ichong vs. Hernandez [G.R. No. L-7995, classification is actual, real and
May 31, 1957] reasonable, and all persons of one class
are treated alike, and as it cannot be said
EQUAL PROTECTION. The equal that the classification is patently
protection of the law clause is against unreasonable and unfounded, it is in duty
undue favor and individual or class bound to declare that the legislature acted
privilege, as well as hostile discrimination within its legitimate prerogative and it
or the oppression of inequality. It is not cannot declare that the act transcends the
intended to prohibit legislation, which is limit of equal protection established by
limited either in the object to which it is the Constitution.
directed or by territory within which it is
to operate. It does not demand absolute Broadly speaking, the power of the
equality among residents; it merely legislature to make distinctions and

Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
classifications among persons is not 4. One who assails the classification in such
curtailed or denied by the equal a law must carry the burden of showing
protection of the laws clause. The that it does not rest upon any reasonable
legislative power admits of a wide scope basis, but is essentially arbitrary.'"
of discretion, and a law can be violative of
the constitutional limitation only when The rule in general is as follows:
the classification is without reasonable
basis. In addition to the authorities we "Aliens are under no special
have earlier cited, we can also refer to the constitutional protection which forbids a
case of Lindsley vs. Natural Carbonic Gas classification otherwise justified simply
Co. (1911), 55 L. ed., 369, which clearly because the limitation of the class falls
and succinctly defined the application of along the lines of nationality. That would
equal protection clause to a law sought to be requiring a higher degree of protection
be voided as contrary thereto: ". . . ' for aliens as a class than for similar
classes of American citizens. Broadly
1. The equal protection clause of the speaking, the difference in status between
Fourteenth Amendment does not take from citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for
the state the power to classify in the reasonable classification in the exercise of
adoption of police laws, but admits of the police power." (2 Am. Jur. 468-469.)
exercise of the wide scope of discretion in
that regard, and avoids what is done only
when it is without any reasonable basis,
and therefore is purely arbitrary. ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ GR 7995, May
31, 1957
2. A classification having some reasonable
basis does not offend against that clause Facts: -supra-
merely because it is not made with
mathematical nicety, or because in Issue: Whether or not there is a violation
practice it results in some inequality. of the equal protection clause?
3. When the classification in such a law is Held: None. The equal protection of the
called in question, if any state of facts law clause is against undue favor and
reasonably can be conceived that would individual or class privilege, as well as
sustain it, the existence of that state of hostile discrimination or the oppression
facts at the time the law was enacted must of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit
be assumed. legislation, which is limited either in the
object to which it is directed or by
territory within which is to operate. It

Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
does not demand absolute equality among alien go back to his beloved country and
residents; it merely requires that all his beloved kin and countrymen. The
persons shall be treated alike, under like experience of the country is that the alien
circumstances and conditions both as to retailer has shown such utter disregard
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. for his customers and the people on
The equal protection clause is not whom he makes his profit, that it has been
infringed by legislation which applies found necessary to adopt the legislation,
only to those persons falling within a radical as it may seem.
specified class, if it applies alike to all
persons within such class, and Another objection to the alien retailer
reasonable grounds exists for making a in this country is that he never really
distinction between those who fall makes a genuine contribution to
within such class and those who do not. national income and wealth. He
VI. The Equal Protection Limitation undoubtedly contributes to general
distribution, but the gains and profits
a. Objections to alien participation in he makes are not invested in industries
retail trade. — The next question that that would help the country's economy
now poses solution is, Does the law deny and increase national wealth. The
the equal protection of the laws? alien's interest in this country being
merely transient and temporary, it would
As pointed out above, the mere fact of indeed be ill-advised to continue
alienage is the root and cause of the entrusting the very important function of
distinction between the alien and the retail distribution to his hands. The
national as a trader. The alien resident practices resorted to by aliens in the
owes allegiance to the country of his control of distribution, as already pointed
birth or his adopted country; his stay out above, their secret manipulations of
here is for personal convenience; he is stocks of commodities and prices, their
attracted by the lure of gain and profit. His utter disregard of the welfare of their
aim or purpose of stay, we admit, is neither customers and of the ultimate happiness
illegitimate nor immoral, but he is of the people of the nation of which they
naturally lacking in that spirit of loyalty are mere guests, which practices,
and enthusiasm for this country where he manipulations and disregard do not
temporarily stays and makes his living, or attend the exercise of the trade by the
of that spirit of regard, sympathy and nationals, show the existence of real and
consideration for his Filipino customers as actual, positive and fundamental
would prevent him from taking advantage differences between an alien and a
of their weakness and exploiting them. The national which fully justify the legislative
faster he makes his pile, the earlier can the classification adopted in the retail trade

Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
measure. These differences are certainly a the constitutional limitation only when
valid reason for the State to prefer the the classification is without reasonable
national over the alien in the retail trade. basis.
We would be doing violence to fact and
reality were we to hold that no reason or (Adonis Notes: Under the
ground for a legitimate distinction can be abovementioned case, the case was
found between one and the other. decided under the 1935 Constitution
wherein PARITY RIGHTS were granted
b. Difference in alien aims and purposes to U.S. Citizens.)
sufficient basis for distinction. — The
above objectionable characteristics of the
exercise of the retail trade by the aliens,
which are actual and real, furnish
sufficient grounds for legislative DOCTRINE:
classification of retail traders into Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
nationals and aliens. Some may disagree [G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 1978]
with the wisdom of the legislature's
classification. To this we answer, that this A LAW THAT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE
is the prerogative of the law-making MANNER OF EXERCISE OF
power. Since the Court finds that the DISCRIMINATION IS VIOLATIVE OF
classification is actual, real and EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. The
reasonable, and all persons of one class contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not
are treated alike , and as it cannot be said a purely tax or revenue measure because
tha t the classification is patently its principal purpose is regulatory in
unreasonable and unfounded, it is in duty nature has no merit. While it is true that
bound to declare that the legislature acted the first part which requires that the alien
within its legitimate prerogative and it can shall secure an employment permit from
not declare that the act transcends the the Mayor involves the exercise of
limit of equal protection established by the discretion and judgment in the processing
Constitution. and approval or disapproval of
applications for employment permits and
Broadly speaking, the power of the therefore is regulatory in character the
legislature to make distinctions and second part which requires the payment
classifications among persons is not of P50.00 as employee's fee is not
curtailed or denied by the equal regulatory but a revenue measure. There
protection of the laws clause. The is no logic or justification in exacting
legislative power admits of a wide scope P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared
of discretion, and a law can be violative of for employment. It is obvious that the

Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
purpose of the ordinance is to raise

money under the guise of regulation. Facts: City ordinance No 6537, prohibits
aliens from being employed or engaged or
The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only participate in any position or association
because it is excessive but because it fails or business enumerated therein, whether
to consider valid substantial differences permanent, temporary or casual, without
in situation among individual aliens who first securing an employment permit from
are required to pay it. Although the equal the Mayor of Manila is being questioned
protection clause of the Constitution does by the private respondent for allegedly in
not forbid classification, it is imperative violation of the equal protection
that the classification, should be based on guarantee. The trial court ruled in favor of
real and substantial differences having a the nullity of the ordinance.
reasonable relation to the subject of the
particular legislation. The same amount of On appeal, petitioner argues that the
P50.00 is being collected from every ordinance cannot be invalidated on the
employed alien, whether he is casual or ground that it violated the rule on
permanent, part time or full time or uniformity of taxation, because it apples
whether he is a lowly employee or a to pure tax or revenues measures and
highly paid executive. Requiring a person said ordinance is not such but is an
before he can be employed to get a permit exercise of the police power of the state.
from the City Mayor of Manila who may
withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount Issue: Whether or not the said ordinance
to denying him the basic right of the is unconstitutional?
people in the Philippines to engage in a
means of livelihood. While it is true that Held: The ordinance is unconstitutional.
the Philippines as a State is not obliged to The contention that it was not purely a tax
admit aliens within its territory, once an or revenue measure because its principle
alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived purpose was for regulation has no merit. It
of life without due process of law. This is obvious that THE ORDINANCE WAS
guarantee includes the means of PURPOSELY FOR THE RAISING OF
livelihood. The shelter of protection MONEY UNDER THE GUISE OF A
under the due process and equal REGULATION .
protection clause is given to all persons,
both aliens and citizens. Further, the assailed ordinance violates
the equal protection clause. To require
a person to get a work permit before he
VILLEGAS vs. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO can be employed from the Mayor who
GR 29646, Nov. 10,1978 may withhold or refuse it at will is

Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
tantamount to the denial of the basic amount of P50.00 is being collected

right of a person to from every employed alien, whether he
engage in a means of livelihood . Aliens is casual or
once admitted cannot be deprived of life permanent, part time or full time or
without due process of law. whether he is a lowly employee or a
highly paid executive.
The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is
not a purely tax or revenue measure Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down
because its principal purpose is regulatory any criterion or standard to guide the
in nature has no merit. While it is true that Mayor in the exercise of his discretion .
the first part which requires that the alien It has been held that where an ordinance of
shall secure an employment permit from a municipality fails to state any policy or to
the Mayor involves the exercise of set up any standard to guide or limit the
discretion and judgment in the processing mayor's action, expresses no purpose to be
and approval or disapproval of attained by requiring a permit,
applications for employment permits and enumerates no conditions for its grant
therefore is regulatory in character the or refusal, and entirely lacks standard,
second part which requires the payment of thus conferring upon the Mayor
P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory arbitrary and unrestricted power to
but a revenue measure. There is no logic grant or deny the issuance of building
or justification in exacting P50.00 from permits, such ordinance is invalid,
aliens who have been “CLEARED” for being an undefined and unlimited
employment . It is obvious that the delegation of power to allow or prevent
purpose of the ordinance is to raise an activity per se lawful .
money under the guise of regulation.
The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only In Chinese Flour Importers Association vs.
because it is excessive BUT BECAUSE IT Price Stabilization Board, where a law
FAILS TO CONSIDER VALID granted a government agency power to
SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES IN determine the allocation of wheat flour
SITUATION AMONG INDIVIDUAL ALIENS among importers, the Supreme Court
WHO ARE REQUIRED TO PAY IT . ruled against the interpretation of
Although the equal protection clause of uncontrolled power as it vested in the
the Constitution does not forbid administrative officer an arbitrary
classification, it is imperative that the discretion to be exercised without a
classification, should be based on real policy, rule, or standard from which it can
and substantial differences having a be measured or controlled. It was also
reasonable relation to the subject of the held in Primicias vs. Fugoso that the
particular legislation . The same authority and discretion to grant and

Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
refuse permits of all classes conferred constitutional law that the guaranty of the
upon the Mayor of Manila by the Revised equal protection of the laws is not
Charter of Manila is not uncontrolled violated by a legislation based on
discretion but legal discretion to be reasonable classification. (1) must rest on
exercised within the limits of the law. substantial distinctions; (2) must be
Ordinance No. 6537 is void because it germane to the purposes of the law; (3)
does not contain or suggest any standard must not be limited to existing conditions
or criterion to guide the mayor in the only; and (4) must apply equally to all
exercise of the power which has been members of the same class.
granted to him by the ordinance.
NOT LIMITED TO EXISTING
The ordinance in question violates the CONDITIONS ONLY. In People v. Cayat, 68
due process of law and equal protection Phil 12, the Supreme Court upheld the
rule of the Constitution. (Requiring a validity of the law prohibiting members of
person before he can be employed to get a non-Christian tribes from drinking
permit from the City Mayor of Manila who foreign liquor, on the ground that their
may withhold or refuse it at will is low degree of culture and unfamiliarity
tantamount to denying him the basic right with the drink rendered them more
of the people in the Philippines to engage susceptible to its effects. In Ormoc Sugar
in a means of livelihood. While it is true Co. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA
that the Philippines as a State is not 603, the ordinance was declared invalid
obliged to admit aliens within its territory, because it taxes only centrifugal sugar
once an alien is admitted, he cannot be produced and exported by the Ormoc
deprived of life without due process of law. Sugar Company, and none other, such that
This guarantee includes the means of if a new sugar central is established in
livelihood. The shelter of protection under Ormoc, it would not be subject to the
the due process and equal protection ordinance.
clause is given to all persons, both aliens
and citizens.)
PEOPLE VS CAYAT 68 Phil. 12 (1939)
DOCTRINE: Facts: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio,

Benguet, Mountain Province, and a
PEOPLE VS CAYAT member of the non-Christian tribes, was
found guilty of violating sections 2 and 3
REQUISITES OF EQUAL PROTECTION: It of Act No. 1639 for having acquired and
is an established principle of possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an

Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
intoxicating liquor, which is not a native upon the degree of civilization and
wine. The law made it unlawful for any culture. “The term ‘non-Christian tribes’
native of the Philippines who is a member refers, not to religious belief but in a way,
of a non-Christian tribe within the to the geographical area and more
meaning of Act 1397 to buy, receive, have directly, to natives of the Philippine
in his possession, or drink any ardent Islands of a low grade of civilization,
spirits, ale, beer, wine or intoxicating usually living in tribal relationship apart
liquors of any kind, other than the so- from settled communities.” (Rubi vs.
called native wines and liquors which the Provincial Board of Mindora, supra.) This
members of such tribes have been distinction is unquestionably reasonable,
accustomed to prior to the passage of the for the Act was intended to meet the
law. Cayat challenges the constitutionality peculiar conditions existing in the non-
of Act 1639 on the grounds that it is Christian tribes.
discriminatory and denies the equal
protection of the laws, violates due The prohibition enshrined in Act 1397 is
process clause, and is an improper designed to insure peace and order in and
exercise of police power. among non-Christian tribes. It applies
equally to all members of the class
Issue: Whether or not Act no 1639 is evident from perusal thereof. That it may
constitutional be unfair in its operation against a certain
number of non-Christians by reason of
Held: It is an established principle of their degree of culture, is not an argument
constitutional law that the guaranty of the against the equality of its application.
equal protection of the laws is not
violated by a legislation based on
reasonable classification. (1) must rest on
substantial distinctions; (2) must be
germane to the purposes of the law; (3)
DOCTRINE:
must not be limited to existing conditions Dumlao vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. L-52245,
only; and (4) must apply equally to all January 22, 1980]
members of the same class.
AGE IS A VALID CLASSIFICATION IN
Act No. 1639 satisfies these GOVERNMENT SERVICE. The assertion
requirements. The classification rests on
that Section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is contrary to
real or substantial, not merely imaginary the safeguard of equal protection is
or whimsical distinctions. It is not based
neither well taken. The constitutional
upon “accident of birth or parentage,” as
guarantee of equal protection of the laws
counsel for the appellant asserts, but is subject to rational classification. If the
Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
groupings are based on reasonable and provincial, city or municipal office, there
real differentiations, one class can be is reason to disqualify him from running
treated and regulated differently from for the same office from which he had
another class. For purposes of public retired, as provided for in the challenged
service, employees 65 years of age, have provision. The need for new blood
been validly classified differently from assumes relevance. The tiredness of the
younger employees. Employees attaining retiree for government work is present,
that age are subject to compulsory and what is emphatically significant is
retirement, while those of younger ages that the retired employee has already
are not so compulsorily retirable. declared himself tired an unavailable for
the same government work, but, which,
In respect of election to provincial, city, or by virtue of a change of mind, he would
municipal positions, to require that like to assume again. It is for the very
candidates should not be more than 65 reason that inequality will neither result
years of age at the time they assume office, from the application of the challenged
if applicable to everyone, might or might provision. Just as that provision does not
not be a reasonable classification deny equal protection, neither does it
although, as the Solicitor General has permit such denial (see People vs. Vera,
intimated, a good policy of the law should 65 Phil. 56 [1933]). Persons similarly
be to promote the emergence of younger situated are similarly treated. In fine, it
blood in our political elective echelons. bears reiteration that the equal protection
clause does not forbid all legal
On the other hand, it might be that classification. What is proscribes is a
persons more than 65 years old may also classification which is arbitrary and
be good elective local officials. Coming unreasonable. That constitutional
now to the case of retirees. Retirement guarantee is not violated by a reasonable
from government service may or may not classification is germane to the purpose of
be a reasonable disqualification for the law and applies to all those belonging
elective local officials. For one thing, there to the same class (Peralta vs. Comelec, 82
can also be retirees from government SCRA 30 [1978] citing Felwa vs. Salas, 18
service at ages, say below 65. It may SCRA 606 [1966]; Rafael v. Embroidery
neither be reasonable to disqualify and Apparel Control and Inspection Board,
retirees, aged 65, for a 65-year old retiree 21 SCRA 336 [1967]; Inchong, etc., et al.
could be a good local official just like one, vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 [1957]).
aged 65, who is not a retiree. The purpose of the law is to allow the
emergence of younger blood in local
But, in the case of a 65-year old elective governments. The classification in
local official, who has retired from a question being pursuant to that purpose,

Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
it cannot be considered invalid "even if at qualified to run for the same elective local
times, it may be susceptible to the office from which he has retired."
objection that it is marred by theoretical
inconsistencies: (Chief Justice Fernando, Petitioner Dumlao alleges that the
The Constitution of the Philippines, 1977 aforecited provision is directe insidiously
ed., p. 547). against him, and that the classification
provided therein is based on "purely
arbitrary grounds and, therefore, class
legislation.
DUMLAO VS COMELEC GR 52245, Issue: Whether or not said provision

violates the equal protection guarantee?
Jan. 22, 1980
Held: No. Petitioner Dumlao's contention
Facts: The Petition alleges that petitioner,
that section 4 of BP Blg. 52 is
Patricio Dumlao, is a former Governor of
discriminatory against him personally is
Nueva Vizcaya. Petitioner Dumlao
belied by the fact that several petitions for
specifically questions the constitutionality
of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 as the disqualification of other candidates
discriminatory and contrary to the equal for local positions based on the
protection and due process guarantees of challenged provision have already been
filed with the COMELEC. This tellingly
the Constitution. Said Section 4 provides:
overthrows Dumlao's contention of
intentional or purposeful discrimination.
"Sec. 4. Special Disqualification - In
addition to violation of section 10 of Art. The assertion that Section 4 of BP Blg. 52
is contrary to the safeguard of equal
XII-C of the Constitution and
protection is neither well taken. The
disqualification mentioned in existing laws,
constitutional guarantee of equal
which are hereby declared as
disqualification for any of the elective protection of the laws is subject to rational
officials enumerated in section 1 hereof. classification. If the groupings are based on
Any retired elective provincial, city of reasonable and real differentiations, one
class can be treated and regulated
municipal official
differently from another class . For
purposes of public service, employees
(1)who has received payment of the
65 years of age, have been validly
retirement benefits to which he is entitled
classified differently from younger
under the law and
employees. Employees attaining that
(2)who shall have been 65 years of age at
age are subject to compulsory
the commencement of the term of office to
which he seeks to be elected, shall not be
Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
retirement, while those of younger ages present, and what is emphatically

are not so compulsorily retirable. significant is that the retired employee
has already declared himself tired and
In respect of election to provincial, city, or unavailable for the same government
municipal positions, to require that work, but, which, by virtue of a change
candidates should not be more than 65 of mind, he would like to assume again .
years of age at the time they assume office, It is for the very reason that inequality will
if applicable to everyone, might or might neither result from the application of the
not be a reasonable classification challenged provision. Just as that provision
although, as the Solicitor General has does not deny equal protection, neither
intimated, a good policy of the law does it permit such denial (see People vs.
should be to promote the emergence of Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1933]). Persons
younger blood in our political elective similarly situated are similarly treated.
echelons.
In fine, it bears reiteration that the equal
On the other hand, it might be that protection clause does not forbid all
persons more than 65 years old may also legal classification. What is proscribes
be good elective local officials. Coming is a classification which is arbitrary and
now to the case of retirees. Retirement unreasonable. That constitutional
from government service may or may not guarantee is not violated by a
be a reasonable disqualification for reasonable classification is germane to
elective local officials. For one thing, there the purpose of the law and applies to all
can also be retirees from government those belonging to the same. The
service at ages, say below 65. It may purpose of the law is to allow the
neither be reasonable to disqualify emergence of younger blood in local
retirees, aged 65, for a 65-year old retiree governments . The classification in
could be a good local official just like one, question being pursuant to that purpose, it
aged 65, who is not a retiree. cannot be considered invalid "even if at
times, it may be susceptible to the objection
But, in the case of a 65-year old elective that it is marred by
local official, who has retired from a theoretical inconsistencies.
provincial, city or municipal office, there
is reason to disqualify him from (NOTE: The questioned law is germane
running for the same office from which to the purposes for which it was enacted)
he had retired, as provided for in the
challenged provision. The need for new
blood assumes relevance. The tiredness
of the retiree for government work is

Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Philippine Association of Service Filipina workers, even rape and various

Exporters vs. Drilon [G.R. No. L-81958, forms of torture, confirmed by
June 30, 1988] testimonies of returning workers, are
compelling motives for urgent
GENDER IS A VALID CLASSIFICATION. Government action. As precisely the
The petitioner has shown no satisfactory caretaker of Constitutional rights, the
reason why the contested measure should Court is called upon to protect victims of
be nullified. There is no question that exploitation. In fulfilling that duty, the
Department Order No. 1 applies only to Court sustains the Government's efforts.
"female contract workers," but it does not
thereby make an undue discrimination The same, however, cannot be said of our
between the sexes. It is well-settled that male workers. In the first place, there is
"equality before the law" under the no evidence that, except perhaps for
Constitution does not import a perfect isolated instances, our men abroad have
identity of rights among all men and been afflicted with an identical
women. It admits of classifications, predicament. The petitioner has proffered
provided that no argument that the Government should
act similarly with respect to male workers.
(1) such classifications rest on The Court, of course, is not impressing
substantial distinctions; some male chauvinistic notion that men
(2) they are germane to the purposes are superior to women. What the Court is
of the law; saying is that it was largely a matter of
(3) they are not confined to existing evidence (that women domestic workers
conditions; and are being ill-treated abroad in massive
(4) they apply equally to all members instances) and not upon some fanciful or
of the same class. arbitrary yardstick that the Government
acted in this case. It is evidence capable
The Court is satisfied that the indeed of unquestionable demonstration
classification made — the preference for and evidence this Court accepts. The
female workers — rests on substantial Court cannot, however, say the same
distinctions. As a matter of judicial notice, thing as far as men are concerned. There
the Court is well aware of the unhappy is simply no evidence to justify such an
plight that has befallen our female labor inference. Suffice it to state, then, that
force abroad, especially domestic insofar as classifications are concerned,
servants, amid exploitative working this Court is content that distinctions are
conditions marked by, in not a few cases, borne by the evidence. Discrimination in
physical and personal abuse. The sordid this case is justified.
tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant

Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
PROFESSION IS A VALID them. If such be the case, it would be

CLASSIFICATION. The Court finds, finally, difficult to refute the assertion of denial of
the impugned guidelines to be applicable equal protection." In the case at bar, the
to all female domestic overseas workers. assailed Order clearly accords protection
That it does not apply to "all Filipina to certain women
workers" is not an argument for workers, and not the contrary.)
unconstitutionality. Had the ban been
given universal applicability, then it
would have been unreasonable and
arbitrary. For obvious reasons, not all of
them are similarly circumstanced. What PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE
the Constitution prohibits is the singling EXPORTERS, INC. inc. vs. Drilon GR
out of a select person or group of persons 81958, June 30, 1988
within an existing class, to the prejudice
of such a person or group or resulting in Facts: Philippine Association of Service
an unfair advantage to another person or Exporters, inc. (PASEI), is a domestic
group of persons. To apply the ban, say corporation engaged principally in the
exclusively to workers deployed by A, but recruitment of Filipino workers, male and
not to those recruited by B, would female for overseas employment. PASEI
obviously clash with the equal protection seeks to challenge the constitutionality of
clause of the Charter. It would be a classic the Department Order No. 1 series of
case of what Chase refers to as a law that 1998 of the Department of Labor. Said
"takes property from A and gives it to B." order prohibited and suspended the
It would be an unlawful invasion of overseas deployment of Filipina Domestic
property rights and freedom of contract and household workers.
and needless to state, an invalid act.
(Fernando says: "Where the classification Their main contention is that the order is
is based on such distinctions that make a invalid for the DOLE erroneously
real difference as infancy, sex, and stage exercised police power, which is an
of civilization of minority groups, the adjunct on the powers of congress, and
better rule, it would seem, is to recognize not executive in character. Moreover, it
its validity only if the young, the women, alleged that there was a violation of the
and the cultural minorities are singled out equal protection clause for it only sought
for favorable treatment. There would be to suspend the deployment of Filipina
an element of unreasonableness if on the workers, thus there was discrimination.
contrary their status that calls for the law
ministering to their needs is made the Issue: Whether or not there is a violation
basis of discriminatory legislation against of the equal protection clause?

Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Government acted in this case. It is

Held: No. The Court is satisfied that the evidence capable indeed of
classification made – the preference for unquestionable demonstration and
female workers - rests on substantial evidence this Court accepts. The Court
distinctions. As a matter of judicial notice, cannot, however, say the same thing as far
the Court is well aware of the unhappy as men are concerned. There is simply no
plight that has befallen our female labor evidence to justify such an inference.
force abroad, especially domestic Suffice it to state, then, that insofar as
servants, amid exploitative working classifications are concerned, this Court
conditions marked by, in not a few cases, is content that distinctions are borne by
physical and personal abuse. The sordid the evidence. Discrimination in this case
tales of maltreatment suffered by migrant is justified.
Filipina workers, even rape and various
forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies There is likewise no doubt that such a
of returning workers, are compelling classification is germane to the purpose
motives for urgent Government action. As behind the measure . Unquestionably, it is
precisely the caretaker of Constitutional the avowed objective of Department Order
rights, the Court is called upon to protect No. 1 to "enhance the protection for
victims of exploitation. In fulfilling that Filipino female overseas workers." 17 This
duty, the Court sustains the Government's Court has no quarrel that in the midst of
efforts. the terrible mistreatment Filipina workers
have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment
The same, however, cannot be said of our will be for their own good and welfare.
male workers. In the first place, there is no
evidence that, except perhaps for isolated
instances, our men abroad have been
afflicted with an identical predicament.
The petitioner has proffered no argument DOCTRINE:
that the Government should act similarly Himagan vs. People [G.R. No. 113811,
with respect to male workers. The Court, October 7, 1994]
of course, is not impressing some male
chauvinistic notion that men are POLICE OFFICERS MAY BE
superior to women. What the Court is DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER CIVIL
saying is that it was largely a matter of SERVANTS WITHOUT VIOLATING
evidence (that women domestic EQUAL PROTECTION. The reason why
workers are being ill-treated abroad in members of the PNP are treated
massive instances) and not upon some differently from the other classes of
fanciful or arbitrary yardstick that the persons charged criminally or

Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
administratively insofar as the application purpose of the law; applies to all

of the rule on preventive suspension is members of the same class; and applies to
concerned is that policemen carry current as well as future conditions, 18
weapons and the badge of the law which the classification may not be impugned as
can be used to harass or intimidate violating the Constitution's equal
witnesses against them, as succinctly protection guarantee. A distinction based
brought out in the legislative discussions. on real and reasonable considerations
If a suspended policeman criminally related to a proper legislative purpose
charged with a serious offense is such as that which exists here is neither
reinstated to his post while his case is unreasonable, capricious nor unfounded.
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 HIMAGAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE
is in uniform and armed. the imposition of PHILIPPINES
preventive suspension for over 90 days G.R. No. 113811 October 7, 1994,
under Section 47 of R.A. 6975 does not KAPUNAN, J.:
violate the suspended policeman's
constitutional right to equal protection of Facts: Petitioner, a policeman was
the laws. implicated in the killing of Benjamin
Machitar, Jr. and the attempted murder of
The equal protection clause exists to Bernabe Machitar. After the information
prevent undue favor or privilege. It is for murder and attempted murder were
intended to eliminate discrimination and filed, the trial court issued an Order
oppression based on inequality. suspending petitioner until the
Recognizing the existence of real termination of the case on the basis of
differences among men, the equal Section 47, R.A. 6975. In response,
protection clause does not demand petitioner filed a motion to lift the order
absolute equality. It merely requires that for his suspension, relying on Section 42
all persons shall be treated alike, under of P.D. 807 of the Civil Service Decree, that
like circumstances and conditions both as his suspension should be limited to 90
to the privileges conferred and liabilities days. Respondent judge denied the
enforced. Thus, the equal protection motion pointing out that under Section 47
clause does not absolutely forbid of R.A. 6975, the accused shall be
classifications, such as the one which suspended from office until his case is
exists in the instant case. If the terminated. The motion for
classification is based on real and reconsideration of the order of denial was,
substantial differences; is germane to the likewise, denied. Hence, the petition for

Page | 23
MENDIOLA, MANILA
certiorari and mandamus to set aside the command that the trial must be
orders of respondent Judge and to terminated within ninety (90) days from
command him to lift petitioner's arraignment.
preventive suspension. Petitioner posits
that as a member of the Philippine We disagree.
National Police, he is covered by the Civil
Service Law, particularly Sec. 42 of PD First. The language of the first sentence of
807 of the Civil Service Decree, which Sec. 47 of R.A. 6975 is clear, plain and free
limits the maximum period of suspension from ambiguity. It gives no other meaning
to ninety (90) days. He claims that an than that the suspension from office of the
imposition of preventive suspension of member of the PNP charged with grave
over 90 days is contrary to the Civil offense where the penalty is six years and
Service Law and would be a violation of one day or more shall last until the
his constitutional right to equal termination of the case. The suspension
protection of laws. cannot be lifted before the termination of
the case. The second sentence of the same
Issue: Whether or not the imposition of Section providing that the trial must be
preventive suspension of over 90 days is a terminated within ninety (90) days from
violation of his constitutional right to arraignment does not qualify or limit the
equal protection of laws? first sentence. The two can stand
independently of each other. The first
Held No. He claims that an imposition of refers to the period of suspension.
preventive suspension of over 90 days is
contrary to the Civil Service Law and The second deals with the time from
would be a violation of his constitutional within which the trial should be finished.
right to equal protection of laws. He Suppose the trial is not terminated within
further asserts that the requirements in ninety days from arraignment, should the
Sec. 47 of R.A. 6975 that "the court shall suspension of accused be lifted? The
immediately suspend the accused from answer is certainly no. While the law uses
office until the case is terminated" and the the mandatory word "shall" before the
succeeding sentence, "Such case shall be phrase "be terminated within ninety (90)
subject to continuous trial and shall be days", there is nothing in R.A. 6975 that
terminated within ninety (90) days from suggests that the preventive suspension of
arraignment of the accused" are both the accused will be lifted if the trial is not
substantive and should be taken together terminated within that period. Nonetheless,
to mean that if the case is not terminated the Judge who fails to decide the case
within 90 days, the period of preventive within the period without justifiable reason
suspension must be lifted because of the may be subject to administrative sanctions

Page | 24
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and, in appropriate cases where the facts imposed by law exceeds six (6) years shall
so warrant, to criminal or civil liability. If continue until the case is terminated.
the trial is unreasonably delayed without
fault of the accused such that he is Third. Petitioner's reliance on Layno and
deprived of his right to a speedy trial, he Deloso is misplaced. These cases all
is not without a remedy. He may ask for stemmed from charges in violation of R.A.
the dismissal of the case. Should the court 3019 (1060), otherwise known as the
refuse to dismiss the case, the accused can Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
compel its dismissal by certiorari, which, unlike R.A. 6975, is silent on the
prohibition or mandamus, or secure his duration of the preventive suspension.
liberty by habeas corpus. Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019 reads as follows:
Second. Petitioner misapplies Sec. 42 of Fourth. From the deliberations of the

PD 807. A meticulous reading of the Bicameral Conference Committee on
section clearly shows that it refers to the National Defense relative to the bill that
lifting of preventive suspension in became R.A. 6975, the meaning of Section
pending administrative investigation, 47 of R.A. 6975 insofar as the period of
not in criminal cases, as here. What is suspension is concerned becomes all the
more, Section 42 expressly limits the more clear. The foregoing discussions
period of preventive suspension to ninety reveal the legislative intent to place on
(90) days. Sec. 91 of R.A. 6975 which preventive suspension a member of the
states that "The Civil Service Law and its PNP charged with grave felonies where
implementing rules shall apply to all the penalty imposed by law exceeds six
personnel of the Department" simply years of imprisonment and which
means that the provisions of the Civil suspension continues until the case
Service Law and its implementing rules against him is terminated.
and regulations are applicable to
members of the Philippine National Police The reason why members of the PNP
insofar as the provisions, rules and are treated differently from the other
regulations are not inconsistent with R.A. classes of persons charged criminally or
6975. administratively insofar as the
application of the rule on preventive
Certainly, Section 42 of the Civil Service suspension is concerned is that
Decree which limits the preventive policemen carry weapons and the
suspension to ninety (90) days cannot badge of the law which can be used to
apply to members of the PNP because Sec. harass or intimidate witnesses against
47 of R.A. 6995 provides differently, that them, as succinctly brought out in the
is, the suspension where the penalty legislative discussions. If a suspended

Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
policeman criminally charged with a and declared that appointed officials,

serious offense is reinstated to his post including members of the judiciary and
while his case is pending, his victim and the Comelec itself, who have filed their
the witnesses against him are obviously certificate of candidacy for the May 10
exposed to constant threat and thus elections are already deemed resigned. In
easily cowed to silence by the mere fact the Resolution dated 22 February 2010,
that the accused is in uniform and the Court said that its December 2009
armed. Decision failed to consider the threat to
government “posed by the partisan
The equal protection clause exists to potential of a large and growing
prevent undue favor or privilege. bureaucracy: the danger of systematic
Recognizing the existence of real abuse perpetuated by a ‘powerful political
differences among men, the equal machine’ that has amassed ‘the scattered
protection clause does not demand powers of government workers’ so as to
absolute equality. It merely requires that give itself and its incumbent workers an
all persons shall be treated alike, under ‘unbreakable grasp on the reins of power.”
like circumstances and conditions both as The Court added that “in the case at bar,
to the privileges conferred and liabilities the probable harm to society in
enforced. Thus, the equal protection permitting incumbent appointive officials
clause does not absolutely forbid to remain in office, even as they actively
classifications, such as the one which pursue elective posts, far outweighs the
exists in the instant case. If the less likely evil of having arguably
classification is based on real and protected candidacies blocked by the
substantial differences ; is germane to possible inhibitory effect of a potentially
the purpose of the law; applies to all overly broad statute.” (please take note na
members of the same class; and applies to nag dissent si nachura dito) 
current as well as future conditions, the
classification may not be impugned as
violating the Constitution's equal Atty Gabs: Quinto and Himagan vs.
protection guarantee. Comelec
Test: Character of public office.
Elective positions are political in nature.
DOCTRINE:
QUINTO VS COMELEC Q: Does the Constitution prohibit all
types of searches and seizures?
In a 10-5 vote, the Supreme Court A: No. Only unreasonable SS.
reversed its Decision rendered in the case
of Quinto vs. Comelec last December 2009

Page | 26
MENDIOLA, MANILA
office upon the filing of his certificate of

QUINTO vs. COMELEC candidacy.”
G.R. No. 189698, February, 22. 2010
Puno. CJ: Petitioners were appointive officers of the
government who were planning to run in
Note: The SC reversed its December 1, the 2010 elections sought the nullification
2009 decision via the MRs of COMELEC of Sec. 4(a) on the ground, among others,
and movant-intervenors that it is discriminatory and violates the
equal protection clause of the
FACTS: In preparation for the 2010 Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in
elections, the Commission on Elections their favor. This prompted the COMELEC
(COMELEC) issued Resolution No. 8678 – to file a motion for reconsideration and
the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates the movant-intervenors with their own
of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination of motion for reconsideration-
Official Candidates of Registered Political inintervention.
Parties in Connection with the May 10,
2010 National and Local Elections. Sec. 4 ISSUES:
of Resolution No. 8678 provides that 1) Whether the assailed decision is
“Any person holding a public appointive contrary to the constitutional
office or position x x x shall be considered proscription against the participation of
ipso facto resigned from his office upon public appointive officials and members
the filing of his certificate of candidacy of the military in partisan political activity.
(automatic resignation) however it 2) Whether the assailed provisions do not
exempts those elected officials saying that violate the equal protection clause when
“Any person holding an elective office or they accord differential treatment to
position shall not be considered resigned elective and appointive officials.
upon the filing of his certificate of 3) Whether the assailed provisions do not
candidacy for the same or any other suffer from the infirmity of overbreadth.
elective office or position.” Sec.13(par. 3)
of Republic Act (“R.A.”) No. 9369 HELD: YES to all.
provides: “x x x any person holding a The Court now rules that Section 4(a) of
public appointive office or position x x x Resolution 8678, Section 66 of the
shall be considered ipso facto resigned Omnibus Election Code, and the second
from his/her office x x x.” Sec. 66 of BP Blg. proviso in the third paragraph of Section
881, or the Omnibus Election Code, reads: 13 of RA 9369 are not unconstitutional.
“x x x Any person holding a public *Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution
appointive office or position x x x shall be 8678 Compliant with Law Section 4(a) of
considered ipso facto resigned from his COMELEC Resolution 8678 is a faithful

Page | 27
MENDIOLA, MANILA
reflection of the present state of the law on the participation of civil service
and jurisprudence on the matter, viz.: officers and employees in partisan
Incumbent Appointive Official. - Under political campaigns is unmistakable.
Section 13 of RA 9369, which reiterates
Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, To emphasize its importance, this
any person holding a public appointive constitutional ban on civil service officers
office or position, including active and employees is presently reflected and
members of the Armed implemented by a number of statutes. (e.g.
Section 46(b)(26), Chapter 7 and Section
Forces of the Philippines, and officers and 55, Chapter 8 – both of Subtitle A, Title I,
employees in government owned or - Book V of the Administrative Code of
controlled corporations, shall be 1987). Section 261(i) of Batas Pambansa
considered ipso facto resigned from his Blg. 881 (the Omnibus Election Code)
office upon the filing of his certificate of further makes intervention by civil
candidacy. Incumbent Elected Official. – service officers and employees in partisan
Upon the other hand, pursuant to Section political activities an election offense. The
14 of RA 9006 or the Fair Election Act, intent of both Congress and the framers
which repealed Section 67 of the Omnibus of our Constitution to limit the
Election Code and rendered ineffective participation of civil service officers and
Section 11 of R.A. 8436 insofar as it employees in partisan political
considered an elected official as resigned activities is too plain to be mistaken. But
only upon the start of the campaign Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987
period corresponding to the positions for Constitution and the implementing statutes
which they are running, an elected official apply only to civil servants holding
is not deemed to have resigned from his apolitical offices . Stated differently, the
office upon the filing of his certificate of constitutional ban does not cover
candidacy for the same or any other elected officials , notwithstanding the
elected office or position. In fine, an elected fact that “[t]he civil service embraces all
official may run for another position branches, subdivisions,
without forfeiting his seat. instrumentalities, and agencies of the
Government, including government-
These laws and regulations implement owned or controlled corporations with
Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987 original charters.” This is because
Constitution, which prohibits civil elected public officials, by the very
service officers and employees from nature of their office, engage in
engaging in any electioneering or partisan political activities almost all
partisan political campaign. The year round, even outside of the
intention to impose a strict limitation campaign period . Political partisanship

Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
is the inevitable essence of a political therefrom only upon stringent

office, elective positions included. conditions. On the other hand,
*Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, appointive officials hold their office by
Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of virtue of their designation thereto by an
the Omnibus Election Code Do Not appointing authority. Some appointive
Violate the Equal Protection Clause officials hold their office in a permanent
capacity and are entitled to security of
In truth, this Court has already ruled tenure while others serve at the
squarely on whether these deemed pleasure of the appointing authority.
resigned provisions challenged in the case Another substantial distinction between
at bar violate the equal protection clause the two sets of officials is that under
of the Constitution in Fariñas, et al. v. Section 55, Chapter 8, Title I, Subsection
Executive Secretary, et al. The petitioners A. Civil Service Commission, Book V of
in Fariñas thus brought an equal the Administrative Code of 1987
protection challenge against Section 14, (Executive Order No. 292), appointive
with the end in view of having the officials, as officers and employees in
deemed-resigned provisions “apply the civil service, are strictly prohibited
equally” to both elected and appointive from engaging in any partisan political
officials. We held, however, that the legal activity or take (sic) part in any election
dichotomy created by the Legislature is a except to vote. Under the same
reasonable classification, as there are provision, elective officials, or officers
material and significant distinctions or employees holding political offices,
between the two classes of officials. are obviously expressly allowed to take
Consequently, the contention that Section part in political and electoral activities.
14 of the Fair Election Act, in relation to
Sections 66 and 67 of the Omnibus By repealing Section 67 but retaining
Election Code, infringed on the equal Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code,
protection clause of the Constitution, the legislators deemed it proper to treat
failed muster. these two classes of officials differently
with respect to the effect on their tenure
In said case, the Court ruled that: in the office of the filing of the
certificates of candidacy for any
“Substantial distinctions clearly exist position other than those occupied by
between elective officials and appointive them. Again, it is not within the power of
officials . The former occupy their office the Court to pass upon or look into the
by virtue of the mandate of the wisdom of this classification. Since the
electorate. They are elected to an office classification justifying Section 14 of Rep.
for a definite term and may be removed Act No. 9006, i.e., elected officials vis-à-vis

Page | 29
MENDIOLA, MANILA
appointive officials, is anchored upon of review is an INTEREST-

material and significant distinctions BALANCING APPROACH , a
and all the persons belonging under the means-end scrutiny that
same classification are similarly examines the closeness of fit
treated , the equal protection clause of the between the governmental
Constitution is, thus, not infringed.” interests and the prohibitions in
question.
The Court declared these provisions
compliant with the equal protection *Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678,
clause. It held that Section 13 of RA 9369, and Section 66 of
the Omnibus Election Code Do Not Suffer
(i) in regulating the speech of its from Overbreadth
employees, the state as
employer has interests that First , according to the assailed Decision,
differ significantly from those it the challenged provisions of law are overly
possesses in regulating the broad because they apply indiscriminately
speech of the citizenry in to all civil servants holding appointive
general; posts, without due regard for the type of
(ii) the courts must therefore position being held by the employee
balance the legitimate interest running for elective office and the degree
of employee free expression of influence that may be attendant thereto.
against the interests of the Such a myopic view obviously fails to
employer in promoting consider a different, yet equally
efficiency of public services; plausible, threat to the government
(iii) if the employees’ expression posed by the partisan potential of a
interferes with the large and growing bureaucracy: the
maintenance of efficient and danger of systematic abuse perpetuated
regularly functioning services, by a “powerful political machine” that
the limitation on speech is not has amassed “the scattered powers of
unconstitutional; and government workers” so as to give itself
(iv) the Legislature is to be given and its incumbent workers an
some flexibility or latitude in “unbreakable grasp on the reins of
ascertaining which positions power.”
are to be covered by any
statutory restrictions. Second , the assailed Decision also held
Therefore, insofar as that the challenged provisions of law are
government employees are overly broad because they are made to
concerned, the correct standard apply indiscriminately to all civil servants

Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
holding appointive offices, without due these are the only elections in this
regard for the type of elective office being country which involve non-partisan
sought, whether it be partisan or public offices . In this regard, it is well to
nonpartisan in character, or in the note that from as far back as the
national, municipal or barangay level. The enactment of the Omnibus Election Code
Court ruled that: A perusal of Resolution in 1985, Congress has intended that
8678 will immediately disclose that the these nonpartisan barangay elections
rules and guidelines set forth therein be governed by SPECIAL RULES ,
refer to the filing of certificates of including a separate rule on deemed
candidacy and nomination of official resignations which is found in Section
candidates of registered political 39 of the Omnibus Election Code.
parties, in connection with the May 10,
2010 National and Local Elections . In the United States, claims of facial
overbreadth have been entertained only
Obviously, these rules and guidelines, where, in the judgment of the court, the
including the restriction in Section 4(a) possibility that protected speech of others
of Resolution 8678, were issued may be muted and perceived grievances
specifically for purposes of the May 10, left to fester (due to the possible
2010 National and Local Elections, inhibitory effects of overly broad
which, it must be noted, are decidedly statutes) outweighs the possible harm to
partisan in character. Thus, it is clear society in allowing some unprotected
that the restriction in Section 4(a) of RA speech or conduct to go unpunished.
8678 applies only to the candidacies of Facial overbreadth has likewise not been
appointive officials vying for partisan invoked where a limiting construction
elective posts in the May 10, 2010 could be placed on the challenged statute,
National and Local Elections. On this and where there are readily apparent
score, the overbreadth challenge constructions that would cure, or at least
leveled against Section 4(a) is clearly substantially reduce, the alleged
unsustainable. Similarly, a considered overbreadth of the statute.
review of Section 13 of RA 9369 and
Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, in In the case at bar, the probable harm to
conjunction with other related laws on the society in permitting incumbent
matter, will confirm that these appointive officials to remain in office,
provisions are likewise not intended to even as they actively pursue elective
apply to elections for nonpartisan posts, far outweighs the less likely evil
public offices. The only elections which of having arguably protected
are relevant to the present inquiry are candidacies blocked by the possible
the elections for barangay offices, since

Page | 31
MENDIOLA, MANILA
inhibitory effect of a potentially overly The petitioners argue that the search for
broad statute. truth behind the reported cases of graft
and corruption must encompass acts
committed not only during the
administration of former President
Arroyo but also during prior
DOCTRINE: BIRAOGO VS PTC administrations where the “same
magnitude of controversies and
THE CLASSIFICATION MUST APPLY anomalies” were reported to have been
EQUALLY TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF committed against the Filipino people.
THE SAME CLASSS. Although the purpose They assail the classification formulated
of the Truth Commission falls within the by the respondents as it does not fall
investigative power of the President, the under the recognized exceptions because
Court finds difficulty in upholding the first, “there is no substantial distinction
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1 between the group of officials targeted for
in view of its apparent transgression of investigation by Executive Order No. 1
the equal protection clause enshrined in and other groups or persons who abused
Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the their public office for personal gain; and
1987 Constitution. Section 1 reads: second, the selective classification is not
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of germane to the purpose of Executive
life, liberty, or property without due Order No. 1 to end corruption.” In order
process of law, nor shall any person be to attain constitutional permission, the
denied the equal protection of the laws. petitioners advocate that the commission
should deal with “graft and grafters prior
The petitioners assail Executive Order No. and subsequent to the Arroyo
1 because it is violative of this administration with the strong arm of the
constitutional safeguard. They contend law with equal force.”
that it does not apply equally to all
members of the same class such that the One of the basic principles on which this
intent of singling out the “previous government was founded is that of the
administration” as its sole object makes equality of right which is embodied in
the PTC an “adventure in partisan Section 1, Article III of the 1987
hostility.” Thus, in order to be accorded Constitution. The equal protection of the
with validity, the commission must also laws is embraced in the concept of due
cover reports of graft and corruption in process, as every unfair discrimination
virtually all administrations previous to offends the requirements of justice and
that of former President Arroyo. fair play. It has been embodied in a
separate clause, however, to provide for a

Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
more specific guaranty against any form and extend to all actions of a state
of undue favoritism or hostility from the denying equal protection of the laws,
government. Arbitrariness in general may through whatever agency or whatever
be challenged on the basis of the due guise is taken. It, however, does not
process clause. But if the particular act require the universal application of the
assailed partakes of an unwarranted laws to all persons or things without
partiality or prejudice, the sharper distinction. What it simply requires is
weapon to cut it down is the equal equality among equals as determined
protection clause. according to a valid classification. Indeed,
the equal protection clause permits
“According to a long line of decisions, classification. Such classification, however,
equal protection simply requires that all to be valid must pass the test of
persons or things similarly situated reasonableness.
should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed.” The test has four requisites:
It “requires public bodies and institutions (1) The classification rests on substantial
to treat similarly situated individuals in a distinctions;
similar manner.” “The purpose of the (2) It is germane to the purpose of the
equal protection clause is to secure every law;
person within a state’s jurisdiction (3) It is not limited to existing conditions
against intentional and arbitrary only; and
discrimination, whether occasioned by (4) It applies equally to all members of
the express terms of a statue or by its the same class.
improper execution through the state’s
duly constituted authorities.” “Superficial differences do not make for a
valid classification.” For a classification to
“In other words, the concept of equal meet the requirements of
justice under the law requires the state to constitutionality, it must include or
govern impartially, and it may not draw embrace all persons who naturally belong
distinctions between individuals solely on to the class. “The classification will be
differences that are irrelevant to a regarded as invalid if all the members of
legitimate governmental objective.” the class are not similarly treated, both as
to rights conferred and obligations
The equal protection clause is aimed at all imposed. It is not necessary that the
official state actions, not just those of the classification be made with absolute
legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the symmetry, in the sense that the members
departments of the government including of the class should possess the same
the political and executive departments, characteristics in equal degree.

Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Substantial similarity will suffice; and as though they were the same. The equal
long as this is achieved, all those covered protection clause does not forbid
by the classification are to be treated discrimination as to things that are
equally. The mere fact that an individual different. It does not prohibit legislation
belonging to a class differs from the other which is limited either in the object to
members, as long as that class is which it is directed or by the territory
substantially distinguishable from all within which it is to operate.
others, does not justify the non-
application of the law to him.” The equal protection of the laws clause of
the Constitution allows classification.
The classification must not be based on Classification in law, as in the other
existing circumstances only, or so departments of knowledge or practice, is
constituted as to preclude addition to the the grouping of things in speculation or
number included in the class. It must be of practice because they agree with one
such a nature as to embrace all those who another in certain particulars. A law is not
may thereafter be in similar invalid because of simple inequality. The
circumstances and conditions. It must not very idea of classification is that of
leave out or “under include” those that inequality, so that it goes without saying
should otherwise fall into a certain that the mere fact of inequality in no
classification. As elucidated in Victoriano manner determines the matter of
v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union and constitutionality. All that is required of a
reiterated in a long line of cases. The valid classification is that it be reasonable,
guaranty of equal protection of the laws is which means that the classification
not a guaranty of equality in the should be based on substantial
application of the laws upon all citizens of distinctions which make for real
the state. It is not, therefore, a differences, that it must be germane to the
requirement, in order to avoid the purpose of the law; that it must not be
constitutional prohibition against limited to existing conditions only; and
inequality, that every man, woman and that it must apply equally to each member
child should be affected alike by a statute. of the class. This Court has held that the
Equality of operation of statutes does not standard is satisfied if the classification or
mean indiscriminate operation on distinction is based on a reasonable
persons merely as such, but on persons foundation or rational basis and is not
according to the circumstances palpably arbitrary. [Citations omitted]
surrounding them. It guarantees equality,
not identity of rights. The Constitution Applying these precepts to this case,
does not require that things which are Executive Order No. 1 should be struck
different in fact be treated in law as down as violative of the equal protection

Page | 34
MENDIOLA, MANILA
clause. The clear mandate of the SECTION 2. Powers and Functions. – The
envisioned truth commission is to Commission, which shall have all the
investigate and find out the truth powers of an investigative body under
“concerning the reported cases of graft Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the
and corruption during the previous Administrative Code of 1987, is primarily
administration”[87] only. The intent to tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding
single out the previous administration is investigation of reported cases of graft and
plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it corruption referred to in Section 1,
has been made in at least three portions involving third level public officers and
of the questioned executive order. higher, their co-principals, accomplices
Specifically, these are: and accessories from the private sector, if
any, during the previous administration
WHEREAS, there is a need for a separate and thereafter submit its finding and
body dedicated solely to investigating and recommendations to the President,
finding out the truth concerning the Congress and the Ombudsman. [Emphases
reported cases of graft and corruption supplied]
during the previous administration, and
which will recommend the prosecution of In this regard, it must be borne in mind
the offenders and secure justice for all; that the Arroyo administration is but just
a member of a class, that is, a class of past
SECTION 1. Creation of a Commission. – administrations. It is not a class of its own.
There is hereby created the PHILIPPINE Not to include past administrations
TRUTH COMMISSION, hereinafter referred similarly situated constitutes
to as the “COMMISSION,” which shall arbitrariness which the equal protection
primarily seek and find the truth on, and clause cannot sanction. Such
toward this end, investigate reports of discriminating differentiation clearly
graft and corruption of such scale and reverberates to label the commission as a
magnitude that shock and offend the moral vehicle for vindictiveness and selective
and ethical sensibilities of the people, retribution.
committed by public officers and
employees, their co-principals, accomplices Though the OSG enumerates several
and accessories from the private sector, if differences between the Arroyo
any, during the previous administration; administration and other past
and thereafter recommend the appropriate administrations, these distinctions are not
action or measure to be taken thereon to substantial enough to merit the
ensure that the full measure of justice shall restriction of the investigation to the
be served without fear or favor. “previous administration” only. The
reports of widespread corruption in the

Page | 35
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Arroyo administration cannot be taken as physical and legal impossibility, the Court
basis for distinguishing said logically recognizes the unfeasibility of
administration from earlier investigating almost a century’s worth of
administrations which were also graft cases. However, the fact remains
blemished by similar widespread reports that Executive Order No. 1 suffers from
of impropriety. They are not inherent in, arbitrary classification. The PTC, to be
and do not inure solely to, the Arroyo true to its mandate of searching for the
administration. As Justice Isagani Cruz truth, must not exclude the other past
put it, “Superficial differences do not administrations. The PTC must, at least,
make for a valid classification.” The public have the authority to investigate all past
needs to be enlightened why Executive administrations. While reasonable
Order No. 1 chooses to limit the scope of prioritization is permitted, it should not
the intended investigation to the previous be arbitrary lest it be struck down for
administration only. The OSG ventures to being unconstitutional. In the often
opine that “to include other past quoted language of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.
administrations, at this point, may Though the law itself be fair on its face
unnecessarily overburden the and impartial in appearance, yet, if
commission and lead it to lose its applied and administered by public
effectiveness.” The reason given is authority with an evil eye and an unequal
specious. It is without doubt irrelevant to hand, so as practically to make unjust and
the legitimate and noble objective of the illegal discriminations between persons
PTC to stamp out or “end corruption and in similar circumstances, material to their
the evil it breeds.” rights, the denial of equal justice is still
within the prohibition of the constitution.
The probability that there would be [Emphasis supplied]
difficulty in unearthing evidence or that
the earlier reports involving the earlier It could be argued that considering that
administrations were already inquired the PTC is an ad hoc body, its scope is
into is beside the point. Obviously, limited. The Court, however, is of the
deceased presidents and cases which considered view that although its focus is
have already prescribed can no longer be restricted, the constitutional guarantee of
the subjects of inquiry by the PTC. Neither equal protection under the laws should
is the PTC expected to conduct not in any way be circumvented. The
simultaneous investigations of previous Constitution is the fundamental and
administrations, given the body’s limited paramount law of the nation to which all
time and resources. “The law does not other laws must conform and in
require the impossible” (Lex non cogit ad accordance with which all private rights
impossibilia). Given the foregoing determined and all public authority

