CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Professor: Atty. Rene B. GorospeSource: Gorospe, Rene B. (2006). CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Notes and Readings on the Bill of Rights, Citizenship and Suffrage (Vol. 1 and 2). Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc.
Chapter 1
The Fundamental Powers and the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is a “charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the state.” The purpose is to protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power.
Calalang v. Williams 70 Phil. 726 (1940)
Commonwealth Act No. 548 prohibits animal-drawn vehicles from passing along certain Manila streets during certain hours Maximo Calalang assails its constitutionality on the ground that it is an unlawful interference with legitimate business or trade and abridge the right to personal liberty and freedom of locomotion Held: No. It was passed in the exercise of the paramount police power of the state
Persons and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state
Liberty should not be made to prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery
The Fundamental Powers
They are inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. They are necessary and indispensable as there can be no effective government without them
They are all exercised primarily by the national legislature Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation Maintenance of a healthy economic standard of society Just compensation for the property taken Form of protection and benefits from the
government Regulates both liberty and property Affects only property rights May be exercised only by the government May be delegated to some other entities in the private sector May be exercised only by the government Property taken is destroyed
Property taken is meant for public use or purpose
Compensation not immediate; sometimes leaving
the reward to be reaped through his recognition that he
has done something for the
public good Receipt of market value of his property that is taken Immediate and apparent in the form of protection and benefits derived
from the use of taxes paid
Police Power
It has been defined as the ‘state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare’
It includes: (1) an imposition or restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good
Being what it is, police power cannot stand still. It also has to adjust to the demands and realities of changing times
It may be delegated to the (1) President and (2) administrative boards as well as (3) the law-making body of municipal corporations or local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body
Requisites -- lawful ends through lawful means United States v. Toribio
15 Phil. 85 (1910)
Act No. 1147 regulates the registration, branding and slaughter of large cattle. The provisions of the said law requires, before large cattle may be slaughtered or killed for food at the municipal slaughterhouse, a permit be obtained from the Municipal Treasurer
Appellant was convicted of slaughtering an animal without the requisite permit
Appellant contends the constitutionality on the ground that it violates the provision the “no law shall be enacted which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”
Held: No. The act primarily seeks to protect the “large cattle” of the Philippine Islands against theft and to make easy the recovery and return of such cattle to their proper owners, when lost, strayed, or stolen
All property is acquired and held under the tacit condition that it shall not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others or greatly impair the public rights and interests of the community Rights of property are subject to such reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent them from being injurious xxx Confronted by such conditions, there can be no doubt of the right of the Legislature to adopt reasonable measures for the preservation of work animals, even to the extent of prohibiting and penalizing what would, under ordinary conditions, be a perfectly legitimate and proper exercise of rights of ownership and control of the private property of the citizen
Police power v. Due process
Due process is the “embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.” The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which, generally speaking, may not be dispersed with because they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness
Previous judicial hearing, however, may be omitted without violation of due process in view of the nature of the property involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger
The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of the police power which both restrains and is restrained by due process
The justification is found in the venerable Latin maxims, Salus populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which call for the subordination of individual interests to the benefit of the greater number
Ynot v. IAC 148 SCRA 569 (1987)
EO 626-A prohibited the interprovincial transportation of carabao (the poor man’s tractor) and carabeef and subjected carabao and carabeef transported in violation of its provisions to confiscation and forfeiture, to be distributed to charitable institutions xxx Whereas, the present conditions demand that the carabaos and buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of small farmers who rely on them for energy needs
Six carabaos transported by Ynot in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo were confiscated by a police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo
Held: Yes. We find that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished
Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations. A valid delegation of police power may arise from express delegation, or be inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the municipal corporation
Binay v. Domingo 201 SCRA 508 (1991)
The Municipality of Makati approved Resolution No. 60 ratifying the ongoing Burial Assistance Program, extending financial assistance coming from the municipal treasury to bereaved families with gross family income of less than P2,000.00
The COA disapproved Resolution 60. It held that the resolution cannot be sustained as a legitimate exercise of the police power due to a lack of perceptible connection or relation between the objective sought to be attained and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc. of the inhabitants of Makati, and, that the disbursement of funds was not for a public purpose since it was for the benefit of only a few individuals and not the whole or majority of the inhabitants of the Municipality
Held: Yes. The care for the poor is generally recognized as a public duty. The support for the poor has long been an accepted exercise of police power in the promotion of the common good. Resolution No. 60 is a paragon of the continuing program of our government towards social justice
COA is not attuned to the changing of the times. Public purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it incidentally benefits a limited number of persons
