Você está na página 1de 6

Equal Protection of The Law resulted in lawlessness and crimes, thereby hampering efforts of Distinction between aliens and

fforts of Distinction between aliens and citizens:

the government to raise their standard of life and civilization.
People vs Cayat 1. Alien resident owes allegiance to the country of his
The law is not limited to existing conditions. It is intended to birth or his adopted country.
Facts: The accused Cayat, a member of a non-Christian tribe apply as long as those conditions exist. 2. Alien resident never really makes a genuine
was prosecuted for violation of an act which prohibits contribution to national income and wealth. No
possession of an intoxicating liquor other than the so-called Finally, the act applies equally to all members of the class. patriotic desire to help bolster the nation’s economy.
native wines and liquors which the members of such tribes have 3. Alien resident’s interest in this country is merely
been accustomed themselves to make prior to the passage of Itchong vs Hernandez
transient and temporary.
Act 1639.
Facts: RA 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business”
The difference in alien aims and purposes are sufficient basis for
Accused challenges the constitutionality of the Act; that it is was passed to protect citizen and country from alien retailer. It
distinction. The power of the legislature to make distinctions and
discriminatory and denies equal protection of the laws, violative prohibits persons not citizens of the Phil and associations,
classification among persons is not curtailed or denied by the
of the due process clause of the constitution and an improper partnerships or corporations not wholly owned by citizens of the
equal protection of the laws clause. A law can be violative of the
exercise of police power. Phil from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade. In
constitutional limitation only when the classification is without
effect, the law nationalizes the retail trade business.
reasonable basis. The classification in the case at bar is actual,
Issue: W/N the Act violates the guaranty of equal protection of
Petitioners in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien real and reasonable. The difference in status between citizens
the laws.
residents attacks the constitutionality of the law contending that and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the
Held: Guaranty of Equal protection of the laws is not violated by it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and exercise of police power. Sufficient grounds exist for the
a legislation based on reasonable classification and the deprives them of the liberty and property without due process distinction between alien and citizen in the exercise of the
classification to reasonable: of law. occupation regulated.

1. Must rest of substantial distinctions Issue: W/N the act was violative the guaranty of equal Villegas vs Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
2. Must be germane to the purposes of the law protection of the laws.
Facts: Private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho, who was
3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only
Held: The equal protection clause does not demand absolute employed in Manila prays that the city ordinance which requires
4. Must apply equally to all members
equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons aliens to secure a mayor’s permit and paying the 50 pesos
Act satisfied these requirements. shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions permit’s fee before they can earn a means of livelihood be
both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. declared null and void on the ground that it is arbitrary,
Act was intended to meet the peculiar conditions existing in oppressive and unreasonable being applied only to aliens and
non-christian tribes. The problem sought to be remedied by the law is the controlling therefore violated the due process and equal protection clauses
and dominant position that the alien retailer holds in the of the Constitution.
The Act was designed to insure peace and order in and among nation’s economy. (Law enacted in interest of national economic
non-chsitian tribes so as to remove all obstacles to their moral survival and security) Such predominance may endanger the Issue: W/N the ordinance is violative of the equal protection
and intellectual growth and eventually hasten their equalization national interest; freedom of trade is curtailed and free clause.
and unification with the rest of their Christian brothers . Free enterprise correspondingly suppressed.
use of intoxicating liquors by non-christian tribes have often