Page | 36
MENDIOLA, MANILA
administered. Laws that do not conform indistinguishable from those of the

to the Constitution should be stricken members of the class must be brought
down for being unconstitutional. While under the influence of the law and treated
the thrust of the PTC is specific, that is, for by it in the same way as are the members
investigation of acts of graft and of the class.”
corruption, Executive Order No. 1, to
survive, must be read together with the The Court is not unaware that “mere
provisions of the Constitution. To exclude underinclusiveness is not fatal to the
the earlier administrations in the guise of validity of a law under the equal
“substantial distinctions” would only protection clause.Legislation is not
confirm the petitioners’ lament that the unconstitutional merely because it is not
subject executive order is only an all-embracing and does not include all the
“adventure in partisan hostility.” In the evils within its reach. It has been written
case of US v. Cyprian,[95] it was written: that a regulation challenged under the
“A rather limited number of such equal protection clause is not devoid of a
classifications have routinely been held or rational predicate simply because it
assumed to be arbitrary; those include: happens to be incomplete.[100] In several
race, national origin, gender, political instances, the underinclusiveness was not
activity or membership in a political party, considered a valid reason to strike down a
union activity or membership in a labor law or regulation where the purpose can
union, or more generally the exercise of be attained in future legislations or
first amendment rights.” regulations. These cases refer to the “step
by step” process. “With regard to equal
To reiterate, in order for a classification to protection claims, a legislature does not
meet the requirements of run the risk of losing the entire remedial
constitutionality, it must include or scheme simply because it fails, through
embrace all persons who naturally belong inadvertence or otherwise, to cover every
to the class. “Such a classification must evil that might conceivably have been
not be based on existing circumstances attacked.”
only, or so constituted as to preclude
additions to the number included within a In Executive Order No. 1, however, there
class, but must be of such a nature as to is no inadvertence. That the previous
embrace all those who may thereafter be administration was picked out was
in similar circumstances and conditions. deliberate and intentional as can be
gleaned from the fact that it was
Furthermore, all who are in situations and underscored at least three times in the
circumstances which are relative to the assailed executive order. It must be noted
discriminatory legislation and which are that Executive Order No. 1 does not even

Page | 37
MENDIOLA, MANILA
mention any particular act, event or include them, the section would then be
report to be focused on unlike the meaningless. This will only fortify the
investigative commissions created in the fears of the petitioners that the Executive
past. “The equal protection clause is Order No. 1 was “crafted to tailor-fit the
violated by purposeful and intentional prosecution of officials and personalities
discrimination.” of the Arroyo administration.”
To disprove petitioners’ contention that The Court tried to seek guidance from the
there is deliberate discrimination, the pronouncement in the case of Virata v.
OSG clarifies that the commission does Sandiganbayan,[106] that the “PCGG
not only confine itself to cases of large Charter (composed of Executive Orders
scale graft and corruption committed Nos. 1, 2 and 14) does not violate the
during the previous administration. The equal protection clause.” The decision,
OSG points to Section 17 of Executive however, was devoid of any discussion on
Order No. 1, which provides: how such conclusory statement was
arrived at, the principal issue in said case
SECTION 17. Special Provision being only the sufficiency of a cause of
Concerning Mandate. If and when in the action.
judgment of the President there is a need to
expand the mandate of the Commission as
defined in Section 1 hereof to include the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. Although
investigation of cases and instances of the purpose of the Truth Commission falls
graft and corruption during the within the investigative power of the
prior administrations, such mandate may President, the Court finds difficulty in
be so extended accordingly by way of a upholding the constitutionality of
supplemental Executive Order. Executive Order No. 1 in view of its
apparent transgression of the equal
The Court is not convinced. Although protection clause.
Section 17 allows the President the
discretion to expand the scope of The equal protection clause is aimed at all
investigations of the PTC so as to include official state actions, not just those of the
the acts of graft and corruption legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the
committed in other past administrations, departments of the government including
it does not guarantee that they would be the political and executive departments,
covered in the future. Such expanded and extend to all actions of a state
mandate of the commission will still denying equal protection of the laws,
depend on the whim and caprice of the through whatever agency or whatever
President. If he would decide not to guise is taken.

Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
administrations. It is not a class of its own.

It, however, does not require the Not to include past administrations
universal application of the laws to all similarly situated constitutes
persons or things without distinction. arbitrariness which the equal protection
What it simply requires is equality among clause cannot sanction. Such
equals as determined according to a valid discriminating differentiation clearly
classification. Indeed, the equal protection reverberates to label the commission as a
clause permits classification. Such vehicle for vindictiveness and selective
classification, however, to be valid must retribution.
pass the test of reasonableness. The test
has four requisites: DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER
(1) The classification rests on substantial TO INVESTIGATE AND THE POWER TO
distinctions; ADJUDICATE. Invoking this authority, the
(2) It is germane to the purpose of the President constituted the PTC to
law; primarily investigate reports of graft and
(3) It is not limited to existing conditions corruption and to recommend the
only; and appropriate action. As previously stated,
(4) It applies equally to all members of no quasi-judicial powers have been
the same class."Superficial differences do vested in the said body as it cannot
not make for a valid classification." adjudicate rights of persons who come
before it.
Applying these precepts to this case,
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck Contrary to petitioners apprehension, the
down as violative of the equal protection PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or
clause. The clear mandate of the the DOJ or erode their respective powers.
envisioned truth commission is to If at all, the investigative function of the
investigate and find out the truth commission will complement those of the
"concerning the reported cases of graft two offices. As pointed out by the Solicitor
and corruption during the previous General, the recommendation to
administration only. The intent to single prosecute is but a consequence of the
out the previous administration is plain, overall task of the commission to conduct
patent and manifest. Mention of it has a fact-finding investigation. The actual
been made in at least three portions of the prosecution of suspected offenders, much
questioned executive order. less adjudication on the merits of the
charges against them, is certainly not a
In this regard, it must be borne in mind function given to the commission. The
that the Arroyo administration is but just phrase, "when in the course of its
a member of a class, that is, a class of past investigation," under Section 2(g),

Page | 39
MENDIOLA, MANILA
highlights this fact and gives credence to a FACTS: Pres. Aquino signed E. O. No. 1
contrary interpretation from that of the establishing Philippine Truth Commission
petitioners. The function of determining of 2010 (PTC) dated July 30, 2010.
probable cause for the filing of the
appropriate complaints before the courts PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under
remains to be with the DOJ and the the Office of the President with the
Ombudsman. primary task to investigate reports of
graft and corruption committed by third-
At any rate, the Ombudsmans power to level public officers and employees, their
investigate under R.A. No. 6770 is not co-principals, accomplices and
exclusive but is shared with other accessories during the previous
similarly authorized government agencies. administration, and to submit its finding
The same holds true with respect to the and recommendations to the President,
DOJ. Its authority under Section 3 (2), Congress and the Ombudsman. PTC has
Chapter 1, Title III, Book IV in the Revised all the powers of an investigative body.
Administrative Code is by no means But it is not a quasi-judicial body as it
exclusive and, thus, can be shared with a cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve,
body likewise tasked to investigate the settle, or render awards in disputes
commission of crimes. between contending parties. All it can do
is gather, collect and assess evidence of
graft and corruption and make
Atty Gabs: Biraogo vs. PTC recommendations. It may have subpoena
Contention: “underexclusiveness is not a powers but it has no power to cite people
ground to invalidate a law” in contempt, much less order their arrest.
Although it is a fact-finding body, it
SC: No. It can only be applied if cannot determine from such facts if
classification is made inadvertently. No probable cause exists as to warrant the
subclassification within a class. filing of an information in our courts of
law.
Q: Are public officers one class?
A: No. Appointive or elective, etc. Petitioners asked the Court to declare it
unconstitutional and to enjoin the PTC
from performing its functions. They
argued that:
BIRAOGO VS THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH (a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of

COMMISSION OF 2010 powers as it arrogates the power of the

Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Congress to create a public office and executive power and power of control
appropriate funds for its operation. necessarily include the inherent power to
conduct investigations to ensure that laws
(b) The provision of Book III, Chapter 10, are faithfully executed and that, in any
Section 31 of the Administrative Code of event, the Constitution, Revised
1987 cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because Administrative Code of 1987, PD No.
the delegated authority of the President 141616 (as amended), R.A. No. 9970 and
to structurally reorganize the Office of the settled jurisprudence, authorize the
President to achieve economy, simplicity President to create or form such bodies.
and efficiency does not include the power
to create an entirely new public office 2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of
which was hitherto inexistent like the Congress to appropriate funds because
“Truth Commission.” there is no appropriation but a mere
allocation of funds already appropriated
(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally amended the by Congress.
Constitution and statutes when it vested
the “Truth Commission” with quasi- 3] The Truth Commission does not
judicial powers duplicating, if not duplicate or supersede the functions of
superseding, those of the Office of the the Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it is
Ombudsman created under the 1987 a fact-finding body and not a quasi-
Constitution and the DOJ created under judicial body and its functions do not
the Administrative Code of 1987. duplicate, supplant or erode the latter’s
jurisdiction.
(d) E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection
clause as it selectively targets for 4] The Truth Commission does not violate
investigation and prosecution officials the equal protection clause because it was
and personnel of the previous validly created for laudable purposes.
administration as if corruption is their
peculiar species even as it excludes those ISSUES:
of the other administrations, past and
present, who may be indictable. 1. WON the petitioners have legal
standing to file the petitions and question
Respondents, through OSG, questioned E. O. No. 1;
the legal standing of petitioners and 2. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the principle of
argued that: separation of powers by usurping the
powers of Congress to create and to
1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers appropriate funds for public offices,
of Congress because the President’s agencies and commissions;

Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers infringes on their prerogatives as

of the Ombudsman and the DOJ; legislators.
4. WON E. O. No. 1 violates the equal
protection clause. With regard to Biraogo, he has not shown
that he sustained, or is in danger of
RULING: sustaining, any personal and direct injury
The power of judicial review is subject to attributable to the implementation of E. O.
limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an No. 1.
actual case or controversy calling for the
exercise of judicial power; (2) the person Locus standi is “a right of appearance in a
challenging the act must have the court of justice on a given question.” In
standing to question the validity of the private suits, standing is governed by the
subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, “real-parties-in interest” rule. It provides
he must have a personal and substantial that “every action must be prosecuted or
interest in the case such that he has defended in the name of the real party in
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as interest.” Real-party-in interest is “the
a result of its enforcement; (3) the party who stands to be benefited or
question of constitutionality must be injured by the judgment in the suit or the
raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) party entitled to the avails of the suit.”
the issue of constitutionality must be the
very lis mota of the case. Difficulty of determining locus standi
arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff
1. The petition primarily invokes who asserts a “public right” in assailing an
usurpation of the power of the Congress allegedly illegal official action, does so as
as a body to which they belong as a representative of the general public. He
members. To the extent the powers of has to show that he is entitled to seek
Congress are impaired, so is the power of judicial protection. He has to make out a
each member thereof, since his office sufficient interest in the vindication of the
confers a right to participate in the public order and the securing of relief as a
exercise of the powers of that institution. “citizen” or “taxpayer.
Legislators have a legal standing to see to The person who impugns the validity of a
it that the prerogative, powers and statute must have “a personal and
privileges vested by the Constitution in substantial interest in the case such that
their office remain inviolate. Thus, they he has sustained, or will sustain direct
are allowed to question the validity of any injury as a result.” The Court, however,
official action which, to their mind, finds reason in Biraogo’s assertion that
the petition covers matters of

Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
transcendental importance to justify the the PTC shall be subject to existing

exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. auditing rules and regulations so there is
There are constitutional issues in the no impropriety in the funding.
petition which deserve the attention of
this Court in view of their seriousness, 3. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman
novelty and weight as precedents or the DOJ or erode their respective
powers. If at all, the investigative function
The Executive is given much leeway in of the commission will complement those
ensuring that our laws are faithfully of the two offices. The function of
executed. The powers of the President are determining probable cause for the filing
not limited to those specific powers under of the appropriate complaints before the
the Constitution. One of the recognized courts remains to be with the DOJ and the
powers of the President granted pursuant Ombudsman. PTC’s power to investigate
to this constitutionally-mandated duty is is limited to obtaining facts so that it can
the power to create ad hoc committees. advise and guide the President in the
This flows from the obvious need to performance of his duties relative to the
ascertain facts and determine if laws have execution and enforcement of the laws of
been faithfully executed. The purpose of the land.
allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to
exist is to allow an inquiry into matters 4. Court finds difficulty in upholding the
which the President is entitled to know so constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1
that he can be properly advised and in view of its apparent transgression of
guided in the performance of his duties the equal protection clause enshrined in
relative to the execution and enforcement Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
of the laws of the land. 1987 Constitution.
2. There will be no appropriation but only Equal protection requires that all persons
an allotment or allocations of existing or things similarly situated should be
funds already appropriated. There is no treated alike, both as to rights conferred
usurpation on the part of the Executive of and responsibilities imposed. It requires
the power of Congress to appropriate public bodies and institutions to treat
funds. There is no need to specify the similarly situated individuals in a similar
amount to be earmarked for the operation manner. The purpose of the equal
of the commission because, whatever protection clause is to secure every
funds the Congress has provided for the person within a state’s jurisdiction
Office of the President will be the very against intentional and arbitrary
source of the funds for the commission. discrimination, whether occasioned by
The amount that would be allocated to the express terms of a statue or by its

Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
improper execution through the state’s discriminating differentiation clearly

duly constituted authorities. reverberates to label the commission as a
vehicle for vindictiveness and selective
There must be equality among equals as retribution. Superficial differences do not
determined according to a valid make for a valid classification.
classification. Equal protection clause
permits classification. Such classification, The PTC must not exclude the other past
however, to be valid must pass the test of administrations. The PTC must, at least,
reasonableness. The test has four have the authority to investigate all past
requisites: (1) The classification rests on administrations.
substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane
to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not The Constitution is the fundamental and
limited to existing conditions only; and paramount law of the nation to which all
(4) It applies equally to all members of other laws must conform and in
the same class. accordance with which all private rights
determined and all public authority
The classification will be regarded as administered. Laws that do not conform
invalid if all the members of the class are to the Constitution should be stricken
not similarly treated, both as to rights down for being unconstitutional.
conferred and obligations imposed.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED.
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
down as violative of the equal protection UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is
clause. The clear mandate of truth violative of the equal protection clause of
commission is to investigate and find out the Constitution.
the truth concerning the reported cases of
graft and corruption during the previous
administration only. The intent to single
out the previous administration is plain,
patent and manifest. DOCTRINE:
Almonte vs. Vazquez [G.R. No. 95367,
Arroyo administration is but just a May 23, 1995]
member of a class, that is, a class of past
administrations. It is not a class of its
ACCEPTANCE OF UNSIGNED
own. Not to include past administrations COMPLAINTS AGAINST GOVERNMENT
similarly situated constitutes
OFFICIALS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO
arbitrariness which the equal protection
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION. Nor is there
clause cannot sanction. Such violation of petitioners' right to the equal
Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
protection of the laws. Petitioners concern a demand by a citizen for

complain that "in all forum and information under the freedom of
tribunals . . . the aggrieved parties . . . can information guarantee of the Constitution.
only hale respondents via their verified Rather it concerns the power of the Office
complaints or sworn statements with of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence in
their identities fully disclosed," while in connection with an investigation
proceedings before the Office of the conducted by it vis-a-vis the claim of
Ombudsman anonymous letters suffice to privilege of an agency of the Government.
start an investigation. In the first place,
there can be no objection to this Facts: Petitioner Almonte was formerly
procedure because it is provided in the Commissioner of the Economic
Constitution itself. In the second place, it Intelligence and Investigation Bureau
is apparent that in permitting the filing of (EIIB), while Perez is Chief of the EIIB's
complaints "in any form and in a manner," Budget and Fiscal Management Division.
the framers of the Constitution took into The subpoena duces tecum was issued by
account the well-known reticence of the the Ombudsman in connection with his
people which keep them from investigation of an anonymous letter,
complaining against official wrongdoings. written by an employee of the EIIB and a
As this Court had occasion to point out, concerned citizen, alleging that funds
the Office of the Ombudsman is different representing savings from unfilled
from the other investigatory and positions in the EIIB had been illegally
prosecutory agencies of the government disbursed. There were unfilled positions
because those subject to its jurisdiction because one hundred ninety (190)
are public officials who, through official personnel were dismissed, and allegedly,
pressure and influence, can quash, delay these 190 personnel continued to receive
or dismiss investigations held against their salaries as “ghost agents.”Petitioner
them. 31 On the other hand complainants Almonte denied the allegations and asked
are more often than not poor and simple that the complaint be dismissed and the
folk who cannot afford to hire lawyers. case considered closed. Similarly
petitioner Perez, budget chief of the EIIB,
denied savings had been realized from the
COMMISSIONER JOSE T. ALMONTE vs. implementation of of E.O. No. 127
HONORABLE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ (dismissal of 190 personnel.)
and CONCERNED CITIZENS G.R. No.
95367 May 23, 1995 T he Graft Investigation Officer of the
Ombudsman's office, Jose F. Saño asked
To put this case in perspective it should for authority to conduct a preliminary
be stated at the outset that it does not investigation. Anticipating the grant of his

Page | 45
MENDIOLA, MANILA
request, he issued a subpoena to Ombudsman can act only "in any

petitioners Almonte and Perez, requiring appropriate case, and subject to such
them to submit their counter-affidavits limitations as may be provided by law"
and the affidavits of their witnesses, as and that the complaint in this case is
well as a subpoena duces tecum to the unsigned and unverified, thus the case is
Chief of the EIIB's Accounting Division not an appropriate one. According to
ordering him to bring "all documents them, those complainants who wrote the
relating to Personal Services Funds for letter should be identified and should sign
the year 1988 and all evidence, such as the complaint. Otherwise, their right
vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla under the equal protection clause of the
of EIIB for 1988." Constitution will be violated. The motion
for reconsideration, having been denied,
Petitioners Almonte and Perez moved to hence, this petition.
quash the subpoena and the subpoena
duces tecum. Respondent Ombudsman Issue: WoN petitoner’s right to equal
granted the motion to quash the protection of the laws has been violated.
subpoena in view of the fact that there
were no affidavits filed against petitioners. Held: NO. The Constitution expressly
But he denied their motion to quash the enjoins the Ombudsman to act on any
subpoena duces tecum. He ruled that complaint filed "in any form or manner"
petitioners were not being forced to concerning official acts or omissions. (Art.
produce evidence against themselves, XI, § 12): The Ombudsman and his Deputies,
since the subpoena duces tecum was as protectors of the people, shall act
directed to the Chief Accountant, promptly on complaints filed in any form
petitioner Nerio Rogado. In addition the or manner against public officials or
Ombudsman ordered the Chief of the employees of the Government, or any
Records a Section of the EIIB, petitioner subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
Elisa Rivera, to produce before the thereof, including government owned or
investigator controlled corporations and shall in
appropriate cases, notify the complainants
"all documents relating to Personnel of the action taken and the result thereof.
Service Funds, for the year 1988, and all
documents, salary vouchers for the whole The Ombudsman Act of 1989 provides in
plantilla of the EIIB for 1988, within ten § 26(2): The Office of the Ombudsman
(10) days from receipt hereof." shall receive complaints from any source
in whatever form concerning an official
Petitioners Almonte and Perez moved for act or omission. It shall act on the
reconsideration, stating that, the complaint immediately and if it finds the

Page | 46
MENDIOLA, MANILA
same entirely baseless, it shall dismiss the the demands of national security and
same and inform the complainant of such the requirement of accountability
dismissal citing the reasons therefore. If it enshrined in the Constitution.
finds a reasonable ground to investigate
further, it shall first furnish the What has been said above disposes of
respondent public officer or employee petitioners' contention that the anonymous
with a summary of the complaint and letter-complaint against them is nothing
require him to submit a written answer but a vexatious prosecution. It only
within seventy-two hours from receipt remains to say that the general
thereof. If the answer is found satisfactory, investigation in the Ombudsman' s
it shall dismiss the case. office is precisely for the purpose of
protecting those against whom a
Accordingly, in Diaz v. Sandiganbayan the complaint is filed against hasty,
Court held that testimony given at a fact- malicious, and oppressive prosecution
finding investigation and charges made in as much as securing the State from
a pleading in a case in court constituted a useless and expensive trials. There may
sufficient basis for the Ombudsman to also be benefit resulting from such limited
commence investigation, because a formal in camera inspection in terms of increased
complaint was really not necessary. public confidence that the privilege is not
Rather than referring to the form of being abused and increased likelihood that
complaints, therefore, the phrase "in an no abuse is in fact occurring.
appropriate case" in Art. XI, § 12 means Nor is there violation of petitioner's
any case concerning official act or right to the equal protection of the laws.
omission which is alleged to be "illegal, Petitioners complain that "in all forum
unjust, improper, or inefficient." The and tribunals . . . the aggrieved
phrase "subject to such limitations as may parties . . . can only hale respondents
be provided by law" refers to such via their verified complaints or sworn
limitations as may be provided by statements with their identities fully
disclosed," while in proceedings before
Congress or, in the absence thereof, to the Office of the Ombudsman
such limitations as may be imposed by the anonymous letters suffice to start an
courts. Such limitations may well investigation.
include a requirement that the
investigation be concluded in camera, In the first place, there can be no
with the public excluded, as exception to objection to this procedure because it is
the general nature of the proceedings in provided in the Constitution itself. In the
the Office of the Ombudsman. A second place, it is apparent that in
reconciliation is thereby made between permitting the filing of complaints "in

