I. DEFINITION AND SCOPE OF
PROTECTION
II. REQUISITES OF VALID CLASSIFICATION III. EXAMPLES OF VALID CLASSIFICATION
A. ALIEN
B. FILIPINO FEMALE DOMESTICS WORKING ABROAD
C. LAND-BASED VS. SEA-BASED FILIPINO OVERSEAS WORKERS D. QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTIVE
OFFICE
E. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN F. PRINT VS. BROADCAST MEDIA IV. THREE STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW
A. RATIONAL BASIS TEST B. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST C. INTENSIFIED MEANS TEST
I.
Definition and Scope of Protection
DefinitionCity of Manila vs. Laguio (2005) citing Ichong vs. Hernandez (1957):
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.
The guarantee means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances.
Scope
Natural and juridical Persons (the equal protection clause extends to artificial persons but only insofar as their property is concerned.)
A corporation as an artificial person is protected under the Bill of Rights against denial of due process, and it enjoys the equal protection of the law. (Smith, Bell & Co., vs. Natividad, 1919)
A corporation is also protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. (See Stonehill vs. Diokno, 1967)
It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected against
unlawful discrimination. (Bache & Co. vs. Ruiz, 1971)
II. Requisites of Valid Classification
People vs. Cayat (1939):
a. It must rest on substantial distinctions; b. It must be germane to the purpose of the
law;
c. It must not be limited to existing conditions only.
Ormoc Sugar Co. vs Treasurer of Ormoc City:
An ordinance was declared void because it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company and none other, such that if a new sugar central is established in Ormoc, it would not be subject to the ordinance.
d. It must apply equally to all members of the same class.
III. Examples of Valid Classification
Lacson vs. Executive Secretary (1999):
All classifications made by law are generally
presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise
by petitioner.
A. Aliens
General rule:
The general rule is that a legislative act may not validly classify the citizens of the State on the basis of their origin, race or parentage.
Exceptions:
1. In times of great and imminent danger, such as a threatened invasion or war, such a classification is permitted by the Constitution when the facts so warrant (e.g. discriminatory legislation against Japanese citizens during WWII).
2. The political rights of aliens do not enjoy the same protection as that of citizens.
3. Statutes may validly limit to citizens exclusively the enjoyment of rights or privileges connected with the public domain, the public works, or the natural resources of the State.
4. The rights and interests of the state in these things are not simply political but also proprietary in nature; and so the citizens may lawfully be given preference over 'aliens in their use or enjoyment.
73
C O N S T IT U T IO N A L L A W II Ichong vs, Hernandez (1957):The Court upheld the Retail Trade Nationalization Law despite the objection that it violated the EP clause, because there exists real and actual, positive and fundamental differences between an alien and a national.
B. Filipino Female Domestics Working
Abroad
They are a class by themselves because of the special risks to which their class was exposed. (Phil Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon)
C. Land-based vs. Sea-based Filipino
Overseas Workers
There is dissimilarity as to work environment, safety, danger to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civil and spiritual activities. (Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies vs. POEA)
D. Qualification for Elective Office
Disqualification from running in the same elective office from which he retired of a retired elective provincial/municipal official who has received payment of retirement benefits and who shall have been 65 y.o. at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected is valid. (Dumlao vs. Comelec)
E. Office of the Ombudsman
Allowing it to start an investigation based on an anonymous letter does not violate EP clause. The Office of the Ombudsman is different from other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations against them (Almonte vs. Vasquez).
F. Print vs. Broadcast Media
There are substantial distinctions between the two to warrant their different treatment under BP 881 (Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Phil vs. COMELEC)
IV. Standards of Judicial Review
A. “Rational Basis Test”
The classification should bear a reasonable relation to government's purpose.
Notes:
Important when there is no plausible difference between the disadvantaged class and those not disadvantaged.
Also important when the government attaches a morally irrelevant and negative significance to a difference between the advantaged and the disadvantaged.
B. “Strict Scrutiny Test”
This test is triggered when a fundamental constitutional right is limited by a law. This requires the government to show an overriding
or compelling government interest so great
that it justifies the limitation of fundamental constitutional rights (the courts make the decision of WON the purpose of the law makes the classification necessary).
Applied also when the classification has a "suspect" basis (Suspect Classes – classes subject to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process.)
C. “Intensified Means Test”
In this situation the Court accepts the articulated purpose of the legislation but it should closely
scrutinize the relationship between the
classification and the purpose based on a spectrum of standards, by gauging the extent to which constitutionally guaranteed rights depend upon the affected individual interest.
The balancing test or the equality test is used. Applicable to certain sensitive but not suspect classes; certain important but not fundamental interest.
Immediate Scrutiny Test
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila (2009):
A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on gender and legitimacy. Immediate scrutiny was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Craig. While the test may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in all substantive due process cases as well.