The Equal Protection Clause

7/23/2019 The Equal Protection Clause

1/24

The Equal Protection Clause

Defnition:

Case:

Quinto vs Comelec (December1, 2009 !" #" $o" 1%9&9%

$achura, '"

)CT*:-Before the Court is a petition forprohibition and certiorari, withprayer for the issuance of atemporary restraining order and awrit of preliminary injunction,assailing Section 4(a) of Resolution o! "#$" of theCommission on %lections(C&'%%C)!-n act authori*ing the Comelecto use an automated system inthe national and local electionsand ma+ing ipso facto resignedelectie ocials who .les their

C&C! lmost a decade later, itwas amended by R /0#/ whichnow proides that an+ ersonhol-in. a ublic aointiveo/ce or osition, inclu-in.active members o the arme-orces, an- o/cers an-emlo+ees in .overnmentone- or controlle-cororations, shall beconsi-ere- ipso

factoresi.ne- rom his3hero/ce an- must vacate thesame at the start o the -a+ othe flin. o his3her certifcateo can-i-ac+"-1hey further assert that it isdiscriminatory and iolates thee2ual protection clause in theConstitution! 1he petitionerscontention, that the repeal of

Section #$ of the &mnibus%lection Code pertaining to

electie ocials gies unduebene.t to such ocials as againstthe appointie ones and iolatesthe e2ual protection clause of theconstitution

-Respondents aer that the caseis premature and they hae nolegal standing because they haenot yet .led their CoC!-1he &S3, howeer, agrees withpetitioners that there is a conictin Section 50 of R!! o! /0#/ thatshould be resoled! ccording tothe &S3, there seems to be nobasis to consider appointieocials as ipso factoresigned andto re2uire them to acate theirpositions on the same day thatthey .le their CoCs, because theyare not yet considered ascandidates at that time! 6urther,this deemed resigned proisione7isted in Batas PambansaBilang (B!8!Blg!) ""5, and nolonger .nds a place in our present

election laws with the innoationsbrought about by the automatedsystem

4**5E: 9& R /0#/ isconstitutional:

6E7D:-1he transcendental nature andparamount importance of theissues raised and the compelling

state interest inoled in theirearly resolution the period for the.ling of CoCs for the ;


2/24

Constitution, is breached by theproiso in Section 50 of R!! o!/0#/! >t is now the opportunetime for the Court to stri+e downthe said proiso for being

iolatie of the e2ual protectionclause and for being oerbroad->n considering persons holdingappointie positions as ipsofactoresigned from their postsupon the .ling of their CoCs, butnot considering as resigned allother ciil serants, speci.callythe electie ones, the law undulydiscriminates against the .rstclass! 1he fact alone that there issubstantial distinction betweenthose who hold appointiepositions and those occupyingelectie posts, does not justifysuch di?erential treatment!-pplying the four re2uisites tothe instant case, the Court .ndsthat the di?erential treatment ofpersons holding appointie ocesas opposed to those holding

electie ones is not germane tothe purposes of the law!-1he obious reason for thechallenged proision is to preentthe use of a goernmentalposition to promote onescandidacy, or een to wield adangerous or coercie inuenceon the electorate! 1he measure isfurther aimed at promoting theeciency, integrity, and discipline

of the public serice byeliminating the danger that thedischarge of ocial duty would bemotiated by politicalconsiderations rather than thewelfare of the public! 1herestriction is also justi.ed by theproposition that the entry of ciilserants to the electoral arena,while still in oce, could result in

neglect or ineciency in theperformance of duty because they

would be attending to theircampaign rather than to theiroce wor+!-the proision pertains to all ciilserants holding appointie posts

without distinction as to whetherthey occupy high positions ingoernment or not! Congress hasnot shown a compelling stateinterest to restrict thefundamental right inoled onsuch a sweeping scale!