“The drift is towards social welfare legislation geared towards state policies to provide adequate social services, the promotion of the general welfare, social justice as well as human dignity and respect for human rights”
Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people
Police Power v. General Welfare Clause
Police power may be delegated to and exercised by local government units through the so-called General Welfare Clause
Villacorta v. Bernardo 143 SCRA 480 (1986)
The Municipal Board of Dagupan City adopted Ordinance No. 22 seeking to regulate the subdivision plans over parcels of land located therein, which requires, among others, an approval from the City Engineer and payment of a service fee and a certification from the City Engineer
An action was brought against its constitutionality
Held: Yes. Ordinance No. 22 is null and void being in conflict with Section 44 of Act 496
So many excesses are attempted in the name of the police power xxx
Police Power v. Vices
The power to tax (the power to destroy) cannot be allowed to defeat an instrumentality or creation of the very entity which has the inherent power to wield it
What is settled is that the matter of regulating, taxing or otherwise dealing with gambling is a State concern and hence, it is the sole prerogative of the State to retain it or delegate it to local governments
Basco v. PAGCOR 197 SCRA 52 (1991)
The PAGCOR was created by virtue of PD 1067-A (and PD 1869) and was granted a franchise “to establish, operate and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines”
Petitioners alleged that such law is “null and void” for being “contrary to morals, public policy and public order”; it further contends that its exemption from paying any tax is violative of the principle of local autonomy (waiver of right of City of Manila to impose tax)
Held: No. Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally prohibited. But the prohibition of gambling does not mean that the Government cannot regulate it in the exercise of its police power
PAGCOR has a dual role, to operate and to regulate gambling casinos. The latter role is governmental, which places it in the category of an agency or instrumentality of the Government, thus, exempt form local taxes
Before: Tax Credit (Taxation & Eminent Domain exercised) After: Tax Deduction (Taxation & Police Power exercised) Eminent Domain
It is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner
In times of national emergency, the government temporarily takes over a public utility imbued with public interest pursuant to Article XII, Section 17 of the Constitution, it exercises police power and not its power of eminent domain. Accordingly the private entity-owner cannot claim any just compensation for the use of the said business and its properties
The police power being the most active power of the government and the due process being the broadest limitation on governmental power, the conflict between this power of government and the due process of the Constitution is oftentimes inevitable
City Government of QC v. Ericta 122 SCRA 759 (1983)
The Quezon City Council passed Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 regulating the establishment, maintenance and operation of private memorial type cemetery or burial ground. Section 9 of the said ordinance required that at least 6% of the total area of every memorial park cemetery must be set aside for charity burial, otherwise, such cemetery will be prohibited from selling memorial park lots
Himlayang Pilipino contends that Section 9 is not a valid exercise of police power
Held: Yes. The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit. A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate
Section 9 is not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of law, nay, even without compensation
Expropriation requires payment of just compensation
This is a power that may be exercised by entities other than the government itself or its subdivisions and instrumentalities. The private corporations serving the public, such as public utilities, may validly be delegated the power.
xxx those engaged in the supply of electricity, water, telecommunications services and some transportation firms whose services might require the acquisition of private property for the efficacious service to the public, may also be vested with the power of expropriation
Before a municipal corporation may exercise its power of eminent domain, it must be sanctioned and must not violate any law
Private lands, for purposes of socialized housing, rank last in the order of priority for acquisition, and expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted
Eminent Domain v. Destruction by Necessity
EMINENT DOMAIN DESTRUCTION BY NECESSITY Connotes taking
for use
Speaks for itself--condemnation of a property as a means of self-defense
or self-preservation Entails payment of
just compensation
The property is precisely destroyed as a way of promoting the greater welfare of the populace who might be endangered or otherwise placed
in harm’s way Primarily exercised
by the government
May be exercised by private individuals Taxation
The power of the State to impose a charge or burden upon person, property, or property rights, for the use and support of the government
Taxation is a destructive power which interferes with the personal and property rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their property for the support of the government. Tax statutes must be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the taxpayer
Limitations on the Power to tax
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of tax
Uniformity means that persons or things of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. It requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike or put on equal footing both in privileges and liabilities
Uniformity, however, is not equality, the latter term signifying that the taxes shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the taxable property
It is also an inherent limitation on the power to tax that the proceeds be for public purpose. They could not be used for purely private purposes xxx the real purpose of taxation is the promotion of the common good
Taxation is said to be equitable when its burden falls on those better able to pay. Taxation is progressive when its rate goes up depending on the resources of the person affected
It is the strongest of all powers of government
The taxing power has the authority to make a reasonable and natural classification for purposes of taxation but the government’s act must not be prompted by a spirit of hostility, or at the very least discrimination that finds no support in reason
Taxes are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance. However, such collection should be made in accordance with law xxx
Reyes v. Almanzor 196 SCRA 322 (1991)
Petitioners are owners of parcels of land in Manila which are leased and occupied as dwelling sites by tenants. RA 6359 was enacted prohibiting from increasing in monthly rentals of dwelling units and also disallowing the ejectment of lessees upon the expiration of the usual legal period (amended by PD 20). Thereafter, City Assessor of Manila increased tax rates.
