the Equa qual P l Prote rotection C ction C la laus us e e
The reasonability of a distinction and sufficiency of the justification given by the The reasonability of a distinction and sufficiency of the justification given by the Government for its conduct is gauged by using the
Government for its conduct is gauged by using the means-end test means-end test . . This This test test requires analysisrequires analysis of: (1) the interests of the public that generally requires its exercise, as distinguished from those of: (1) the interests of the public that generally requires its exercise, as distinguished from those of a particular class; and (2) the means employed that are reasonably necessary for the of a particular class; and (2) the means employed that are reasonably necessary for the accomplishm
accomplishment of ent of the purpose the purpose and are and are not unduly not unduly oppressive upon individuals. oppressive upon individuals. To determineTo determine the propriety of the classification, courts resort to three levels of scrutiny, viz: the
the propriety of the classification, courts resort to three levels of scrutiny, viz: the rationalrational scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny
scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny andand strict scrutiny. strict scrutiny.
The
The rational basis scrutiny rational basis scrutiny (also known as the rational relation test or rational basis test) (also known as the rational relation test or rational basis test) demands that the
demands that the classificaticlassification reasonably relate on reasonably relate to the to the legislative purpose. legislative purpose. The rational basisThe rational basis test often applies in cases involving economics or social welfare, or to any other case not test often applies in cases involving economics or social welfare, or to any other case not involving a suspect class.
involving a suspect class.
When the classification puts a quasi-suspect class at a disadvantage, it will be treated When the classification puts a quasi-suspect class at a disadvantage, it will be treated under intermediate
under intermediate or or heightened review. heightened review. ClassificatClassifications ions based based on on gender or gender or illegitimillegitimacyacy receives intermediate scrutiny.
receives intermediate scrutiny. To survive intermediate scrutiny, the To survive intermediate scrutiny, the law must law must not only not only furtherfurther an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest, but the an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest, but the justification
justification for for the the classificatioclassification n must must be be genuine genuine and and must must not not depend depend on on broadbroad generalizations.
generalizations.
The strict scrutiny review applies when a legislative classification impermissibly The strict scrutiny review applies when a legislative classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a
of a suspect class. suspect class. The Government carries The Government carries the burden the burden to prove to prove that the that the classificclassification isation is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, and that it is the least restrictive means to necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.
protect such interest.
(Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters (Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters A
A ss ss oci oci ation, In ation, Inc., et a c., et al., G l., G .R .R . No. 189 . No. 189185, A 185, A ug ug us us t 16, 2016, E t 16, 2016, E n B n B anc [B anc [B ers ers amin] amin]))
InIn
Mos Mos queda, queda, et al. et al. v. v. P Pili ili pin pino o B B ana anana G na G row rowers ers & & EE xxpor porters ters A A ss ss oci ociation, ation, In Inc. c., , et et a
al., (G.R l., (G.R . No. 18 . No. 189185 9185, Aug , Aug us us t 1 t 16, 20 6, 2016, En B 16, En B a anc [B nc [B ers ers a am min]), in]),
the Court, applying thethe Court, applying the rationalrational basis test,basis test, ruled that the ordinance of Davao City prohibiting aerial spraying in all agricultural ruled that the ordinance of Davao City prohibiting aerial spraying in all agricultural entities therein as the practice produces pesticide drift causing inconvenience and harm to the entities therein as the practice produces pesticide drift causing inconvenience and harm to the residents and degrades the environment, violates the equal protection clause, hence, should be residents and degrades the environment, violates the equal protection clause, hence, should be declared unconstitutional.
declared unconstitutional. The The Court Court Held:Held:
The occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial spraying but results from The occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial spraying but results from the conduct
the conduct of any of any mode of mode of pesticide application. pesticide application. Even manual Even manual spraying or spraying or truck- truck-mounted boom spraying produces drift that may bring about the same inconvenience, mounted boom spraying produces drift that may bring about the same inconvenience,
discomfort and alleged health risks
discomfort and alleged health risks to the to the community and to community and to the environment. the environment. A banA ban against aerial spraying does not weed out the harm that the ordinance seeks to achieve.
against aerial spraying does not weed out the harm that the ordinance seeks to achieve.
In the process, the ord
In the process, the ordinance suffers from being “underinclusive” because theinance suffers from being “underinclusive” because the classification does not include all individuals tainted with the same mischief that the law classification does not include all individuals tainted with the same mischief that the law seeks to
seeks to eliminate. eliminate. A classification that is A classification that is drastically underinclusidrastically underinclusive with ve with respect to respect to thethe purpose or end appears as an irrational means to the legislative end because it poorly purpose or end appears as an irrational means to the legislative end because it poorly serves the intended purpose of the law.
serves the intended purpose of the law.
X x x X x x Aside
Aside from from its its being being underinclunderinclusive, usive, the the assailed assailed ordinance ordinance also also tends tends to to bebe
“overinclusive” because its impending implementation will af
“overinclusive” because its impending implementation will af fect groups that have nofect groups that have no relation to
relation to the the accomplishment of accomplishment of the the legislative purpose. legislative purpose. Its Its implementation willimplementation will unnecessarily impose a burden on a wider range of individuals than those included in unnecessarily impose a burden on a wider range of individuals than those included in the intended class based on the purpose of the law.
the intended class based on the purpose of the law.