8otion or #econsi-eration

6el-:n election is the embodiment ofthe popular will, perhaps thepurest e7pression of thesoereign power of the people! >tinoles the choice or selection ofcandidates to public oce bypopular ote! Considering thatelected ocials are put in oceby their constituents for a de.nite

term, it may justi.ably be saidthat they were e7cluded from theambit of the deemed resignedproisions in utmost respect forthe mandate of the soereign will!>n other words, completedeference is accorded to the willof the electorate that they besered by such ocials until theend of the term for which theywere elected! >n contrast, there is

no such e7pectation insofar asappointed ocials are concerned!

1he dichotomi*ed treatment ofappointie and electie ocials istherefore germane to thepurposes of the law! 6or the lawwas made not merely to preserethe integrity, eciency, anddiscipline of the public serice@the egislature, whose wisdom is

outside the rubric of judicialscrutiny, also thought it wise to


3/24

balance this with the competing,yet e2ually compelling, interest ofdeferring to the soereign will!4$ 4E 6E#E;, the CourtR%S&A%S to 3R1 the

respondents and the interenors'otions for Reconsideration@R%A%RS% and S%1 S>% thisCourts ecember 5, ;


4/24

classi.cation is withoutreasonable basis!-1he e2ual protection clause doesnot demand absolute e2ualityamong residents! >t merely

re2uires that all persons shall betreated ali+e, under li+ecircumstances and conditionsboth as to priileges conferredand liabilities enforced! 1heclassi.cation is actual, real andreasonable, and all persons of oneclass are treated ali+e!

ictoriano vs Eliglesia ni CristoF,

had been in the employ of the%li*alde Rope 6actory, >nc!-=e was a member of the %li*aldeRope 9or+ersG Dnion which has acollectie bargaining agreementwith the company which statesthat 'embership in the Dnionshall be re2uired as a condition ofemployment for all permanentemployees wor+ers!-ater on, Republic ct o! 00Es theclassi.cation reasonable, basedon substantial distinctions thatma+e for real di?erence: 1hegoernment has already gienseeral reasons why thedistinction between theadministration of 8resident rroyois di?erent from other pastadministrations! 1he distinctionlies in reason administratieconstraints, aailability ofeidence, immediate past acts,non-prescription of causes ofactions all of which are notwhimsical, contried, super.cial

or irreleant!-;n the secon- test! 1heclassi.cation is germane to thepurpose of the law to get aheadstart on the campaignagainst graft and corruption! >f theinestigation into the root ofcorruption is to gain traction, itmust start somewhere, and thebest place to start is to e7aminethe immediate past

administration, not distant pastadministrations!-;n the thir- test"&f coursethis is not releant in this case,for the law being e7aminedin Victorianowas one thatgranted prospectie rights, andnot one that inoles fact-.ndinginto past acts as with %& 5!-;n the last test"1his as+s

whether the law applies e2ually toall members of the segregated


8/24

class! >t must be emphasi*ed thatin the Victorianocase, this lasttest was applied not to all thewor+ers in the bargaining unit,but it was applied to the subclass

of wor+ers whose religionsprohibit them from joining laborunions! >n application to this case,the 2uestion should then haebeen, not whether there ise2uality of treatment between allpolitical administrations under %&5, but whether within the subclassof third leel public ocials of therroyo administration that is, thesubject of %& 5 there is une2ualtreatment! &biously, the answeris no!->t must be emphasi*ed thatthe Victorianocase on which themajority heaily relies states inseeral parts that classi.cationmust necessarily result inine2uality of treatment and thatsuch ine2uality does not gie riseto a constitutional problem! >t is

the lac+ of reason that gies riseto a constitutional issue, not theine2ualityper se->n the instant case, the fact thatother administrations are not thesubject of the 81Cs inestigatieaim is not a case of selectieprosecution that iolates e2ualprotection! 1he %7ecutie is gienbroad discretion to initiatecriminal prosecution and enjoys

clear presumption of regularityand good faith in the performancethereof! 6or petitioners tooercome that presumption, theymust carry the burden of showingthat the 81C is a preliminary stepto selectie prosecution, and thatit is laden with a discriminatorye?ect and a discriminatorypurpose! =oweer, petitioner has

sorely failed in discharging thatburden!