unwarranted, inequitable, confiscatory and unconstitutional” Held: Yes. Public respondents would have this Court completely ignore the effects of the restrictions of the said law on the market value of properties within its coverage
Tax exemptions
xxx as broad as the power to tax
Like any other power, it is one that may not be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically
The Constitution declares outright that: “Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or covenant appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation”
No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress Partnership among Fundamental Powers
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila
20 SCRA 849 (1967)
The Municipal Board of the City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 4670 regulating the operation of hotels and motels
Petitioners sought to invalidate the ordinance
Held: No. The presumption is all in favor of validity xxx The local legislative body, by enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulations are essential to the well being of the people
Negatively put, police power is “that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society
There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard to which governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid
Taxation may be made to implement the state’s police power
The liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power
Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
175 SCRA 343 (1989)
PD No. 27 was enacted to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers (CARP) The constitutionality of such law is challenged raising, among others, issues of due process and just compensation
Held: No. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary, an exercise of the power of eminent domain
The power being exercised is eminent domain if the property involved is wholesome and intended for public use. Property condemned under the police power is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose which should be destroyed in the interest of public safety, morals, etc. The confiscation of such property is not compensable, unlike the taking of property under the power of expropriation, which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner
The Bill of Rights
As a Check on Governmental Powers Only
It governs the relationship between the individual and the State and its agent. The Bill of Rights only tempers governmental power and protects the individual against any aggression and unwarranted interference by any department of the government and its agencies
In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. It concerns not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder
People v. Marti 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
The appellant sought to have (4) gift -wrapped packages sent to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland through services of a forwarding company, the “Manila Packing and Export Forwarders.” Upon inspection of the box, dried leaves of marijuana were found in the packages
He questions the admissibility of the marijuana, contending that it was a product of an illegal search and seizure
Held: No. The evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in his private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities
As a Yardstick of Validity and the Standards of Review
As a counterweight to the great powers of the government, the Bill of Rights would pose a constant standard of measurement to determine the validity of any governmental act which may limit rights and liberties, or intrude into privacies of persons, or otherwise impair their freedoms
Determining whether there is sufficient justification for the government’s action depends very much on the level of scrutiny or the standards of review used
Standards of review--the mere rationality deferential review standard, the middle-level review or intermediate review or heightened scrutiny standard, and the strict scrutiny standard Strict scrutiny--used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race and facial challenges are allowed for this purpose; for determining the quality and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms; focus is on the
presence of compelling, rather than substantial governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest
Deferential review--laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest, without the courts seriously inquiring into the substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative means by which the objectives could be achieved; the substantiality of the governmental interests is seriously looked into and the availability of less restrictive alternatives are considered
Rational Basis Test has been described as adopting a “deferential” attitude towards legislative classifications; it remains a primary standard for evaluating the constitutionality of a statute
Strict scrutiny is applied when the challenged statute either (1) classifies on the basis of inherent suspect characteristic or (2) infringes fundamental constitutional rights, i.e. the right to procreation, the right to marry, free speech, etc
Intermediate scrutiny or heightened scrutiny standard is applied when the challenged statute’s classification is based on either (1) gender or (2) legitimacy; Intensified mean Test, in which, the court should accept the legislative end, but should closely scrutinize its relationship to the classification made What is important to bear in mind is this: To the extent that a particular liberty interest is considered more important and more valuable to society, to that extent must the courts utilize a more demanding and exacting standard with which to measure that governmental intrusion protected spheres The Bill of Rights and the 1986 Interregnum
Can the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights exist when there is no constitution?
Republic v. Sandiganbayan 407 SCRA 10 (2003)
Major Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas, who was the Commanding General of the Philippine Army, was investigated by the PCGG through its AFP Anti-Graft Board for alleged ill-gotten and unexplained wealth, after which the PCGG filed a complaint for forfeiture under RA 1379
Elizabeth Dimaano, alleged to be Ramas’ mistress, was also later impleaded. The raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant xxx
The Sandiganbayan declared the properties confiscated xxx as illegally seized and therefore inadmissible xxx
[The Republic] asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’ exclusionary right
WON the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum xxx; WON the protection accorded to the individuals under the xxx (“Covenant”) and the xxx (“Declaration”) remained in effect during the interregnum
Held: No. The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal
limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under international law
We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum
xxx During the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum To hold that the Bill of Rights xxx remained operative during the interregnum would render void all sequestration orders issued by the PCGG before the adoption of the Freedom Constitution Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights xxx
Clearly the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized [such] items
Political, Civil, Economic and Other Rights
The Bill of Rights is basically about political and civil rights as contradistinguished from economic rights which are dealt with in the constitutional provisions on the national economy and patrimony, as well as in the provisions on social justice and human rights
Human rights can be understood to include those that relate to an individual’s social, economic, cultural, political and civil relations; the universally accepted traits and attributes of an individual, along with what is generally considered to be his inherent and inalienable rights, encompassing almost all aspects of life
What the law guarantees as human right in one country should be also guaranteed by law in all other countries
“Right which inheres in persons from the fact of their humanity”
“Civil rights” refers to those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country including the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the law, freedom to contract, etc; those rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community or the right of his being a member of society
“Political rights” are said to refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right to suffrage, the right to hold public office, etc
“Natural rights” are those rights that appertain to man in right of his existence, i.e. the rights to freedom of thought, to freedom of religious belief, etc
American Bill of Rights -- The First Ten Amendments
The Philippine Bill of Rights has been basically patterned after the American Bill of Rights which is contained in the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution
Accordingly, in view of the Philippine reliance and reference every now and then to American case law on certain constitutional issues relative to the Bill of Rights, parallel citations to the pertinent provisions of the US Bill of Rights have to be made occasionally.
