EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
- means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another.
Tiu v CA GR No. 127410 1.20.99
F: The passage of RA 7227 (An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses, Creating the Bases Conversion andDevelopment Authority for this Purpose, Providing Funds Therefore and for Other Purposes) paved the creation of Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ). It includedCity of Olongapo and the Municipality of Subic Province of Zambales, the lands occupied by the Subic Naval bases Agreement and within the territorial jurisdiction ofthe Municipalities of Morong and Hermosa, Province of Bataan as secured areas of SSEZ and should, therefore, enjoy the same privileges. Pres. Ramos issued EO 97-A, specifying the areas within which the tax-and-duty-free privilege was operative (only in secured areas consisting of the presently fenced-in former Subic Naval Base shall be the completely tax and duty-free area in SSEZ – some of the citizens from areas no longer included in the new delineated areas challenged the constitutionality of EO 97-A. According to the citizens, EO 97-A excluded the residents of the first two components of the zone from enjoying the benefits granted by the law. It has effectively discriminated against them without reasonable or valid standards, in contravention of the equal protection guarantee.
I: WON the issuance of EO 97-A violates the equal protection clause guaranteed by the Constitution. And WON the exclusion of some locations from the zone is discriminatory.
R: The equal-protection guarantee does not require territorial uniformity of laws. The fundamental right of equal protection of the law is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.Furthermore, RA 7227 clearly vests in the President the authority to delineate the metes and bounds of the SSEZ.People v Cayat 68 PHIL 12F: Cayat is a member of non-Christian tribe convicted under Act. No. 1639 for possession of an intoxicating liquor and sentenced him to pay P50.00 or subsidiary imprisonment. Cayat assails the decision on the ff. grounds: It is discriminatory, denial of equal protection of the law, violative of due process provided by the constitution, that it is an improper exercise of police power.I: Does Act No. 1639 unconstitutionalR: It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty for equal protection of the law is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.
For the classification to be reasonable it must have the ff requisites:
1) Must rest on substantial distinction
2) that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the government.
3) That it shall be reasonable in its operation
4) That it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedures prescribed
5) That it shall be applicable alike to all citizens of the state or to all of a class
- to constitute due process of law, notice and hearings are not always necessary.
The Act No. 1639 is designed to promote peace and order in the non-Christian tribes to remove all obstacles in their intellectual and moral growth. It is meant to mark the non-Christian tribe as inferior or less capable race. When public safety or public moral requires discontinuance of a certain practice by certain classes of persons, the hand of the legislature cannot be stayed from providing for its discontinuance by any incidental convenience which some members of the class may suffer. The private interest of such member should yield to the paramount interest of the nation.
- means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another.
Tiu v CA GR No. 127410 1.20.99
F: The passage of RA 7227 (An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations Into Other Productive Uses, Creating the Bases Conversion andDevelopment Authority for this Purpose, Providing Funds Therefore and for Other Purposes) paved the creation of Subic Special Economic Zone (SSEZ). It includedCity of Olongapo and the Municipality of Subic Province of Zambales, the lands occupied by the Subic Naval bases Agreement and within the territorial jurisdiction ofthe Municipalities of Morong and Hermosa, Province of Bataan as secured areas of SSEZ and should, therefore, enjoy the same privileges. Pres. Ramos issued EO 97-A, specifying the areas within which the tax-and-duty-free privilege was operative (only in secured areas consisting of the presently fenced-in former Subic Naval Base shall be the completely tax and duty-free area in SSEZ – some of the citizens from areas no longer included in the new delineated areas challenged the constitutionality of EO 97-A. According to the citizens, EO 97-A excluded the residents of the first two components of the zone from enjoying the benefits granted by the law. It has effectively discriminated against them without reasonable or valid standards, in contravention of the equal protection guarantee.
I: WON the issuance of EO 97-A violates the equal protection clause guaranteed by the Constitution. And WON the exclusion of some locations from the zone is discriminatory.
R: The equal-protection guarantee does not require territorial uniformity of laws. The fundamental right of equal protection of the law is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.Furthermore, RA 7227 clearly vests in the President the authority to delineate the metes and bounds of the SSEZ.People v Cayat 68 PHIL 12F: Cayat is a member of non-Christian tribe convicted under Act. No. 1639 for possession of an intoxicating liquor and sentenced him to pay P50.00 or subsidiary imprisonment. Cayat assails the decision on the ff. grounds: It is discriminatory, denial of equal protection of the law, violative of due process provided by the constitution, that it is an improper exercise of police power.I: Does Act No. 1639 unconstitutionalR: It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty for equal protection of the law is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.
For the classification to be reasonable it must have the ff requisites:
- must rest on substantial distinction
- must be germane to the purpose of the law
- must not be limited to existing conditions only
- must apply equally to all members of the same class
1) Must rest on substantial distinction
2) that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the government.
3) That it shall be reasonable in its operation
4) That it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedures prescribed
5) That it shall be applicable alike to all citizens of the state or to all of a class
- to constitute due process of law, notice and hearings are not always necessary.
The Act No. 1639 is designed to promote peace and order in the non-Christian tribes to remove all obstacles in their intellectual and moral growth. It is meant to mark the non-Christian tribe as inferior or less capable race. When public safety or public moral requires discontinuance of a certain practice by certain classes of persons, the hand of the legislature cannot be stayed from providing for its discontinuance by any incidental convenience which some members of the class may suffer. The private interest of such member should yield to the paramount interest of the nation.
RSS Feed