'ustice Coronas Concurrin.;inion-Dnli+e the present embattled and

controersial 1ruth Commission,howeer, the 8C33 was createdby 8res! Cora*on C! 2uinopursuant to her legislatie powersunder %7ecutie &rder o! 5,which in turn, was sanctioned by8roclamation o! 0!-Considering that the 8residentwas e7ercising a delegatedpower, his actions should haeconformed to the standards set bythe law, that is, that thereorgani*ation be in the interestof Fsimplicity, economy andeciency!F 9ere such objectiesmet: 1hey were not! 1he 1ruthCommission clearly duplicatesand supplants the functions andpowers of the &ce of the&mbudsman andKor theepartment of Justice

-&n its face, %!&! o! 5 clearlysingles out the preiousadministration as the 1ruthCommissions sole subject ofinestigation! >f the 8residentdecides not to e7pand thecoerage of the inestigation,then the 1ruth Commissions soledirectie is the inestigation ofocials and employees of therroyo administration!

-(5) o Substantial istinction M1here is no substantial distinctionbetween the corruption whichoccurred during the pastadministration and the corruptionof the administrations prior to it!llegations of graft and corruptionin the goernment areunfortunately prealentregardless of who the 8resident

happens to be! Respondentsclaim of widespread systemic


9/24

corruption is not uni2ue only tothe past administration!-(;) ot 3ermane to the 8urposeof the aw>n the light of the unmista+able

purpose of %!&! o! 5, theclassi.cation of the past regimeas separate from the pastadministrations is not germane tothe purpose of the law! Corruptiondid not occur only in the pastadministration! 1o stamp outcorruption, we must go beyondthe faNade of each administrationand inestigate all public ocialsand employees alleged to haecommitted graft in any preiousadministration-(0) %!&! o! 5 does ot pply to6uture Conditionsthe classi.cation does not eenrefer to present conditions, muchmore to future conditions is-aisthe commission of graft andcorruption! >t is limited to aparticular past administration and

not to all past administrations-(4) %!&! o! 5 oes ot pply tothe Same Class>t e7cludes from its puriew thegraft and the grafters of administrations prior to the lastone! 3raft is not e7clusie to thepreious presidency alone, hencethere is no justi.cation to limit thescope of the mandate only to thepreious administration!

Dumlao vs Comelec, 9> *C#)?92 ('anuar+ 22, 19%08elencio6errera, '",

)CT*:-8etitioners see+ to enjoinrespondent C&'%%C from

implementing certain proisions

of Batas 8ambansa Big! E5, E;,and E0 for being unconstitutional!-8atricio umlao was the formergoernor of uea Ai*caya! =ehas already retired from his oce

and he has been receiingretirement bene.ts therefrom!>n 5/"


10/24

constitutional guarantee is notiolated by a reasonableclassi.cation based uponsubstantial distinctions, where theclassi.cation is germane to the

purpose of the law and applies toall belonging to the same class!->f the groupings are based onreasonable and realdi?erentiations, one class can betreated and regulated di?erentlyfrom another class! 6or purposesof public serice, employees #Eyears of age, hae been alidlyclassi.ed di?erently from youngeremployees! %mployees attainingthat age are subject tocompulsory retirement, whilethose of younger ages are not socompulsorily retirable!->t may neither be reasonable todis2ualify retirees, aged #E, for a#E year old retiree could be agood local ocial just li+e one,aged #E, who is not a retiree!But, in the case of a #E-year old

electie local ocial, who hasretired from a proincial, city ormunicipal oce, there is reasonto dis2ualify him from running forthe same oce from which hehad retired, as proided for in thechallenged proision! 1he needfor new blood assumes releance!-1he purpose of the law is to allowthe emergence of younger bloodin local goernments! 1he

classi.cation in 2uestion beingpursuant to that purpose, itcannot be considered inalidFeen it at times, it may besusceptible to the objection that itis marred by theoreticalinconsistenciesF