Saile, Barbara Mae DJ. (1D) Constitutional Law II Atty. Carlos Medina
Held: The ordinance failed to consider valid substantial same office from which he had retired. The tiredness of the could "give rise to moral and social problems against which it
differences in situation among individual aliens who are required retiree from government work is present and that the retired may devise preventive measures."
to pay it. The equal protection clause does not forbid employee has already declared himself tired and unavailable for
classification but the classification should be based on real and the same government work. Ormoc Sugar Central vs Ormoc City
substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the
The purpose of the law is to allow emergence of younger blood Facts: An ordinance was passed imposing a municipal tax of 1%
subject of the particular legislation. The same amount of P50 is
in local government. The classification being pursuant to that on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the
being collected from every employed alien, casual or
purpose, it cannot be considered invalid. Ormoc Sugar Company Inc in Ormoc City.
permanent, part-time or full-time, lowly employee or highly paid
executive. Issue: W/N the ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative
Moreover, to justify the nullification of a law, there must be a
clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful of the equal protection clause.
Dumlao vs COMELEC
and equivocal breach. It is also within the competence of the
Held: The equal protection clause applies only to persons or
Facts: Petitioner Dumlao is a former governor of Nueva Vizcaya Legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to
things identically situated and does not bar a reasonable
who has filed his COC for said position of governor in the become a candidate for office provided they are reasonable as in
classification of the subject of legislation where:
forthcoming elections. He questions the constitutionality of sec this case.
4 of BP Blg. 52 as discriminatory and contrary to the equal 1. It is based on substantial distinctions which make real
protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution. The Goesart vs Cleary
said provision disqualifies any retired elective provincial, city or 2. These are germane to the purpose of the law
Facts: A Michigan statute required that all bartenders hold
municipal and those who shall have been 65 years old at the 3. The classification applies not only to present conditions
licenses in cities with populations greater than 50,000, but the
commencement of the term of office from running for the same but also to future conditions which are substantially
statute also stated that a woman could not be issued a license
elective local office from which he retired. identical to those of the present
unless she was "the wife or daughter of the male owner" of a
liquor establishment. Two female bartenders challenged the 4. The classification applies only to those who belong to
Issue: W/N the said provision should be declared null and void
law, requesting an injunction against its enforcement, on the the same class.
Held: The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the ground that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
The questioned ordinance does not meet the requisites for it
laws is subject to rational classification. If the groupings are Fourteenth Amendment.
taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the
based on reasonable and real differentiations, one class can be
Issue: W/N in denying female bartenders access to licenses, the Ormoc Sugar Company Inc and none other. The classification to
treated and regulated differently from another class. Employees
Michigan law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the be reasonable, should be in terms applicable to future
65 yrs old have been validly classified from younger employees.
Fourteenth Amendment? conditions as well. But since the ordinance expressly mentions
In respect of election, to require that candidates should not be
only Ormoc City Sugar Company, Inc, the taxing ordinance
more than 65 at the time they assume office may or may not be
Held: NO. The Constitution "does not preclude the States from cannot be applied even if another similar company is set up.
a reasonable classification. Persons more than 65 may also be
drawing a sharp line between the sexes" or "to reflect
good elective officials. In the case of retirees, it may or may not Basco vs PAGCOR
sociological insight, or shifting social standards, any more than it
be a reasonable classification as well. A 65-year old retiree could
requires them to keep abreast of the latest scientific standards."
be a good local official like one, aged 65 who is not a retiree. But Facts: Petitioners prays that the Phil. Amusement and Gaming
The Court found that the Michigan legislature, in enacting the
in this case, there is reason to disqualify a 65 year old elective Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter-PD 1869 be annulled on the
statute, could have determined that allowing women to bartend
local official who has retired from office from running for the ground that it is contrary to moral, public policy and order and