Page | 47
MENDIOLA, MANILA
any form and in a manner," the framers

of the Constitution took into account the (NOTE: Petitioners complain that "in all
well-known reticence of the people forum and tribunals . . . the aggrieved
which keep them from complaining parties . . . can only hale respondents
against official wrongdoings. Thirdly, via their verified complaints or sworn
the Office of the Ombudsman is different statements with their identities fully
from the other investigatory and disclosed ," while in proceedings before
prosecutory agencies of the government the Office of the Ombudsman
because those subject to its jurisdiction anonymous letters suffice to start an
are public officials who, through official investigation .
pressure and influence, can quash,
delay or dismiss investigations held In the first place, there can be no
against them. On the other hand objection to this procedure because it is
complainants are more often than not provided in the Constitution itself. In the
poor and simple folk who cannot afford second place, it is apparent that in
to hire lawyers permitting the filing of complaints "in
. any form and in a manner," the framers
The Ombudsman is designated by the of the Constitution took into account the
Constitution "protectors of the people" well-known reticence of the people
and as such they are required by it "to act which keep them from complaining
promptly on complaints in any form or against official wrongdoings. As this
manner against public officials or Court had occasion to point out, the Office
employees of the Government, or any of the Ombudsman is different from the
subdivision, agency or instrumentality other investigatory and prosecutor
thereof, including government-owned or agencies of the government because those
controlled corporation." Even if the subject to its jurisdiction are public
subpoenaed documents are treated as officials who, through official pressure
presumptively privileged, this decision and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss
would only justify ordering their investigations held against them. On the
inspection in camera but not their other hand complainants are more often
nonproduction. Above all, there must be a than not poor and simple folk who cannot
scrupulous protection of the documents afford to hire lawyers. )
delivered. The Court thus dismissed the
petition, but it is directed that the
inspection of subpoenaed documents be
made personally in camera by the DOCTRINE:
Ombudsman, and with all the safeguards
outlined in this decision.

Page | 48
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Treasurer of sugar central, of the same class as plaintiff,
Ormoc City [G.R. No. L-23794, February from the coverage of the tax. As it is now,
17, 1968] even if later a similar company is set up, it
cannot be subject to the tax because the
THE CLASSIFICATION MUST NOT BE ordinance 41 expressly points only to
LIMITED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. as the entity
ONLY. We ruled that the equal protection to be levied upon.
clause applies only to persons or things
identically situated and does not bar a
reasonable classification of the subject of Atty Gabs: Ormoc Sugar
legislation, and a classification is Must apply to future conditions as well
reasonable where (must apply to future players in the
industry).
(1) it is based on substantial distinctions
which make real differences;
(2) these are germane to the purpose of
the law;
(3) the classification applies not only to ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC., vs.
present conditions but also to future TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY
conditions which are substantially G.R. No. L-23794, February 17, 1968,
identical to those of the present; BENGZON, J.P., J.:
(4) the classification applies only to those
who belong to the same class. Facts: In1964, the Municipal Board of
Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. 4
A perusal of the requisites instantly imposing "on any and all productions of
shows that the questioned ordinance does centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc
not meet them, for it taxes only Sugar Company, Inc., in Ormoc City a
centrifugal sugar produced and exported municipal tax equivalent to one per
by the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and centum (1%) per export sale to USA and
none other. At the time of the taxing other foreign countries." Payments for
ordinance's enactment, Ormoc Sugar said tax were made, under protest, by
Company, Inc., it is true, was the only Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. Ormoc Sugar
sugar central in the city of Ormoc. Still, Company, Inc. filed before the CFI with
the classification, to be reasonable, should service of a copy upon the Solicitor
be in terms applicable to future General, a complaint against the City of
conditions as well. The taxing ordinance Ormoc as well as its Treasurer, Municipal
should not be singular and exclusive as to Board and Mayor, alleging that the afore-
exclude any subsequently established stated ordinance is unconstitutional for

Page | 49
MENDIOLA, MANILA
being violative of the equal protection exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company,
clause and the rule of uniformity of Inc. and none other. At the time of the
taxation, aside from being an export tax taxing ordinance's enactment, Ormoc
forbidden under Section 2287 of the Sugar Company, Inc., was the only sugar
Revised Administrative Code.The central in the city of Ormoc . Still, the
respondent asserted that the tax classification, to be reasonable, should
ordinance was within the city's power to be in terms applicable to future
enact under the Local Autonomy Act and conditions as well. The taxing ordinance
that the same did not violate the afore- should not be singular and exclusive as to
cited constitutional limitations. exclude any subsequently established sugar
central, of the same class as plaintiff, for
Issue: Whether or not the ordinance the coverage of the tax. As it is now, even if
violates the equal protection clause. later a similar company is set up, it cannot
be subject to the tax because the ordinance
Held: Yes. The Constitution in the bill of expressly points only to Ormoc City Sugar
rights provides: ". . . nor shall any person Company, Inc. as the entity to be levied
be denied the equal protection of the upon.
laws." The equal protection clause applies
only to persons or things identically
situated and does not bar a reasonable
classification of the subject of legislation,
and a classification is reasonable where ALBA- NOTES:
Q – What is the concept of the equal
(1) it is based on substantial distinctions protection clause in the constitution?
which make real differences;
(2) these are germane to the purpose of ANS: It merely means equality in the
the law; enjoyment of similar rights and privileges
(3) the classification applies not only to granted by law. (Ceniza vs COMELEC, 95
present conditions but also to future SCRA 763). It means that no person or
conditions which are substantially class of person shall be denied the same
identical to those of the present; protection of the lawenjoyed by the same
(4) the classification applies only to those class. (Smith Bell and Co., Inc vs Natividad,
who belong to the same class. 40 PHIL 136; People vs. Vera 65 PHIL 56,
Republic vs SB, Marcos, et.al 49 SCAD
A perusal of the requisites instantly 229). It does not, however, guarantee
shows that the questioned ordinance does economic equality but only equality
not meet them, for it taxes only before the law. With respect to juridical
centrifugal sugar produced and persons, only their properties are

Page | 50
MENDIOLA, MANILA
protected. With respect to juridical determined. Is the contention correct?

persons, only their properties are Why?
protected.
ANS: No. Because the CWT is creditable
against the tax due from the seller of the
Q – What are the requirements of valid property at the end of the taxable year.
classifications for purposes of the The seller will be able to claim a tax
equal protection clause? refund if its net income is less than the
taxes withheld. Nothing is taken that is
ANS: They are the following: not due so there is no confiscation of
property repugnant to the constitutional
1. They must rest on SUBSTANTIAL guarantee of due process. More
DISTINCTIONS that make real importantly, the due process requirement
differences; applies to the power to tax. It relates
2. They must be GERMANE to the entirely to the method and time of
purpose of the law; payment. (Chamber of Real Estate and
3. They must not be LIMITED to Builders’ Association, Inc. vs. the
existing conditions only (People vs Honorable Executive Secretary, et. Al. GR
Vera 65 PHIL 56) no. 160756, March 09, 2010).
4. They must APPLY EQUALLY to all
members of the same class
Q – Petitioner claimed that the revenue
regulations are violative of the equal
Q - Petitioner assailed the validity of protection clause because the CWT is
the imposition of minimum corporate being levied only on real estate
income tax (MCIT) on corporations and enterprises. Petitioner pointed out
creditable withholding tax 9CWT) on that manufacturing enterprises are not
sales of real properties classified as similarly imposed a CWT on their sales,
ordinary assets. He argued that the even if their manner of doing business
MCIT violates the due process clause is not much different from that of a
because it levies income tax even if real estate enterprise. Like a
there is no realized gain. He asserted manufacturing concern, a real estate
that the enumerated provisions of the business is involved in a continuous
subject revenue regulations violate the process of production and incur costs
due process clause, like the MCIT, the and expenditures on a regular basis.
government collects income tax even The only difference is that “goods”
when the net income has not yet been produced by the real estate business

Page | 51
MENDIOLA, MANILA
are house and lot units. Is the

contention correct? Why? Q – Petitioners questioned E.O no. 1 dated
July 30, 2010
ANS – No. the equal protection clause
under the constitution means that “ no
person or class of persons shall be
deprived of the same protection of laws
which is enjoyed by other persons or
other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.” Stated differently, all
persons belonging to the same class shall
be taxed alike. It follows that the
guarantee of the equal protection of the
laws is not violated by legislation based
on reasonable classification. Classification,
to be VALID, must:
1. Rest on substantial distinctions

2. Must be germane to the purpose of
the law
3. Must not be limited to existing
conditions only
4. They must apply equally to all the
members of the same class.
The taxing power has the authority to

make classifications for purposes of
taxation. Inequalities which result from a
singling out of one particular class for
taxation, or exemption, infringe no
constitutional limitation. The real estate
industry is, by itself, a class and can be
validly treated differently from other
business enterprises. (Chamber of Real
Estate and Builders’ Association, Inc. vs The
Honorable Executive Secretary, et al. GR no.
160756, March 9, 2010).

Page | 52

Sec 1 - Equal Protection of The Laws - 9-22 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sec 1 - Equal Protection of The Laws - 9-22 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

from gross income of single

media coverage for its Plaza Valid Classification. Persons or things

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

complaining against official wrongdoing; reasonable basis for valid classification in

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Supreme Court held that there is no which withdrew franking privileges

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Act sanctions a situation which is Court assailing the constitutionality of the

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

purpose of the ordinance is to raise

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

tantamount to the denial of the basic amount of P50.00 is being collected

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

PEOPLE VS CAYAT 68 Phil. 12 (1939)

DOCTRINE: Facts: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio,

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

DUMLAO VS COMELEC GR 52245, Issue: Whether or not said provision

retirement, while those of younger ages present, and what is emphatically

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Philippine Association of Service Filipina workers, even rape and various

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

PROFESSION IS A VALID them. If such be the case, it would be

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Government acted in this case. It is

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

administratively insofar as the application purpose of the law; applies to all

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Second. Petitioner misapplies Sec. 42 of Fourth. From the deliberations of the

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

policeman criminally charged with a and declared that appointed officials,

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

office upon the filing of his certificate of

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

is the inevitable essence of a political therefrom only upon stringent

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

appointive officials, is anchored upon of review is an INTEREST-

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

administered. Laws that do not conform indistinguishable from those of the

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

administrations. It is not a class of its own.

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

BIRAOGO VS THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH (a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers infringes on their prerogatives as