Dissent o 'ustice Teehanee

-1o specially and peculiarly ban a#E-year old preiously retiredelectie local ocial from runningfor the sameelectie oce (ofgoernor, in this case) preiously

held by him and from which hehas retired is arbitrary, oppressieand unreasonable! 8ersonssimilarly situated are not similarlytreated, e!g! a retired ice-goernor, mayor or councilor of#E is entitled to run for goernor(because the dis2uali.cation is forthe retiree of #E to run for thesame elective oce from whichhe retired) but petitioner is barredfrom doing so (although he mayrun for any other lesser oce)!Both are #E and are retirees, yetone is barred from running for theoce of goernor

Ceni


11/24

Succeed) 2uestioned theconstitutionality of BB E5 and theC&'%%C resolution!-1hey said that theregulationKrestriction of oting

being imposed is a curtailment ofthe right to su?rage! 6urther,petitioners claim that political andgerrymandering moties werebehind the passage of Batas Blg!E5 and Section /# of the Charterof 'andaue City! 1hey contendthat the 8roince of Cebu ispolitically and historically +nownas an opposition bailiwic+ and ofthe total /E;,$5# registeredoters in the proince, close toone-third (5K0) of the entireproince of Cebu would be barredfrom oting for the proincialocials of the proince of Cebu!Ceni*a also said that theconstituents of 'andaue neerrati.ed their charter!-Ceni*a li+ewise aer that Sec 0 ofBB ""E insofar as it classi.es

cities including Cebu City ashighly urbani*ed as the only basisfor not allowing its electorate toote for the proincial ocials isinherently and palpablyunconstitutional in that suchclassi.cation is not based onsubstantial distinctions germaneto the purpose of the law which ine?ect proides for and regulatesthe e7ercise of the right of

su?rage, and therefore suchunreasonable classi.cationamounts to a denial of e2ualprotection!

4**5E: 9& there is a iolationof e2ual protection clause:

6E7D:-o! 1he thrust of the 5/$0

Constitution is towards the fullestautonomy of local goernment

units! >n the eclaration of8rinciples and State 8olicies, it isstated that O1he State shallguarantee and promote theautonomy of local goernment

units to ensure their fullestdeelopment as self-reliantcommunities!-1hese cities are independent ofthe proince in the administrationof their a?airs! Such being thecase, it is but just and proper tolimit the selection and election ofthe proincial ocials to theoters of the proince whoseinterests are itally a?ected ande7clude therefrom the oters ofhighly urbani*ed cities!-1he classi.cation of cities intohighly urbani*ed cities andcomponent cities on the basis oftheir regular annual income isbased upon substantialdistinction! 1he reenue of a citywould show whether or not it iscapable of e7istence and

deelopment as a relatielyindependent social, economic,and political unit! >t would alsoshow whether the city hassucient economic or industrialactiity as to warrant itsindependence from the proincewhere it is geographicallysituated! Cities with smallerincome need the continuedsupport of the proincial

goernment thus justifying thecontinued participation of theoters in the election of proincialocials in some instances!-1he practice of allowing oters inone component city to ote forproincial ocials and denyingthe same priilege to oters inanother component city is amatter of legislatie discretion

which iolates neither theConstitution nor the oterGs right


12/24

of su?rage! 1heir right is limitedto the right to ote for electiecity ocials in local electionswhich the 2uestioned statuesneither withdraw nor restrict!