Saile, Barbara Mae DJ. (1D) Constitutional Law II Atty. Carlos Medina
because it violates the equal protection clause of the foreign loans and this compelled PHILGUARANTEE to assume its company for extending said guarantees can no longer be
Constitution in that it legalizes PAGCOR-conducted gaming, obligation as guarantor. pursued because petitioner relied on the theory of conspiracy.
while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together with
prostitution, drug trafficking and other vices. After the EDSA Revolution, Pres. Cory Aquino created the Petitioner has further precluded itself from pursuing its
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) under EO complaint not only against De Venecia but also against Bondoc
Issue: W/N PD 1869 should be declared null and void 1. Case No. 0020 for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, and company when it dropped its cause of action in its Expanded
Restitution and Damages was one of the cases filed to recover Complaint by signing the Deed of Assignment.
Held: NO. A statute is presumed to be valid. Every presumption the illegal wealth of the Marcoses, subordinates and close
must be indulged in favour of its constitutionality. One who associates. The dismissal of the Complaint against Bondoc and company is
attacks a statute alleging unconstitutionality must prove its compelled by the equal protection clause of the Constitution. De
invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. The De Venecia group of companies and PHILGUARANTEE were Venecia and respondents Bondoc and company are similarly
then sequestered by the petitioner through the PCGG. situated. Bondoc, et, al were included in the complaint only
Regulating and centralizing gambling operations in one Nothwithstanding the filing of Case No. 0020, an investigation because they allegedly gave unwarranted favors to De Venecia
corporate entity-PAGCOR, was proved to be beneficial not just was conducted and this culminated the signing of a Deed of in guaranteeing foreign loans. When petitioner admitted that no
to the government but to society in general. (PAGCOR is the 3 Assignment whereby certain obligations were assumed by de undue favour was granted to De Venecia in the grant of such
largest source of government revenue next to BIR and BOC) Venecia and his group and in reciprocity, petitioner agreed to guaranty facilities and dismissed its complaint against him,
cause the dismissal of the complaint in civil case 0020 against de petitioner cannot avoid its duty of dismissing its complaint
There is no valid ground to sustain petitioner’s contention that
Venecia and his group of co-signors. against Bondoc and company. To give a more favoured
PD 1869 violates the equal protection clause. The equal
treatment to De Venecia when the parties are equally situated is
protection clause does not prohibit the Legislature form The court likewise dismissed the Expanded Complaint against to indulge in invidious discrimination.
establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which the private respondents( Marcos, Bondoc etc..)
different rules shall operate. The Constitution does not require Himagan vs People
situations which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in Petitioner argues that the respondent court committed grave
law as though they were the same. Just how legalizing gambling abuse of discretion in dismissing the case against De Venecia’s Facts: Petitioner, a policeman was implicated in a murder and an
conducted by PAGCOR is violative of the equal protection is not co-defendants on 2 grounds 1) removal of an indispensable attempted murder case.
clearly explained in the petition. The mere fact that some party (De Venecia) from the Expanded Complaint and lack of
gambling conditions are legalized under certain conditions while Cause of action Trial court issued an Order suspending petitioner until the
others are prohibited does not render the applicable laws, PD termination of his case on the basis of RA 6975 (DILG Act).
1869 for one, unconstitutional. Issue: W/N the subject Deed of Assignment justifies the Petitioner relying on the Civil Service Decree filed a motion to lift
dismissal of Civil Case 0020 against Bondoc and company and the order saying that his suspension should be limited to 90 days
Republic vs Sandiganbayan against the Marcoses. only because as a member of the PNP, he is covered by the Civil
Service Law. An imposition of preventive suspension for over 90
Facts: The Landoil Group of Companies spearheaded by then Held: Yes. The complaint against De Venecia and Bondoc and days would be a violation of his constitutional right to equal
Congressman Jose De Venecia Jr. was able to obtain foreign company are inseparable. Petitioner’s investigation showed that protection.
loans syndicated by various banks amounting to $120M. These De Venecia was not a crony of Marcos,he obtained the loans in
foreign loans were guaranteed by PHILGUARANTEE. Landoil the regular and ordinary course of business. It ought to follow Issue: W/N petitioner’s suspension until the termination of his
Group of Companies was unable to seasonably service these then that the complaint against the respondents Bondoc and case constitutes a violation of his right to equal protection.