International Bill of Rights
While the Bill of Rights as found in the Constitution is the primary basis for the determination if there is any violation of the rights of persons, it does not necessarily mean that such is the sole source of rights that may be recognized
The Court also considers the pertinent international conventions and declarations in trying to determine if there is a violation of a person’s rights
The most prominent of these is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The individual may still avail of the guarantees provided by the international instruments and covenants--from the so-called International Bill of Human Rights to some other declarations and conventions--to buttress whatever claims to freedom and liberty that he or she may have
The Bill of Rights, Vigilance and Government as Teacher A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon
The lead should come from the Government itself if ever it wants the citizens to follow and abide by its commands and demands
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizens. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher
If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy
The rights and guarantees may exist. But it takes some vigilance, some action on the part of the people in order that those guarantees may come to life and become part of the human spirit
Additional Cases
(A) The Bill of Rights and the Fundamental Powers A1. Beltran v. Secretary of Health
476 SCRA 168 (2005)
FACTS: Petitioners comprise the majority of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Association of Blood Banks, a duly registered non-stock and non-profit association composed of free standing blood banks. Public respondent Secretary of Health is being sued in his capacity as the public official directly involved and charged with the enforcement and implementation of RA 7719 or the
National Blood Service Act. Section 7 of RA 7719 provides phase-out of Commercial Blood Banks. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the said provision on the ground, among others, that such represents undue delegation if not outright abdication of the police power of the state.
ISSUE: WON RA 7719 is a valid exercise of police power
HELD: Petitions dismissed. The court upholds the validity of RA 7719.
RATIO: The promotion of public health is a fundamental obligation of the State. The health of the people is a primordial governmental concern. RA 7719 was enacted in the exercise of the State’s police power in order to promote and preserve public health and safety.
Police power of the state is validly exercised if (a) the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires the interference of the State; and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the objective sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
Police power is the State authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.
Thus, persons may be subject to certain kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general welfare of the State and to its fundamental aim of government, the rights of the individual may be subordinated
A2. PHCAP v. Duque III1
535 SCRA 265 (2007)
Health is a legitimate subject matter for regulation by the DOH (and certain other administrative agencies) in exercise of police powers delegated to it. The superiority of breastfeeding and correct information as to infant feeding and nutrition, as in this case, is infused with public interest and welfare. The DOH’s power under the Milk Code to control information regarding breastmilk vis-à-vis breastmilk substitutes is not absolute as the power to control does not encompass the power to absolutely prohibit the advertising, marketing, and promotion of breastmilk substitutes. Implementing rules and regulations imposing labeling requirements and limitations, as well as a prohibition against certain health and nutrition claims are inconsistent with the Milk Code.
Nonetheless, the DOH, in imposing an absolute prohibition on advertising, promotion, and marketing, the same went beyond its authority since the same was not within the provisions of the Milk Code itself.
A3. Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD 526 SCRA 130 (2007)
FACTS: Petitioners are domestic corporations and proprietors operating drugstores in the Philippines. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of RA 9257, otherwise known as the “Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003.” Section 4(a) of RA 9257 grants twenty percent (20%) discount as privileges for the Senior Citizens. Petitioner contends that said law is unconstitutional because it constitutes deprivation of private property.
ISSUE: WON RA 9257 is unconstitutional HELD: Petition is dismissed.
RATIO: The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which,
similar to the power of eminent domain, has general welfare for its object.
Accordingly, it has been described as “the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” It is the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same.”
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.
A4. BANAT v. COMELEC2
586 SCRA 210 (2009)
The Court therefore strikes down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the “broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives”
A5. Mirasol v. DPWH 490 SCRA 318 (2006)
FACTS: Petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of certain administrative issuances of the DPWH for being inconsistent with RA 2000, entitled “Limited Access Highway Act.” Among others, is AO1 which requires motorcycles shall have an engine displacement of at least 400cc.
ISSUE: WON said administrative issuances are unconstitutional HELD: Petition partly granted. It is the DOTC, not the DPWH, which has authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit access to limited access facilities.
We find that AO1 does not impose unreasonable restrictions. It merely outlines several precautionary measures, to which toll way users must adhere. These rules were designed to ensure public safety and the uninhibited flow of traffic within limited access facilities.
RATIO: The use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the police power of the state. The police power is far-reaching in scope and is the “most essential, insistent and illimitable” of all government powers. The tendency is to extend rather than to restrict the use of police power. The sole standard in measuring its exercise is reasonableness.
