Equal Protection of Laws

8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws

1/24

People vs Cayat

Facts/Issue: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio, Benguet, Mountain

Province, and a member of the nonChristian tribes, !as foundguilty of violating sections " and # of Act $o% &'#( for having

ac)uired and possessed one bottle of A&& gin, an into*icating

li)uor, !hich is not a native !ine% +he la! made it unla!ful for

any native of the Philippines !ho is a member of a nonChristian

tribe !ithin the meaning of Act ( to buy, receive, have in his

possession, or drin- any ardent spirits, ale, beer, !ine or

into*icating li)uors of any -ind, other than the socalled native

!ines and li)uors !hich the members of such tribes have been

accustomed to prior to the passage of the la!% Cayat challengesthe constitutionality of Act &'#( on the grounds that it is

discriminatory and denies the e)ual protection of the la!s,

violates due process clause, and is an improper e*ercise of police

po!er%

.eld: It is an established principle of constitutional la! that the

guaranty of the e)ual protection of the la!s is not violated by a

legislation based on reasonable classication% 0&1 must rest onsubstantial distinctions2 0"1 must be germane to the purposes of

the la!2 0#1 must not be limited to e*isting conditions only2 and

031 must apply e)ually to all members of the same class%

Act $o% &'#( satises these re)uirements% +he classication rests

on real or substantial, not merely imaginary or !himsical

distinctions% It is not based upon 4accident of birth or parentage,5

as counsel for the appellant asserts, but upon the degree ofcivili6ation and culture% 4+he term 7nonChristian tribes8 refers, not

to religious belief but in a !ay, to the geographical area and more

directly, to natives of the Philippine Islands of a lo! grade of

civili6ation, usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled

communities%5 09ubi vs% Provincial Board of Mindora, supra%1 +his


2/24

distinction is un)uestionably reasonable, for the Act !as intended

to meet the peculiar conditions e*isting in the nonChristian

tribes%

+he prohibition enshrined in Act ( is designed to insure peace

and order in and among nonChristian tribes% It applies e)ually to

all members of the class evident from perusal thereof% +hat it may

be unfair in its operation against a certain number of non

Christians by reason of their degree of culture, is not an argument

against the e)uality of its application%

+olentino vs Board of Accountancy

Facts

Common!ealth Act $o% #&; !as enacted%


3/24

.eld

$o, plainti= has no su@cient cause of action%

Plainti=8s main obection centers on the e*clusive character of thela! !hich e*tends its benets only to those engaged in the

profession of accountancy% It is obvious that he see-s the

declaratory relief not for his o!n personal benet, or because his

rights or prerogatives as an accountant, or as an individual, are

adversely a=ected, but rather for the benet of persons belonging

to other professions or callings, !ho are not parties to this case%

.e does not claim having su=ered any preudice or damage to

him or to his rights or prerogatives as an accountant by the use of

the disputed name by the defendants% .is complaint is rather

addressed against the propriety of the use of said trade name by

the defendants because it is misleading and is liable to defraud

the public% Plainti=, therefore, has no actual usticiable

controversy against the herein defendants !hich may give him

the right to secure relief by asserting the unconstitutionality of

the la! in )uestion% In order that an action for declaratory relief

may be entertained, it must be predicated on the follo!ing

re)uisite facts or conditions: 0&1 there must be a usticiablecontroversy2 0"1 the controversy must be bet!een persons !hose

interests are adverse2 0#1 the party see-ing declaratory relief

must have a legal interest in the controversy2 and 031 the issue

involved must be ripe for udicial determination% +hese re)uisite

facts are !anting and, therefore, the complaint must fail for lac-

of su@cient cause of action%

IC.>$ D< EAIM .9$A$GH

ao Ichong is a Chinese businessman !ho entered the country to

ta-e advantage of business opportunities herein abound 0then1 J

particularly in the retail business% For some time he and his fello!


4/24

Chinese businessmen enoyed a 4monopoly5 in the local mar-et in

Pasay% Kntil in Eune &(;3 !hen Congress passed the 9A &&L or

the 9etail +rade $ationali6ation Act the purpose of !hich is to

reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business%

Ichong then petitioned for the nullication of the said Act on theground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the 9P

!hich, according to him, violates the e)ual protection clause

0pacta sund servanda1% .e said that as a Chinese businessman

engaged in the business here in the country !ho helps in the

income generation of the country he should be given e)ual

opportunity%

I


5/24

vs

9IC A$G C>9$ B>A9G, + A

F9$A$G>, E%:

Appeal from a udgment of Eudge uillermo +orres of Pasig, 9i6al

dated August ', &('", dismissing an amended petition for

declaratory relief see-ing a udicial declaration of illegality of the

construction placed by respondent 9ice and Corn Board of its

9esolution $o%& in connection !ith


6/24

numbering over " are Filipinos, !ith the e*ception of co

petitioners, then holding the positions of e*ecutive vicepresident,

comptroller, sales manager, chief !arehouseman, assistant plant

superintendent, cashier, and sales supervisor,# and that such

alien employees Shave been !ith the Kniversal Corn Products, Inc%long before the enactment into la! of 9epublic Act $o% #&L and

the promulgation of 9esolution $o%& of the 9ice and Corn

Board%S3 +he ne*t t!o paragraphs !ould impugn the construction

placed on 9esolution $o%& for its retroactivity insofar as it !ould

be made to apply to the alien petitioners !ith the result that their

dismissal !ould be called for and for its unconstitutionality insofar

as such individuals and other persons similarly situated !ould be

deprived of their means of livelihood !ithout due process of la!

and !ould be denied the e)ual protection of the la!% +heamended petition ne*t stressed the propriety of a udicial

declaration as to the interpretation that must be placed on the

aforesaid 9esolution $o%& and


7/24

!ere li-e!ise allegations as to the impropriety of the action for

declaratory relief and the absence of a cause of action%L After

invo-ing special defenses centered mainly on the validity under

American constitutional la! doctrines of the action ta-en by

respondents, respondents prayed for the dismissal of the petition,!ith costs, !hich, as above pointed out, !as granted by the lo!er

court in the decision, no! the subect of this appeal%

+he decision must be a@rmed% +here is no valid ground for

reversal% +he contention that the interpretation by respondents of

9esolution $o%& and


8/24

imperative that no other meaning can be anne*ed to them, or

unless the intention of the legislature cannot be other!ise

satised% $o court !ill hold a statute to be retroactive !hen the

legislature has not said so%S & +hat is still the rule2 it has stood

the test of time% &&

It su@ces to refer to the pertinent provision of 9epublic Act $o%

#&L to sho! that the imputation of retroactivity lac-s support in

la!% +he act !as approved on August ", &(' and made to ta-e

e=ect on Eanuary &, &('&, e*cept as to certain provisions

specically designated% More precisely, !ith reference to rules

and regulations, it is provided that they could be issued by the

9ice and Corn Board !ithin thirty 0#1 days from the date ofapproval, namely, August ", &('2 such rules and regulations

!hich may be necessary to carry out its provision shall ta-e e=ect

fteen 0&;1 days after their publication in a ne!spaper of general

circulation printed in Manila% &" Barely t!o months ago, !here it

!as sho!n that the collection of interest on a deciency income

ta* assessment dated only from the e=ectivity of the applicable

9epublic Act, such deciency income ta*es in )uestion having

been assessed and unpaid before such a date, this Court,

spea-ing through Eustice E%B%% 9eyes, sustained the Court of +a*

Appeals in its holding Sthat said


9/24

+!o recent decisions spea- similarly, People v% u Bao &; and

People v% >ng +in% &' According to the former: Sastly, appellant

!ould have us declare the penal provisions of 9epublic Act $o%

&&L in the nature of an e* post facto la! and, therefore,

unconstitutional, if applied to his case, upon the argument thatalthough he !as not yet engaged in the retail business on May

&;, &(;3, he !as issued a license to engage therein and had

entered the retail business on May "", &(;3, prior to the approval

of the Act on Eune &(, &(;32 and yet his having so engaged,

although legal at its inception has been penali6ed and made

criminal by the la!% ?e also nd this argument unattainable% An

e* post facto la! is one that Sma-es an act done before the

passage of a la!, innocent !hen done, criminal and punish0es1

such act % % % S 0Me-in v% ?olfe, " Phil% 31% Applied to appellantUscase, 9epublic Act $o% &&L does not penali6e this alien appellant

for having engaged in the retail business prior to its approval2

!hat the la! penali6es is his having done so thereafter%S

According to the latter: S+he ne*t issue raised by defense counsel

refers to the proposition that even assuming that 9epublic Act $o%

&&L is constitutional, yet the same does not apply to the

accused inasmuch as he has obtained his permit and license to

engage in the retail trade before said la! !as approved and

before it became e=ective% ?e nd no merit in this contention

because the acts constituting the crime for !hich appellant has

been convicted in the case at bar !ere all e*ecuted after the

e=ectivity of 9epublic Act $o% &&L, and by no means can ?e

consider appellantUs conviction as the result of the application to

him of an e* post facto la!%S

Petitioners are vocal in their fears that to construe 9esolution$o%& in connection !ith