$une< vs *an-i.anba+an, 111*C#) @?? ('anuar+ ?0, 19%2ernan-o, C"'",

)CT*:-8etitioner in this certiorari andprohibition proceeding assails thealidity of the 8residential ecreecreating the Sandiganbayan, =ewas accused before suchrespondent Court of estafathrough falsi.cation of public andcommercial documentscommitted in conniance with hisother co-accused, all publicocials, in seeral cases!-8etitioner in his memorandum

ino+es the guarantee of e2ualprotection in see+ing to nullify8residential ecree o! 54"!

1he Sandiganbayanproceedingsiolates petitionerGs right to e2ualprotection, because - appeal as amatter of right became minimi*edinto a mere matter of discretion@ -appeal li+ewise was shrun+ andlimited only to 2uestions of law,e7cluding a reiew of the facts

and trial eidence@ and - there isonly one chance to appealconiction, by certiorari to theSupreme Court, instead of thetraditional two chances!

4**5E: 9& the 8 creating theSandiganbayan is constitutional:

6E7D:

-1o assure that the generalwelfare be promoted, which is the

end of law, a regulatory measuremay cut into the rights to libertyand property! 1hose aderselya?ected may under suchcircumstances ino+e the e2ual

protection clause only if they canshow that the goernmental actassailed, far from being inspiredby the attainment of the commonweal was prompted by the spiritof hostility, or at the ery least,discrimination that .nds nosupport in reason!-1he SC ruled against uPe*! 1he5/$0 Constitution had proidedfor the creation of a special courtthat shall hae original jurisdictionoer cases inoling publicocials charged with graft andcorruption! 1he constitutionspeci.cally ma+es mention of thecreation of a special court, theSandiganbayan, precisely inresponse to a problem, theurgency of which cannot bedenied, namely, dishonesty in the

public serice! >t follows thatthose who may thereafter be triedby such court ought to hae beenaware as far bac+ as January 5$,5/$0, when the presentConstitution came into force, thata di?erent procedure for theaccused therein, whether apriate citi*en as petitioner is or apublic ocial, is not necessarilyo?ensie to the e2ual protection

clause of the Constitution!6urther, the classi.cation thereinset forth met the standardre2uiring that it Omust be basedon substantial distinctions whichma+e real di?erences@ it must begermane to the purposes of thelaw@ it must not be limited toe7isting conditions only, and mustapply e2ually to each member of

the class!Q 6urther still, decisionsin the Sandiganbayan are reached


13/24

by a unanimous decision from 0justices M a showing thatdecisions therein are moreconceiably carefully reachedthan other trial courts!

-Classi.cation is thus not ruledout, it being sucient to 2uotefrom the 1uason decision anewFthat the laws operate e2uallyand uniformly on all personsunder similar circumstances orthat all persons must be treatedin the same manner, theconditions not being di?erent,both in the priileges conferredand the liabilities imposed!

Dissent o 'ustice 8aasiar-Some proisions in theSandiganbayan iolate not onlythe constitutional guarantees ofdue process as well as e2ualprotection of the law and againstthe enactment of e7 post factolaws, but also the constitutional

proisions on the power ofsuperision of the Supreme Courtoer inferior courts as well as itsrule-ma+ing authority"-%stafa and malersation ofpriate funds are on the samecategory as graft and corruptioncommitted by public ocers, who,under the ecree creating theSandiganbayan! are only allowedone appeal - to the Supreme

Court (par! 0, Sec! $, 8!! o!5#


14/24

of the diision dissents! 1hissituation patently diminishes toan appreciable degree thechances of an accused for anac2uittal! pplied to the

petitioner, Section E of 8!! o!5#


15/24

returning wor+ers, are compellingmoties for urgent 3oernmentaction! 1he same, howeer,cannot be said of our malewor+ers! >n the .rst place, there is

