Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sec 1 - Equal Protection of The Laws - 9-22 PDF
Sec 1 - Equal Protection of The Laws - 9-22 PDF
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 2
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 4
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 5
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 8
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 13
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 14
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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.)
Page | 15
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
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 | 16
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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.
Page | 18
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 19
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 20
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 21
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 22
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 23
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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:
Page | 25
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 26
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 27
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 29
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 30
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 37
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 39
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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:
Page | 40
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 44
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 45
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 46
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 48
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
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
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 51
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 52