A6. MMDA v. Viron Transportation Co., Inc. 530 SCRA 341 (2007)
FACTS: PGMA issued EO 179, which provided for the establishment of a Mass Transport System for Greater Manila. Pursuant to this EO, the Metro manila Council of the MMDA cited the need to remove the bus terminals located along major thoroughfares of Metro Manila. Respondents, provincial bus operators who had bus terminals that were threatened to be removed, alleges that EO should be declared unconstitutional and illegal for transgressing the possessory rights of owners and operators of public land transportation units over their respective terminals3
ISSUE: WON EO 179 is a valid exercise of police power 2 UST Golden Notes 2010, Political Law 3 Stef Macapagal
HELD: Petition denied. EO 179 is null and void.
RATIO: MMDA has no police power, let alone legislative power. In light of the administrative nature of its powers and functions, the MMDA is devoid of authority to implement the Project as envisioned by the EO; hence it could not have been validly designated by the President to undertake the Project. It follows that the MMDA cannot validly order the elimination of the respondents’ terminals
Police power rests primarily with the legislature, such power may be delegated, as it is in fact increasingly being delegated. By virtue of a valid delegation, the power may be exercised by the President and administrative boards as well as by the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government under an express delegation by the LGC of 1991
Measures calculated to promote the safety and convenience of the people using the thoroughfares by the regulation of vehicular traffic present a proper subject for the exercise of police power On Constitutional Law, “The true role of Constitutional Law is to effect an equilibrium between authority and liberty so that rights are exercised within the framework of the law and the laws are enacted with due deference to rights.”
A7. Yamane v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corporation 474 SCRA 258 (2005)
FACTS: Petitioner City Treasurer of Makati holds respondent, in a Notice of Assessment, liable to pay the correct business taxes, fees and charges totaling to P1.6M in which the respondents protested contending that condominium does not fall under the definition of a business, thus, they are not liable for such taxes ISSUE: WON the City Treasurer of Makati may collect business taxes on condominium corporations
HELD: Petition denied. Accordingly, and with significant degree of comfort, we hold that condominium corporations are generally exempt from local business taxation under the LGC, irrespective of any local ordinance that seeks to declare otherwise.
RATIO: The power of the local government units to impose taxes within its territorial jurisdiction derives from the Constitution itself, which recognizes the power of these units “to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.”
A8. PPI v. Fertphil Corporation 548 SCRA 485 (2008)
FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent are private corporations incorporated under Philippine laws. They are both engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals. President Marcos issued LOI 1465 which provided, among others, for the imposition of a capital recovery component on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in the Philippines. Pursuant to the LOI, private respondent paid P10 for every bag of fertilizer it sold in the domestic market to the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the imposition of the P10 levy. Private respondent then demanded from petitioner a refund of the amounts it paid under LOI 1465
ISSUE: WON the issuance of LOI 1465 is a valid exercise of police power of the State
HELD: Petition denied. The RTC and the CA did not err in ruling against the constitutionality of the LOI
RATIO: Police power and the power of taxation are inherent powers of the State. These powers are distinct and have different tests for validity. Police power is the power of the State to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare, while the power of taxation is the power to levy taxes to be used for public purpose. The main purpose of police power is the regulation of a behavior or conduct, while taxation is revenue generation. The “lawful subjects” and “lawful means” tests are used to determine the validity of a law enacted under the police power. The power of taxation, on the other hand, is circumscribed by inherent and constitutional limitations.
An inherent limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are exacted only for a public purpose. They cannot be used for purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private persons.
The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit in its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a public purpose.
A9. Yrasuegui v. PAL 569 SCRA 467 (2008)
FACTS: Petitioner was a former international flight steward of PAL, herein respondent. Petitioner was dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company. Petitioner claims that he was illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: WON petitioner was discriminated against when he was dismissed.
HELD: Petition denied.
RATIO: To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution. However, in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the US Supreme Court, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the equal protection guarantee.
A10. Atienza, Jr. v. COMELEC 612 SCRA 761 (2010)
FACTS: Drilon, as president of the LP, announced his party’s withdrawal of support for the administration of PGMA. Petitioner, LP chairman, and a number of party members denounced Drilon’s move. In a party conference, petitioner moved to declare all positions in the LP’s ruling body vacant and elected new officers, with petitioner as LP president. Drilon filed a petition before the COMELEC and the latter nullified the elections. Eventually, Roxas was installed as the new LP president. Petitioners were deemed resigned for holding the illegal election of LP officers and were dropped from the roster of LP members.
ISSUE: WON respondents violated petitioners’ constitutional right to due process by the latter’s expulsion from the party.
HELD: Petition denied. The requirements of administrative due process do not apply to the internal affairs of political parties. RATIO: The constitutional limitations on the exercise of the state’s powers are found in Article III of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, which guarantees against the taking of life, property, or liberty without due process under Section 1 is generally a limitation on the state’s powers in relation to the rights of its citizens. The right to due process is meant to protect
ordinary citizens against arbitrary government action, but not from acts committed by private individuals or entities.