no eidence that, e7cept perhapsfor isolated instances, our menabroad hae been aicted withan >dentical predicament!-1here is li+ewise no doubt thatsuch a classi.cation is germane tothe purpose behind the measure!Dn2uestionably, it is the aowedobjectie of epartment &rdero! 5 to Fenhance the protectionfor 6ilipino female oerseaswor+ersF 1=this Court has no2uarrel that in the midst of theterrible mistreatment 6ilipinawor+ers hae su?ered abroad, aban on deployment will be fortheir own good and welfare!-1he &rder does not narrowlyapply to e7isting conditions!Rather, it is intended to applyinde.nitely so long as those

conditions e7ist! 1his is clear fromthe &rder itself (F8ending reiewof the administratie and legalmeasures, in the 8hilippines andin the host countriesT)-=ad the ban been gien uniersalapplicability, then it would haebeen unreasonable and arbitrary!6or obious reasons, not all ofthem are similarly circumstanced!9hat the Constitution prohibits is

the singling out of a select personor group of persons within ane7isting class, to the prejudice ofsuch a person or group orresulting in an unfair adantageto another person or group ofpersons

4nternational *chool )llianceo E-ucators vs" Quisumbin.,??? *C#) 1? ('une 1, 2000aunan, '",

)CT*:->nternational School (>S) pays itsteachers who are hired fromabroad, or foreign-hires, a highersalary than its local-hires, whetherthe latter are 6ilipino or not (mostare 6ilipino, but some aremerican)! >t justi.es this underthe Udislocation factor M thatforeigners must be gien a highersalary both to attract them toteach here, and to compensatethem for the Osigni.canteconomic disadantagesQinoled in coming here! 1he

1eachers Dnion criesdiscrimination!-1he School grants foreign-hirescertain bene.ts not accordedlocal-hires! 1hese include housing,transportation, shipping costs,

ta7es, and home leae traelallowance! 6oreign-hires are alsopaid a salary rate twenty-.epercent (;EV) more than local-hires! 1he School justi.es thedi?erence on two Fsigni.canteconomic disadantagesF foreign-hires hae to endure, namelyI (a)the Fdislocation factorF and (b)limited tenure! 1he compensationscheme is simply the SchoolGs

adaptie measure to remaincompetitie on an internationalleel in terms of attractingcompetent professionals in the.eld of international education

4**5E: 9& there was a iolationof the e2ual protection clause:

6E7D:


16/24

-Les! 1he foregoing proisionsimpregnably institutionali*e in this

jurisdiction the long honored legaltruism of Fe2ual pay for e2ualwor+!F 8ersons who wor+ with

substantially e2ual 2uali.cations,s+ill, e?ort and responsibility,under similar conditions, shouldbe paid similar salaries!->n this case, we .nd the point-of-hire classi.cation employed byrespondent School to justify thedistinction in the salary rates offoreign-hires and local hires to bean inalid classi.cation! 1here isno reasonable distinction betweenthe serices rendered by foreign-hires and local-hires! 1he practiceof the School of according highersalaries to foreign-hirescontraenes public policy and,certainly, does not desere thesympathy of this Court!-9e agree, howeer, that foreign-hires do not belong to the samebargaining unit as the local-hires!

hese bene.ts, such as housing,transportation, shipping costs,ta7es, and home leae traelallowance, are reasonably relatedto their status as foreign-hires,and justify the e7clusion of theformer from the latter! 1o includeforeign-hires in a bargaining unitwith local-hires would not assureeither group the e7ercise of theirrespectie collectie bargaining

rights!

DEC* vs *an Die.o, 1%0 *C#)>?? (December 21, 19%9C#5A, '",

)CT*:-Respondent San iego has

un+ed the '1 (ational'edical dmission 1est) three

times! 9hen he applied to ta+eagain, petitioner rejected hisapplication based on the Othree-un+-ruleQ! =e then .led apetition before the R1C on the

ground of due process and e2ualprotection and challenging theconstitutionality of the order! 1hepetition was granted by the R1Ctherefore this petition!->n his original petition formandamus, he .rst ino+ed hisconstitutional rights to academicfreedom and 2uality education!

1he additional grounds raisedwere due process and e2ualprotection!