10/24

such misplaced apprehension% +hus: SIt is hard to see ho! the

nationali6ation of employment in the Philippines can run counter

to any provision of our Constitution considering that its aim is not

e*actly to deprive a citi6en of a right that he may e*ercise under

it but rather to promote, enhance and protect those that aree*pressly accorded to a citi6en such as the right to life, liberty

and pursuit of happiness% +he nationali6ation of an economic

measure !hen founded on grounds of public policy cannot be

branded as unust, arbitrary or oppressive or contrary to the

Constitution because its aim is merely to further the material

progress and !elfare of the citi6ens of the country% +his is !hat

!e e*pressed in no uncertain terms in the Ichong case !hen !e

declared constitutional the nationali6ation of the retail trade%

Indeed, !e said there that it is a la! Uclearly in the interest of thepublic, nay of the national security itself, and indisputably falls

!ithin the scope of police po!er, through !hich and by !hich the


11/24

?herefore, the udgment appealed from is a@rmed% ?ith costs

against petitioners%

>MH v% PA>MA9

9 $o% "#'3;, >ctober "(, &('L

";


12/24

+he classication of mail users is based on the ability to pay, the

enoyment of a privilege and on administrative convenience% +a*

e*emptions have never been thought of as raising revenues

under the e)ual protection clause%

Association of small lando!ners vs


13/24

rights as protected by due process% +he e)ual protection clause is

also violated because the order places the burden of solving the

agrarian problems on the o!ners only of agricultural lands% $o

similar obligation is imposed on the o!ners of other properties%

+he petitioners maintain that in declaring the beneciaries underPG " to be the o!ners of the lands occupied by them, > ""L

ignored udicial prerogatives and so violated due process% ?orse,

the measure !ould not solve the agrarian problem because even

the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention

rights guaranteed by the Constitution%

In his comment the


14/24

0&1 it must be based on substantial distinctions2

0"1 it must be germane to the purposes of the la!2

0#1 it must not be limited to e*isting conditions only2 and

031 it must apply e)ually to all the members of the class%

+he Court nds that all these re)uisites have been met by the

measures here challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory%

)ual protection simply means that all persons or things similarly

situated must be treated ali-e both as to the rights conferred and

the liabilities imposed% +he petitioners have not sho!n that they

belong to a di=erent class and entitled to a di=erent treatment%

+he argument that not only lando!ners but also o!ners of other

properties must be made to share the burden of implementing

land reform must be reected% +here is a substantial distinction

bet!een these t!o classes of o!ners that is clearly visible e*cept

to those !ho !ill not see% +here is no need to elaborate on this

matter% In any event, the Congress is allo!ed a !ide lee!ay in

providing for a valid classication% Its decision is accorded

recognition and respect by the courts of ustice e*cept only !here

its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of 9ights%

People vs Dera

Cu Knieng !as convicted by the trial court in Manila% .e led for

reconsideration !hich !as elevated to the denied the application% .o!ever, Eudge Dera upon another

re)uest by Cu Knieng allo!ed the petition to be set for hearing%

+he City Prosecutor countered alleging that Dera has no po!er to

place Cu Knieng under probation because it is in violation of


15/24

&& Act $o% 3""& !hich provides that the act of egislature

granting provincial boards the po!er to provide a system of

probation to convicted person% $o!here in the la! is stated that

the la! is applicable to a city li-e Manila because it is only

indicated therein that only provinces are covered% And even ifManila is covered by the la! it is unconstitutional because


16/24

not avail of their right to probation% +he


17/24

>n the issue of estoppel, the Court held that it could not apply in

the present case since !hen the respondent led his claim,

President Marcos !as the supreme ruler of the country and they

could not )uestion his acts even before the courts because of his

absolute po!er over all government institutions !hen he !as thePresident% +he creation of $e! Agri* as mandated by the decree

!as also ruled as unconstitutional since it violated the prohibition

that the Batasang Pambansa0Congress1 shall not provide for the

formation, organi6ation, or regulation of private corporations

unless such corporations are o!ned or controlled by the

government%

PG && !as held as unconstitutional on the other grounds that it

!as an invalid e*ercise of police po!er% It had no la!ful subectand no la!ful method% It violated due process by e*tinguishing all

mortgages and liens and interests !hich are property rights

unustly ta-en% It also violated the e)ual protection clause by

lumping together all secured and unsecured creditors% It also

impaired the obligation of contracts, even though it only involved

purely private interests%

$

DIC+>9IA$> D% IHAG 9>P ?>9V9U< K$I>$FAC+


18/24

Knder 9epublic Act $o% L;, the employer !as not precludedS

from ma-ing an agreement !ith a labor organi6ation to re)uire as

a condition of employment membership therein, if such labor

organi6ation is the representative of the employees%S +hen

9epublic Act $o% ##; !as enacted, introducing an amendment tosection 3 of 9epublic Act $o% L;, as follo!s: %%% Sbut such

agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects !hich

prohibit a@liation of their members in any such labor

organi6ationS% Being a member of a religious sect that prohibits

the a@liation of its members !ith any labor organi6ation,

Dictoriano presented his resignation to Knion% +he Knion !rote a

formal letter to the Company as-ing the latter to separate him

from the service in vie! of the fact that he !as resigning from the

Knion as a member% +he management of the Company in turnnotied Dictoriano and his counsel that unless Dictoriano could

achieve a satisfactory arrangement !ith the Knion, the Company

!ould be constrained to dismiss him from the service% I

% +he purpose of 9epublic Act $o% ##; is secular, !orldly, and

temporal, not spiritual or religious or holy and eternal% It !as

intended to serve the secular purpose of advancing the

constitutional right to the free e*ercise of religion, by averting

that certain persons be refused !or-, or be dismissed from !or-,

or be dispossessed of their right to !or- and of being impeded to

pursue a modest means of livelihood, by reason of union security

agreements% Congress acted merely to relieve the e*ercise ofreligion, by certain persons, of a burden that is imposed by union

security agreements% It !as Congress itself that imposed that

burden !hen it enacted the Industrial Peace Act09epublic Act

L;1, and, certainly, Congress, if it so deems advisable, could ta-e

a!ay the same burden% +he means adopted by the Act to achieve


19/24

that purposeY e*empting the members of said religious sects

from coverage of union security agreements Y is reasonable% It

may not be amiss to point out here that the free e*ercise of

religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights% In case

of conNict, the latter must, therefore, yield to the former% +he


20/24

similar s-ills, and that it is in violation of the right to travel, it also

being an invalid e*ercise of the la!ma-ing po!er% Further, PA


21/24

bet!een the se*es% It is !ellsettled that Se)uality before the la!S

under the Constitution does not import a perfect Identity of rights

among all men and !omen% It admits of classications, provided

that 0&1 such classications rest on substantial distinctions2 0"1

they are germane to the purposes of the la!2 0#1 they are notconned to e*isting conditions2 and 031 they apply e)ually to all

members of the same class%

+he Court is satised that the classication madethe preference

for female !or-ers Y rests on substantial distinctions%

+ablarin vs utierre6

Facts: +he petitioners see- admission into colleges or schools of

medicine% .o!ever the petitioners either did not ta-e or did not

successfully ta-e the $ational Medical Admission +est 0$MA+1%

9epublic Act "#L" as amended by 9%A% 3""3 and ;(3', -no!n as

the Medical Act of &(;( created, among others, the Board of

Medical ducation 0BM1 !hose functions include Sto determine

and prescribe re)uirements for admission into a recogni6ed

college of medicineS 0


22/24

Issue: ?hether or not rder no% " violate the constitution as they prescribe an unfair,

unreasonable and ine)uitable re)uirement

.eld: +he legislative and administrative provisions impugned in

this case constitute a valid e*ercise of the police po!er of the

state%

Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is !hether

there is some reasonable relation bet!een the prescribing of

passing the $MA+ as a condition for admission to medical school

on the one hand, and the securing of the health and safety of the

general community, on the other hand% +his )uestion is perhaps

most usefully approached by recalling that the regulation of the

practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recogni6ed

as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the

public% +hat the po!er to regulate and control the practice of

medicine includes the po!er to regulate admission to the ran-s of

those authori6ed to practice medicine, is also !ell recogni6ed%+hus, legislation and administrative regulations re)uiring those

!ho !ish to practice medicine rst to ta-e and pass medical

board e*aminations have long ago been recogni6ed as valid

e*ercises of governmental po!er% rder $o% ;", s%

&(L;, articulates the rationale of regulation of this type: the

improvement of the professional and technical )uality of the

graduates of medical schools, by upgrading the )uality of those

admitted to the student body of the medical schools% +hat


23/24

upgrading is sought by selectivity in the process of admission,

selectivity consisting, among other things, of limiting admission to

those !ho e*hibit in the re)uired degree the aptitude for medical

studies and eventually for medical practice% +he need to maintain,

and the di@culties of maintaining, high standards in ourprofessional schools in general, and medical schools in particular,

in the current state of our social and economic development, are

!idely -no!n%

+he Court believes that the government is entitled to prescribe an

admission test li-e the $MA+ as a means of achieving its stated

obective of Supgrading the selection of applicants into Zour[

medical schoolsS and of Simproving the )uality of medicaleducation in the country%S

>rmoc rmoc City

In &('3, >rmoc City passed a bill !hich read: 4+here shall be paid

to the City +reasurer on any and all productions of centrifugal

sugar milled at the >rmoc rmoc

City a municipal ta* e)uivalent to one per centum 0&\1 per e*port

sale to the Knited rmoc rmoc


24/24

ordinance is violative to e)ual protection as it singled out >rmoc

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	tokie-toki
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Equal Protection of Laws

Documents