Upload
tokie-toki
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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%
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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!
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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 $ationali6ation Act the purpose of !hich is to
reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business%
Ichong then petitioned for the nullication of the said Act on theground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the 9P
!hich, according to him, violates the e)ual protection clause
0pacta sund servanda1% .e said that as a Chinese businessman
engaged in the business here in the country !ho helps in the
income generation of the country he should be given e)ual
opportunity%
I
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
5/24
vs
9IC A$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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
11/24
?herefore, the udgment appealed from is a@rmed% ?ith costs
against petitioners%
>MH v% PA>MA9
9 $o% "#'3;, >ctober "(, &('L
";
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
16/24
not avail of their right to probation% +he
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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+
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
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
8/10/2019 Equal Protection of Laws
24/24
ordinance is violative to e)ual protection as it singled out >rmoc