Saile, Barbara Mae DJ. (1D) Constitutional Law II Atty. Carlos Medina
Held: NO. The imposition of a preventive suspension for over the framers of the Constitution took into account the well- 2. Government spends public funds for the allocation and
90 days does not violate the suspended policeman’s right to known reticence of the people which keep them from regulation of the broadcast industry which it does not
equal protection of the laws. The reason why members of the complaining against official wrongdoings. The Office of the do in the case of print media
PNP are treated differently from the other classes of persons Ombudsman is different from the other investigatory and 3. The freedom of tv and radio broadcasting is somewhat
charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application prosecutor agencies of the government because those subject to lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to
of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that its jurisdiction are public officials who, through influence, can newspaper and media.
policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be quash, delay or dismiss investigations held against them. On the
used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them. The other hand complainants are more often than not poor and (purpose of the law: prevent the moneyed candidates from
distinction is based on real and reasonable considerations simple folk who cannot afford to hire lawyers. This is a sufficient monopolizing the media advertising to the disadvantage of
related to a proper legislative purpose. It is neither basis for the differential treatment of complaints filed with the candidates with lesser resources)
unreasonable, capricious or unfounded. Ombudsman.
Tiu vs CA
Almonte vs Vasquez Telebap vs COMELEC
Facts: EO No 97-A limits the grant and enjoyment of the tax and
Facts: Petitioner was formerly a Commissioner of the Economic Facts: The Omnibus Election Code prohibits mass media from duty incentives to the business enterprises and residents within
Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB). The subpoena duces selling or donating print space and airtime to the candidates and the fenced-in area of the Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ). It
tecum was issued by the Ombudsman in connection with his requires that COMELEC instead to procure print space and has therefore excluded the City of Olongapo and the
investigation of an anonymous letter (employee of EIIB and a airtime for allocation to the candidates. While Section 90 of the Municipality of Subic in Zambales from enjoying the benefits
concerned citizen) alleging that funds representing savings from law requires the Comelec to procure print space which should granted by the law.
unfilled positions in the EIIB had been illegally disbursed. be paid for, Section 92 of the act states that airtime shall be
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the EO for allegedly
Petitioners were ordered by the Ombudsman to produce all procured by the COMELEC free of charge.
being violative of their right to equal protection of the laws.
docs relating to the Personal services funds.
Petitioners complain that the law singles out radio and television
Issue: W/N the EO is constitutional.
Petitioners contend that there is a violation of their right to stations to provide free airtime. They contend that newspapers
equal protection of the laws. They complain that “in all forum and magazines are not similarly required. Held: YES. Said Order is not violative of the equal protection
and tribunals...the aggrieved parties...can only hale respondents clause, neither is it discriminatory. There exists real and
via their verified complaints or sworn statements with their Issue: W/N Section 92 of BP Blg. 881 denies them the equal
substantive distinctions between the circumstances obtaining
identities fully disclosed, “ while in proceedings before the Office protection of the law.
inside and those outside the Subic Naval Base, thereby justifying
of the Ombudsman anonymous letters suffice to start an a valid and reasonable classification.
Held: The petitioner’s contention has no basis.
There are important differences between broadcast media and The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not
Issue: W/N there is a violation of petitioner’s right to equal absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the
print media that justify their differential treatment:
protection of the laws. groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that
1. Physical limitations of the broadcast spectrum shows make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated
Held: No. There can be no objection to the Ombudsman
that need to allocate broadcast frequencies to those differently from another. The classification must also be
proceedings because this is provided in the Constitution itself.
wishing to use them. germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those
In permitting the filing of complaints in “any form and manner”,
belonging to the same class.
Saile, Barbara Mae DJ. (1D) Constitutional Law II Atty. Carlos Medina
Purpose of the law: allowed to fully-discharge the duties of a congressman, including equal protection of the laws because although the evidence
attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings shows that Jasmine Alejandro handed out application forms and
 To accelerate the conversion of military despite having been convicted in the first instance of a non- even received the vicim’s payment, appellant was the only one
reservations into productive uses. bailable offense. His primary argument is the mandate of the charged. Alejandro, remained scot-free. Appellant concludes