The right to due process guards against unwarranted encroachment by the state into the fundamental rights of its citizens and cannot invoked in private controversies involving private parties.
The discipline of members by a political party does not involve the right to life, liberty or property within the meaning of the due process clause.
Chapter 2 Due Process
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”4
Due Process of Law Person
Life, Liberty and Property Life
Liberty
Roe v. Wade
410 US 113, 35 L Ed 2d 147, 93 S Ct 705 (1973) Caunca v. Salazar
82 Phil. 851, 1 SCUD 177 (1 January 1949) Lupangco v. CA 160 SCRA 848 (1988) Property Ayog v. Cusi, Jr 118 SCRA 492 (1982) Public Office Layno, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan 136 SCRA 536 (1985) Licenses
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines 283 SCRA 31 (1997)
Right-Privilege Dichotomy
RIGHT PRIVILEGE
The former come under the protection of the Due Process Clause
They are just by way of grant by the State
The American Supreme Court now has rejected the concept that constitutional rights turn upon whether a governmental benefit is characterized as a “right “ or as a “privilege.” . . . Whether any procedural protections are due depends on the extent to which an individual will be “condemned to suffer grievous loss”
4 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, § 1
Hierarchy of Rights
The Due Process Clause protects “life, liberty and property” PBMEO v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc.
51 SCRA 189 (1973)
PBMEO allegedly informed the respondent Company of the proposed demonstration. A day before the planned demonstration, the Company informed the workers that even as their right to demonstrate is recognized, the normal operations of the Company should not be unduly prejudiced
Company filed with the COR a complaint for violation of the CBA, particularly the “No Strike-No Lockout” clause
(2) The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals if liberty, equality and security “against assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles Held: Yes. The respondent is the one guilty of unfair labor practices. Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8) petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on their freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed, [among others], unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, retrain or coerce employees on the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section Three”
Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.” As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights over property rights has been sustained
xxx habeas corpus is the remedy to obtain the release of an individual, who is convicted by final judgment through a forced confession, which violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination; or who is denied the right to present evidence in his defense as a deprivation of his liberty without due process of law, even after the accused has already served sentence for twenty-two years
The liberties of any person are the liberties of all of us
“When freedom of the mind is imperilled by law, it is freedom that commands a momentum of respect; when property is imperilled it is the lawmakers’ judgment that commands respect. This dual standard may not precisely reverse the presumption of constitutionality in civil liberties cases, but obviously it does set up a hierarchy of values within the due process clause.”
Related to the hierarchy of rights are the so-called “standards of review” discussed earlier in Chapter 1
The Two Faces or Components of Due Process -- Substantive and Procedural
It started off originally as simply a guarantee of procedural fairness
‘Due process law’ was originally used a shorthand expression for governmental proceedings according to the ‘law of the land’ as it existed at the time of those proceedings
The guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta’s ‘per legem terrae’ and considered as procedural safeguards ‘against executive usurpation and tyranny,’ have in this country ‘become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation’
PROCEDURAL SUBSTANTIVE
The method or manner by which the law is enforced
Requires that the law itself, not merely the procedure by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just
Basically addressed to those who adjudicate
Primarily directed at the lawmakers
Revolves around the right to be heard
Implicates fundamental notions of fairness and justice Focuses on rules that are
established in order to ensure meaningful adjudications appurtenant thereto
Concerns itself with the law, its essence, and its concomitant efficacy
In other words, substantive due process looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for the government’s action
Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process is basically associated with the right to be notified and heard. This accordingly presupposes that one has been adequately and meaningfully informed of a case or matter in which his rights are involved and that jurisdiction has been validly acquired over him
‘Jurisdiction’ is the right to hear and determine, not to determine without hearing
That due process is the equivalent of law of the land which means ‘the general law; a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial xxx that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society’
Classic procedural due process issues are concerned with what kind of notice and what form of hearing the government must provide when it takes a particular action
The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ It is a well-established doctrine that rules of procedure may be modified at any time to become effective at once, so long as the change does not affect vested rights
Additional Cases (B) Due Process [14] B1. Republic v. Cagandahan
Chapter 3 Equal Protection
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”5
The guarantee is against class legislation, or such legislation which denies rights to one which are accorded to others, or inflicts upon one individual a more severe penalty than is imposed upon another in like case offending
Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality
It does not demand equality among residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as privileges conferred and liabilities enforced
Requisites for Valid Classification
1. The classification is based on substantial distinctions which make real differences
2. It is germane to the purpose of the law
3. It applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those of the present
4. It applies equally to everyone or every member belonging to the same class
5 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, § 1
People v. Cayat 68 Phil. 12 (1939)
The accused, Cayat, a native of Baguio, Benguet, Mountain Province, and a member of the non-Christian tribes, was found guilty of violating Act No. 1639 for having acquired and possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an intoxicating liquor, which is not a native wine
Cayat challenges the constitutionality of Act 1639 on the grounds that it is discriminatory and denies equal protection of the laws xxx
HELD: No. Act 1639 satisfies all the requirements:
1. The ‘non-Christian tribes’ refers, not to religious belief, but to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization
2. It is designed to insure peace and order in and among the Christian tribes xxx free use of highly intoxicating liquors by the non-Christian tribes have often resulted in lawlessness and crimes, thereby hampering the efforts of the government to raise their standard of life and civilization
3. It is intended to apply at all times as long as those conditions exist 4. The Act applies equally to all members of the class
Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City 22 SCRA 603 (1968)
The Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed Ordinance No. 4 imposing “on any and all products of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company Inc., in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to 1% per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign countries”
Petitioner alleged that the said ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause xxx insofar as Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. is singled out
HELD: Yes. A perusal of the requisites instantly shows that the questioned ordinance does not meet them, for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and none other
The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central, of the same class as plaintiff, from the coverage of the tax. As it is now, even if later a similar company is set up, it cannot be subject to the tax because the ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. as the entity to be levied upon
JM Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
RA 2616 authorized the expropriation of the Tatalon Estate in Quezon City jointly owned by herein petitioner, Gregorio Araneta and Company, Inc. and Florencio Deudor
Petitioner sought to declare said RA unconstitutional as it is violative of the equal protection clause since it applies only to the Tatalon Estate and not to any other lands in Quezon City or elsewhere
HELD: No. The legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to the policy of ‘all or none.’ Thus, to reiterate, the invocation by the petitioner of equal protection clause is not attended with success Gender
The equality of the sexes is something that the Constitution itself promotes. And this means basically having to treat women on equal footing with men even as it still maintains a special solicitude for them
Bradwell v. Illinois
83 US (16 Wall) 130, 21 L Ed 442 (1873)
Supreme Court of that State for a license to practice law. Mrs. Bradwell’s application for a license was refused, and it was stated as a sufficient reason that under the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois, the applicant--“as a married woman would be bound neither by her express contracts nor by those implied contracts which is the policy of the law to create between attorney and client.”
HELD: No. The right to control and regulate the granting of license to practice law in the courts of a State is one of the powers which are not transferred for its protection to the Federal government, and its exercise is in no manner governed or controlled by citizenship of the United States in the party seeking such license
Michael M. v. Superior Court 450 US 464, 67 L Ed 2d 437, 101 S Ct 1200 (1981)
Petitioner, then a 17-year-old male, was charged with violating Clifornia’s “statutory rape” law, which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as “an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the wife of the perpetrator, where the female is under the age of 18 years.”
Petitioner contends that the law “discriminates on the basis of sex, because only females may be victims and only males may violate the section”
HELD: No. The justification for the statute offered by the State and accepted by the Supreme Court of California, is that the legislature sought to prevent illegitimate teenage pregnancies
Geosaert v. Cleary
335 US 464, 93 L Ed 163, 69 S Ct 198 (1948)
A Michigan law forbade any female to act as a bartender unless she be “the wife or daughter of the male owner” of a licensed liquor establishment
HELD: While Michigan may deny to all women opportunities for bartending, Michigan cannot play favourites among women without rhyme or reasons.
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon 163 SCRA 386 (1988)
Petitioner, PASEI, a firm “engaged principally in the recruitment of Filipino workers, male and female, for overseas placement,” challenges the constitutional validity of Department Order No. 1 of the DOLE “Guidelines Governing the Temporary Suspension of Deployment of Filipino Domestic and Household Workers” for “discrimination against males or females” and for “not applying to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females with similar skills”
HELD: No. As a matter of judicial notice, the Court is well aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen our female labor force abroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not a few cases, physical and personal abuse
Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 522 US 53 150 L Ed 2d, 121 S Ct 2053 (2001)
Tuan Anh Nguyen was born out of wedlock in Vietnem to a Vietnamese mother and an American Father.