It can be noted that the imposition of the ban is too broad because the ordinance It can be noted that the imposition of the ban is too broad because the ordinance applies irrespective of the substance to be aerially applied and irrespective of the applies irrespective of the substance to be aerially applied and irrespective of the agricultur
agricultural activity to al activity to be conducted. be conducted. The respondents admit The respondents admit that they aerially treat theirthat they aerially treat their plantations not
plantations not only with only with pesticides but pesticides but also vitamins also vitamins and and other substances. other substances. TheThe imposition of the ban against aerial spraying of substances other than fungicides and imposition of the ban against aerial spraying of substances other than fungicides and regardless of the agricultural activity being performed becomes unreasonable inasmuch regardless of the agricultural activity being performed becomes unreasonable inasmuch as it patently bears no relation to the purported inconvenience, discomfort, health risk as it patently bears no relation to the purported inconvenience, discomfort, health risk and environmental danger which
and environmental danger which the ordinance seeks to the ordinance seeks to address. address. The burden now The burden now willwill become more onerous to various entities, including the respondents and even others become more onerous to various entities, including the respondents and even others with no connection whatsoever to the intended purpose of the ordinance.
with no connection whatsoever to the intended purpose of the ordinance. ””
X x x X x x
The overinclusiveness of Ordinance No. 0309-07 may also be traced to its The overinclusiveness of Ordinance No. 0309-07 may also be traced to its Section 6 by virtue of its requirement for the maintenance of the 30-meter buffer zone.
Section 6 by virtue of its requirement for the maintenance of the 30-meter buffer zone.
This requirement applies regardless of the area of the agricultural landholding, This requirement applies regardless of the area of the agricultural landholding, geographical location, topography, crops grown and other distinguishing characteristics geographical location, topography, crops grown and other distinguishing characteristics that ideally should bear a reasonable relation to the
that ideally should bear a reasonable relation to the evil sought to be avoided. evil sought to be avoided. As earlierAs earlier stated, only large banana plantations could rely on aerial technology because of the stated, only large banana plantations could rely on aerial technology because of the financial capital required therefor.
financial capital required therefor.
The establishment and maintenance of the buffer zone will become more The establishment and maintenance of the buffer zone will become more burdensome to the small landholders because: (1) they have to reserve the 30-meter burdensome to the small landholders because: (1) they have to reserve the 30-meter belt surrounding their property; (2) that will have to be identified through GPS; (3) the belt surrounding their property; (2) that will have to be identified through GPS; (3) the metes and bounds of the buffer zone will have to be plotted in a survey plan for metes and bounds of the buffer zone will have to be plotted in a survey plan for submission to the local government unit; and (4) will be limited as to the crops that may submission to the local government unit; and (4) will be limited as to the crops that may be cultivated therein based on the mandate that the zone shall be devoted to “diversified be cultivated therein based on the mandate that the zone shall be devoted to “diversified trees” taller than
trees” taller than what are what are being grown being grown therein. therein. The arbitrariThe arbitrari ness of Section 6 all theness of Section 6 all the more becomes evident when the land is presently devoted to the cultivation of root crops more becomes evident when the land is presently devoted to the cultivation of root crops and vegetables, and trees or plants slightly taller than the root crops and vegetables are and vegetables, and trees or plants slightly taller than the root crops and vegetables are then to be
then to be planted. planted. It is seriously to It is seriously to be doubted be doubted whether such circumstance will preventwhether such circumstance will prevent the occurrence of the drift to the nearby residential areas.
the occurrence of the drift to the nearby residential areas.
Section 6 also subjects to the 30-meter buffer zone requirement agricultural Section 6 also subjects to the 30-meter buffer zone requirement agricultural entities engaging in organic farming, and do not contribute to the occurrence of pesticide entities engaging in organic farming, and do not contribute to the occurrence of pesticide drift.
drift. The The classificclassification ation indisputably becomes indisputably becomes arbitrary and arbitrary and whimsical.whimsical.
A substan
A substantially ovetially overinclusive orinclusive or underinclusir underinclusive classificatiove classification tends to n tends to undercut undercut thethe governmental claim
governmental claim that that the the classificaticlassification on serves serves legitimate political legitimate political ends. ends. WhereWhere overinclusiveness is the problem, the vice is that the law has a greater discriminatory or overinclusiveness is the problem, the vice is that the law has a greater discriminatory or burdensome effect than necessary.
burdensome effect than necessary. In this light, we In this light, we strike down Section 5 and strike down Section 5 and Section 6Section 6 of Ordinance 0309-07 for carrying an invidious classification, and for thereby violating of Ordinance 0309-07 for carrying an invidious classification, and for thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause.
the Equal Protection Clause.