sovereign will. that the prosecution discriminated against her on grounds of
The government intends to develop the former Subic military
regional origins. Appellant is a Cebuana while Alejandro is a
base from its status quo ante as an abandoned naval facility into Accused-appellant claim that re-election to public office gives zamboanguena, and the alleged crime took place in Zamboanga
a self-sustaining industrial and commercial zone, particularly for priority to any other right or interest, including the police power City.
big foreign and local investors to use as operational bases for of the state.
their businesses and industries. The reason for the seeming bias Issue: W/N the prosecution is guilty of discriminating against
for big investors is that they can pour huge investments to spur Issue: W/N being a congressman can be considered a substantial appellant in convicting her.
economic growth in the country and to generate employment differentiation which removes the accused-appellant from the
opportunities for the Filipinos. (germane to the purpose of the same class as all persons validly confined under law. Held: No. The prosecution of one guilty person while others
law) equally guilty are not prosecuted is not, by itself, a denial of the
Held: No. One rationale behind confinement, whether pending equal protection of the laws.
Substantial differences exist between the big investors who are appeal or after final conviction, is public defense. A person
being lured in the so-called “secured area” and the present charged with crime is taken into custody for purposes of the The discretion of who to prosecute depends on the
business operators outside the area. Business activities outside administration of justice. prosecution’s sound assessment whether the evidence before it
the secured area are not likely to have any impact in achieving can justify a reasonable belief that a person has committed an
the purpose of the law. It is also easier to manage and monitor The Constitution guarantees: “ x x x nor shall any person be offense. The presumption is that the prosecuting officers
activities within the secured area which is already fenced off to denied the equal protection of laws.” All persons similarly regularly performed their duties and this presumption can be
prevent fraudulent importation of merchandise or smuggling. situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and overcome only by proof to the contrary, not by mere
(substantial differences) responsibilities imposed. speculation. Appellant has not presented any evidence to
overcome this presumption. The mere allegation that appellant,
Classification applies equally to all the resident individuals and The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by
a Cebuana, was charged with the commission of a crime, while a
businesses within the secured area. public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly
Zamboanguena, the guilty party in appellant’s eyes, was not, is
in prison. Election to the position of Congressman is not a
insufficient to support a conclusion that the prosecution officers
The equal protection guarantee does not require territorial reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The
denied appellant equal protection of the laws.
uniformity of laws. As long as there are actual and material functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions
differences between territories, there is no violation of the which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their International School Alliance of Educators vs Quisumbing
constitutional clause. freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest
and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and Facts: Private respondent International school is a domestic
People vs Jalosjos apply equally to all those belonging to the same class. educational institution established primarily for dependents of
foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents.
Facts: Accused-appellant is a full-fledged member of Congress People vs Dela Piedra School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its
confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for
faculty, classifying the same into foreign-hires and local-hires.
statutory rape (2 counts) and acts of lasciviousness (6 counts) is Facts: Accussed-appellant questions her conviction for illegal
pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed a motion that he be recruitment in large scale. She claimed that she was denied the
Saile, Barbara Mae DJ. (1D) Constitutional Law II Atty. Carlos Medina
School grants foreign-hires benefits not accorder local-hires
(transportation, housing, travel allowance) and are also paid a
salary rate 25% more than local hires. School justifies the
difference on 2 significant economic disadvantages foreign-hired
have to endure: 1) dislocation factor and 2) limited tenure.

Petitioner claims that the point-of-hire classification is

discriminatory to Filipinos and that the grant of higher salaries to
foreign-hires constitutes racial discrimination.

Issue: W/N the difference in salary violates equal protection.

Held: Yes. The state has the right and duty to regulate the
relations between labor and capital. Equal pay for equal work.
Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill,
effort and responsibility under similar conditions should be paid
similar salaries. This rule applies to the school. There is no
evidence that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently or
effectively than the local hires.

While we recognize the need of the School to attract foreign-

hires, salaries should not be used as an enticement to the
prejudice of local hires.

Saile, Barbara Mae DJ. (1D) Constitutional Law II Atty. Carlos Medina