4**5E: 9& there was a iolationof the e2ual protection clause:

6E7D:-o! 1he contention that thechallenged rule iolates the e2ualprotection clause is not well-ta+en! law does not hae to

operate with e2ual force on allpersons or things to beconformable to rticle >>>, Section5 of the Constitution!

1here can be no 2uestion that asubstantial distinction e7istsbetween medical students andother students who are notsubjected to the '1 and thethree-un+ rule! 1he medicalprofession directly a?ects the

ery lies of the people, unli+eother careers which, for thisreason, do not re2uire moreigilant regulation! 1heaccountant, for e7ample, whilebelonging to an e2uallyrespectable profession, does nothold the same delicateresponsibility as that of thephysician and so need not be

similarly treated!


17/24

-1here would be une2ualprotection if some applicants whohae passed the tests areadmitted and others who haealso 2uali.ed are denied

entrance! >n other words, whatthe e2ual protection re2uires ise2uality among e2uals!

Philiine 'u-.es)ssociationn" v" Pra-o, 22=*C#) =0? ($ovember 11,199?Crunfact, the fran+ing priilege hasbeen withdrawn not only from the

Judiciary but also the &ce ofdult %ducation, the >nstitute ofational anguage@ the

1elecommunications &ce@ the8hilippine eposit >nsuranceCorporation@ the ational=istorical Commission@ the rmed6orces of the 8hilippines@ thermed 6orces of the 8hilippinesadies Steering Committee@ theCity and 8roincial 8rosecutors@

the 1anodbayan (&ce of Special8rosecutor)@ the abataangBarangay@ the Commission on the6ilipino anguage@ the 8roincialand City ssessors@ and theational Council for the 9elfare ofisabled 8ersons!

4**5E*: 9& R o! $0E4iolated the e2ual protectionclause:

6E7D:-Les! >n lumping the Judiciary withthe other oces from which thefran+ing priilege has beenwithdrawn, Section 0E has placedthe courts of justice in a categoryto which it does not belong! >f itrecogni*es the need of the8resident of the 8hilippines and

the members of Congress for thefran+ing priilege, there is no


18/24

reason why it should notrecogni*e a similar and in factgreater need on the part of the

Judiciary for such priilege! 9hilewe may appreciate the

withdrawal of the fran+ingpriilege from the rmed 6orcesof the 8hilippines adies SteeringCommittee, we fail to understandwhy the Supreme Court should besimilarly treated as thatCommittee! nd while we mayconcede the need of the ationalCensus and Statistics &ce forthe fran+ing priilege, we areintrigued that a similar if notgreater need is not recogni*ed inthe courts of justice!-the 8hilippine 8ostal Corporation,as a goernment-controlledcorporation, was created and ise7pected to operate for thepurpose of promoting the publicserice! 9hile it may hae beenestablished primarily for priategain, it cannot e7cuse itself from

performing certain functions forthe bene.t of the public ine7change for the franchisee7tended to it by the goernmentand the many adantages itenjoys under its charter!-&n the contrary, we .nd itsrepealing clause to be adiscriminatory proision thatdenies the Judiciary the e2ualprotection of the laws guaranteed

for all persons or things similarlysituated! 1he distinction made bythe law is super.cial! >t is notbased on substantial distinctionsthat ma+e real di?erencesbetween the Judiciary and thegrantees of the fran+ing priilege!

Tata- vs *ecretar+ o Ener.+,!"#" $o" 12@?&0 ($ovember >,199=Puno, '",

)CT*:-1he petitions challenge theconstitutionality of R o! "5"ndustry and 6or&ther 8urposes!Q 1hederegulation process has twophasesI (a) the transition phase(ug! 5;, 5//#) and the (b) fullderegulation phase (6eb! ", 5//$through %& o! 0$;)!Sec! 5E of R o! "5"

The Equal Protection Clause

Documents

Transcript of The Equal Protection Clause