X x x X x x
Evidently, the ordinance discriminates against large farmholdings that are the Evidently, the ordinance discriminates against large farmholdings that are the only ideal venues for the investment of machineries and equipment capable of aerial only ideal venues for the investment of machineries and equipment capable of aerial spraying.
spraying. It effectively denies It effectively denies the affected the affected individuals the technology individuals the technology aimed at aimed at efficientefficient and cost-effective operations and cultivation not only of banana but of other crops as and cost-effective operations and cultivation not only of banana but of other crops as well.
well. The prohibition against aerial spraying wThe prohibition against aerial spraying will seriously hamper the opill seriously hamper the operations of theerations of the banana plantations that depend on aerial technology to arrest the spread of the Black banana plantations that depend on aerial technology to arrest the spread of the Black Sigatoka disease and other
Sigatoka disease and other menaces that threaten their menaces that threaten their production and harvest. production and harvest. X x X x xx the effect of the ban will not be limited to Davao City in view of the significant the effect of the ban will not be limited to Davao City in view of the significant contribution of banana export trading to the country’s economy.
contribution of banana export trading to the country’s economy.
The discriminatory character of the ordinance makes it oppressive and The discriminatory character of the ordinance makes it oppressive and unreasonable in light of the existence and availability of more permissible and practical unreasonable in light of the existence and availability of more permissible and practical alternatives that will not overburden the respondents and those dependent on their alternatives that will not overburden the respondents and those dependent on their operations as well as those who stand
operations as well as those who stand to be affected by to be affected by the ordinance. the ordinance. X x xX x x The Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
A
A bdula v. G bdula v. G ui uiani ani
In a criminal proceeding, there are two (2) determinations of probable cause,
In a criminal proceeding, there are two (2) determinations of probable cause, i.e.,i.e., one is one is made by the prosecutor during preliminary investigation for the purpose of filing the criminal made by the prosecutor during preliminary investigation for the purpose of filing the criminal information in court; and the other is made by the judge for the purpose of issuing a warrant of information in court; and the other is made by the judge for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, or of a search warrant.
arrest, or of a search warrant.
The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing the criminal information in The determination of probable cause for the purpose of filing the criminal information in court is an executive function.
court is an executive function. It is a It is a function that belongs to the pfunction that belongs to the prosecutor, an officer underrosecutor, an officer under the Department of Justice, a
the Department of Justice, a department under the department under the executive branch. executive branch. On the other On the other hand, thehand, the determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, or even that of a determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, or even that of a search warrant, is a judicial function, because under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights of the search warrant, is a judicial function, because under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights of the Constituti
Constitution, only a on, only a judge may issue a judge may issue a warrant of arrest or of a warrant of arrest or of a search warrant. search warrant. For this reason,For this reason, the judge is not bound
the judge is not bound by the determination of probable cause by by the determination of probable cause by the prosecutor. the prosecutor. In fact, heIn fact, he should not rely solely on the finding of probable cause by the prosecutor because he is should not rely solely on the finding of probable cause by the prosecutor because he is mandated by the Constitution to determine probable cause
mandated by the Constitution to determine probable cause persona personally lly . . He He cannot cannot abdicate abdicate thethe performance of that function in favor of the prosecutor if he wanted to remain faithful to the performance of that function in favor of the prosecutor if he wanted to remain faithful to the Constitution.
Constitution.
G
G ove overnm rnment ent of t of the he US US A A v. J v. J udge udge
Purganan PurgananPrior notice or hearing is not required before a judge issues a warrant of arrest of an Prior notice or hearing is not required before a judge issues a warrant of arrest of an extraditee once the petition for extradition is filed in court on two (2) basis,
extraditee once the petition for extradition is filed in court on two (2) basis, i.e.,i.e., statutory (Sec. 6, statutory (Sec. 6, P.D. No. 1069); and constitutional (Sec. 2, Art. III of the Bill of Rights).
P.D. No. 1069); and constitutional (Sec. 2, Art. III of the Bill of Rights).
On statutory basis On statutory basis
Section 6, P.D. No. 1069 (Extradition Law) provides that the moment the petition for Section 6, P.D. No. 1069 (Extradition Law) provides that the moment the petition for extradition is filed in the RTC, the judge shall cause the immediate issuance of a warrant of extradition is filed in the RTC, the judge shall cause the immediate issuance of a warrant of arrest.
arrest. Hearing entails Hearing entails sending of sending of notices to notices to opposing parties, opposing parties, and and receiving facts andreceiving facts and arguments from
arguments from them. them. Arrest subsequent Arrest subsequent to a to a hearing can hearing can no no longer be longer be consideredconsidered
“immediate.”
“immediate.” The law could The law could not have intended not have intended the use of the use of the word “immediate” a the word “immediate” a superfluity.superfluity.
On constitutional basis On constitutional basis
Even Section 2, Article III of the Bill of Rights does not require notice or hearing before a Even Section 2, Article III of the Bill of Rights does not require notice or hearing before a judge
judge issues issues a a warrant warrant of of arrest. arrest. On On the the contrary, contrary, what what the the ConstituConstitution tion provides provides is is “after“after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant (not of the accused) and the witnesses examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant (not of the accused) and the witnesses he may produce.”
he may produce.”