Petitioner claims that § 1409--which imposes a set of requirements on the children of citizen fathers born abroad and out of wedlock to a non-citizen mother that are not imposed under like circumstances when the citizen parent is the mother--violates equal protection
HELD: No. The challenged classification serves ‘important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed’ are ‘substantially related to the achievement of those objectives’
Stanley v. Illinois
405 US 645, 31L Ed 2d 551, 92 S Ct 1208 (1972)
Under the [challenged] scheme, the children of unmarried fathers, upon the death of the mother, are declared dependents without any hearing on parental fitness and without proof of neglect, though such hearing and proof are required before the State assumes custody of children of married or divorced parents and unmarried mothers HELD: Yes. Stanley’s claim in the state courts and here us that failure to afford him a hearing on his parental qualifications while extending it to other parents denied him equal protection of the laws. We have concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. It follows that denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause
Marriage and Legitimacy
GSIS v. Montesclaros 434 SCRA 441 (2004)
Nicolas Montesclaros, 72-year old widower, married Milagros Orbiso, then 43 years old. GSIS approved Nicolas’ application for retirement granting a lump sum payment of annuity for the first five years and a monthly annuity thereafter. Nicolas died. Milagros filed with the GSIS a claim of survivorship pension. GSIS denied the claim because under Section 18 of PD 1146, the surviving spouse has no right to survivorship pension if the surviving spouse contracted the marriage with the pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension
HELD: Yes. We hold that the proviso is unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause. The proviso is also discriminatory and denies equal protection of the law. The proviso in question does not satisfy these requirements. The object of the prohibition is vague. There is no reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose intended (“deathbed marriages”)
Labine v. Vincent
401 US 532, 28 L Ed 2d 288, 91 S Ct 1971 (1971)
Ezra Vincent died intestate, survive only by collateral relations and an illegitimate minor daughter, whose guardian sued to have her declared Vincent’s sole heir
Appellant contends that Louisiana’s intestate succession laws that bar an illegitimate child from sharing equally with legitimate children in the father’s estate constitutes an invidious discrimination violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution
HELD: No. To further strengthen and preserve family ties, Louisiana regulates the disposition of property upon the death of a family man Age
A classification based on age could very well be justified depending on particular subject matter which may require a sense of maturity and responsibility, or vigor, health or strength
Dumlao v. COMELEC 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
Section4 of BP 52 disqualifies “any retired elective provincial, city or municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected” to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired
Petitioner contends that it is discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantees of the Constitution
HELD: No. The purpose of the law is to allow the emergence of younger blood in local governments. It is within the competence of the legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to become a candidate for office provided they are reasonable, as in this case Method or Mode of Dying
Vacco v. Quill
521 US 793, 138 L Ed 2d 834, 117 S Ct 2293 (1997)
In New York, as in most States, it is a crime to aid another to commit or attempt suicide, but patients may refuse even lifesaving medical treatment. Respondents are physicians who practice in New York Respondents’ claim that the distinction between refusing lifesaving medical treatment and assisted suicide is “arbitrary” and “irrational” HELD: No. The overwhelming majority of the state legislatures have drawn a clear line between assisting suicide and withdrawing or permitting the refusal of unwanted lifesaving medical treatment by prohibiting the former and permitting the latter.
Academic Performance
Academic ratings could very well determine how a student gets classified or accepted
Tablarin v. Gutierrez 152 SCRA 730 (1987)
The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the school year 1987-1988. However, petitioners either did not take or did not successfully take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education which is administered by private respondent Center for Educational Measurement (CEM)
Petitioners alleged that it is violative of the Equal Protection Clause by reason of the yearly changes in the cut-off scores for successful applicants
HELD: No. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to medical schools in the Philippines do not constitute an unconstitutional imposition
Nationality and Alienage
The Constitution itself has made classifications based on citizenship, such a in the political field
Ichong v. Hernandez 101 Phil. 1155 (1957)
RA No. 1180 “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” prohibits persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of which are not wholly owned by citizens of the Philippines, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade unless such aliens have actually been engaged in said business on 15 May 1954
Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of the Act contending that it denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives them of their liberty and property without due process of law
HELD: No. The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power. Resuming what we have set forth above we hold that the
disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and danger to national economy posed by alien domination and control of the retail business and free citizens and country from such dominance and control
Office and Employment
One’s office, occupation or employment may also provide basis for some differences in treatment, such as whether it is in the public or private sector
It has also been held that elective officials may be treated differently from appointive officials with respect to the effect of the filing of their certificates of candidacy, i.e., while the latter may be deemed resigned, the former may still hold on to their positions
Nuñez v. Sandiganbayan 111 SCRA 433 (1982)
Petitioner, accused before the Sandiganbayan of Estafa through Falsification of Public and Commercial Documents, assails the validity of PD 1486, as amended by PD 1606, which created the Sandiganbayan The Snadiganbayan proceedings violates petitioner’s right to equal protection, because--appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion;--appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence; and there is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the Supreme Court, instead of the traditional two chances; while other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both law and facts and to two appellate courts
HELD: No. The general guarantees of the Bill of Rights, included among which are the due process of law and equal protection clauses must “give way to a specific provision”
International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing 333 SCRA 13 (2000)
The School hires both foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1) foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. Foreign-hires are then granted certain benefits not accorded local-hires.
Petitioner contested the difference in salary rates between foreign and local-hires
HELD: No. There is no reasonable distinction between the services rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign-hires contravenes public policy and, certainly, does not deserve the sympathy of this Court
Crimes and Punishments
Different offenses could not possibly be meted the same penalty but crimes of the same nature should be treated no differently
Skinner v. Oklahoma
316 US 535, 86 L Ed 1655, 62 S Ct 1110 (1942)
Oklahoma’s Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act provides for the sterilization, by vasectomy or salpingectomy, of “habitual criminals.” Petitioner, convicted of the crimes of stealing chickens, and robbery with firearms twice, challenged the constitutionality of the Act but the Oklahoma Supreme Court sustained the Act
HELD: The equal protection clause does not prevent the legislature from recognizing “degrees of evil”