EQUAL PROTECTION

Example:
ICHONG v. HERANDEZ: All persons or things similarly situated must be similarly
Ormoc Sugar Refining Co. case – “not limited to existing conditions only”
treated both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It does not demand
People v. Hernandez – rebellion as a continuing offense
absolute equality.
Cases:
CLASSIFICATION – the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in
1. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v.
certain particulars and different from all others in these same particulars
DRILON
- What the Constitution prohibits is the singling out of a select person or group of
REQUISITES OF VALID CLASSIFICATION:
persons within an existing class, to the prejudice of such a person or group or
1. Must rely on substantial distinction;
resulting in an unfair advantage to another person or group of persons.
2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Applies equally to all members of the same class; and
2. PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ
4. Not confined to existing conditions only.
- common crimes, perpetrated in furtherance of a political offense, are divested of
their character as “common” offenses and assume the political complexion of the
JUDICIAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW
main crime of which they are mere ingredients, and, consequently, cannot be
Test Means (Classification) End/Purpose (Public punished separately from the principal offense, or complexed with the same, to
safety, health, welfare, justify the imposition of a graver penalty.
policy, etc.)
Rational Basis Test rationally-related Legitimate State Interest 3. ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ
- Property rights (empirical, scientific - the alien resident owes allegiance to the country of his birth or his adopted country;
- Social/Economic basis) his stay here is for personal convenience; he is attracted by the lure of gain and
legislation profit.
Strict Scrutiny Test necessarily related + Compelling state interest - the experience of the country is that the alien retailer has shown such utter
- Life and Liberty least restrictive means (Clear and Present disregard for his customers and the people on whom he makes his profit, that it has
rights Danger) been found necessary to adopt the legislation, radicals as it may seem.
- Fundamental - The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class
rights (religion, privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not
speech, privacy, intended to prohibit legislation which is limited either (by) the object to which it is
travel) directed or by (the) territory within which it is to operate. It does not demand
- Highly absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons be treated alike,
suspected under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities
classification enforced. The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies
(age, sex, race) only to those falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within
Middle Tier/Intermediate substantially related Important State Interest such class, and reasonable ground exist for making a distinction between those who
Scrutiny Test fall within such class and those who do not.
- Quasi-suspect
classification 4. NUÑEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN
- The constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special court, the
Sandiganbayan, precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be
denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service.
- It follows that those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been 9. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCAST ATTORNEYS OF THE
aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the said Constitution came into force, PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC
that a different procedure for the accused therein, whether a private citizen as - Reasonable distinction between print media and radio and television broadcast:
petitioner is or a public procedure for the accused therein, whether a private citizen 1. The government spend public funds for the allocation and regulation of
as petitioner is or a public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection the broadcast industry.
clause of the Constitution. ~ To require radio and television broadcast industry to provide free airtime
- The general guarantees of Bill of Rights must “give away to a specific provision”, for the COMELEC time is a fair exchange for what the industry gets
one reserving to “Filipino citizen of the operation of public service and utilities.” 2. Unique and pervasive influence of the broadcast

5. ABUBAKAR v. PEOPLE 10. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES

- Petitioners protested violation of their right to equal protection due to “selective - UNCONSTITUTIONAL: “or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired
prosecution”. Only a handful of DPWH-ARMM officials were charged of violation term, whichever is less” [Sec. 10, RA 8042]
of RA 3019 - The enactment of the subject clause in RA 8042 introduced a differentiated rule of
- SELECTIVE PROSECUTION: a prosecutor charges defendants based on computation of the money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their
“constitutionally prohibited standards such as race, religion or other arbitrary employment periods, in the process singling out one category whose contracts have
classification” an unexpired portion of one year or more and subjecting them to the peculiar
- Petitioners failed to establish discriminatory intent on the part of the Ombudsman disadvantage of having their monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months
in choosing not to indict other alleged participants to the anomalous transactions. or for the unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but all the while sparing the
The evidence against the others may have been insufficient to establish probable other category from such prejudice simply because the latter’s unexpired contracts
cause. fall short of one year.
- In the absence of extrinsic evidence establishing discriminatory intent, a claim of - The subject clause creates a sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs whose
selective prosecution cannot prospoer contracts periods are for more than one year.

6. GALLARDO v. PEOPLE 11. GARCIA v. DRILON

- Simply because the Ombudsman dismissed some cases allegedly similar to the case - RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC) does not violate the right to equal protection:
at bar is not sufficient to impute arbitrariness or caprice on his part, absent a clear 1. Unequal power relations between men and women
showing that he gravely abused his discretion in pursuing the instant case. -Traditions subordinating women have a long history rooted in patriarchy –
- In case of conflict in the conclusions of the Ombudsman and the special prosecutor, the institutional rule of men. Women were seen in virtually all societies to be
it is the former’s decision that shall prevail since the Office of the Special Prosecutor naturally inferior both physically and intellectually. In ancient Western societies,
is under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman. women whether slave, concubine, or wife, were under the authority of men. In law,
they were treated as property.
7. TIU v. CA - In an average 12-month period in this country, approximately two million
- Tax and duty incentives to businesses and residents within the “secured area” of women are the victims of severe assaults by their male partners.
Subic Special Economic Zone
- Substantial distinction between Big investors and present business operators outside 2. Women are the “usual” and “most likely” victims of violence
the area: On the one hand, we are talking of billion-peso investments and thousands - The total number of women in 2002, there are 1,417 physically
of new jobs. On the other hand, definitely none of such magnitude. In the first, the abused/maltreated cases out of 5,608 cases. Female violence comprises more than
economic impact will be national; in the second, only local. 90% of all forms of abuse and violence and more than 90% of these reported cases
were committed by the women’s intimate partners such as their husbands and live-in
8. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS v. partners.
QUISUMBING
- No reasonable distinction between services rendered by foreign-hires and local- 3. Gender bias and prejudices
hires. There is no evidence that foreign-hires work 25% more efficiently than local- - Double victimization: first at the hands of the offender and then of the
hires, them having similar functions and responsibilities under similar working legal system
conditions.