6 equal protection

8/13/2019 6 Equal Protection

1/18

NarrativesConstitutional Law II

Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola2005

Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlie !"0 #hili$$ines license"

Some %i&hts %eserved"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ph/


2/18

'able o( Contents

#AS)I *#hili$$ine Association o( Service )+$orters Inc, v" rilon *G% L-./5.1 !0 une /.., 3 /Sison v" Ancheta *G% L-54!/1 25 ul /.4, 3 /

#eo$le v" 6ernande7 *G% L-8025-281 /. ul /58, 3 2#eo$le v" Isinain *G% L-2.591 2. :ebruar /50, 3 !Chave7 v" #CGG *G% /!09/81 ecember /., 3 4

Nune7 v" Sandi&anbaan *G% L-505./-508/91 !0 anuar /.2, 3 5Lacson v" )+ecutive Secretar *G% /2.081 20 anuar /, 3 8Soriano v" Court o( A$$eals *G% /2!!81 4 March /, 3 .

;NI< v" Comelec *G% 585/51 ! A$ril /./, 3 Ceni7a v" Comelec *G% L-52!041 2. anuar /.0, 3

#hili$$ine ud&es Association *G% /05!9/1 // November /!, 3 /0 vs" ?uisumbin& *G% /2..451 / une 2000, 3 /4#hili$$ine %ural )lectric Coo$erative Association Inc" =#6IL%)CA>1 et" al"

vs" Secretar o( e$artment o( Interior and Local Government =ILG> *G% /4!0981 /0 une 200!, """/5

This collection contains fifteen (15) casessummarized in this format by

Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student)

during the First emester! school year "##5$"##%

in the &olitical 'aw eiew class

under *ean Mariano Magsalin +r.

at the ,rellano -niersity chool of 'aw (,-').

om/iled as &*F! e/tember "#1".

0erne Guerrero entered ,-' in +une "##"

and eentually graduated from ,-' in "##%.

e /assed the &hili//ine bar e2aminations immediately after (,/ril "##3).

berne&uerrero"word$ress"com


3/18

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

96 PASEI [Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc] v. Drilon [GR L-!9"# $% &'ne !9]

En Banc, Sarmiento (J): 12 concur, 2 on leave

(acts) The Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) is a firm "engaged principally in therecritment of !ilipino or#ers, male and female, for overseas placement." It challenged the $onstittional

validity of %&'Es %epartment &rder (series of *++), in the character of "idelines overning theTemporary Sspension of %eployment of !ilipino %omestic and -osehold or#ers," in a petition forcertiorari and prohi/ition. The measre is assailed () for "discrimination against males or females0" that it"does not apply to all !ilipino or#ers /t only to domestic helpers and females ith similar s#ills0" (1) for/eing violative of the right to travel, and (2) for /eing an invalid exercise of the lama#ing poer, policepoer /eing legislative, and not exective, in character. PASEI also invo#ed Section 2 of Article 3III of the$onstittion providing for or#er participation "in policy and decision4ma#ing processes affecting their rightsand /enefits as may /e provided /y la as %epartment &rder 5o. , as contended, as passed in the a/senceof prior consltations. It also claimed that it violated the $harter6s non4impairment clase, in addition to the"great and irrepara/le in7ry" that PASEI mem/ers face shold the &rder /e frther enforced. &n 18 9ay*++, the Solicitor eneral, on /ehalf of the Secretary of 'a/or and Administrator of the P&EA, filed a$omment informing the $ort that on + 9arch *++, the 'a/or Secretary lifted the deployment /an in the

states of Ira:, ;ordan, erland. Ins/mitting the validity of the challenged "gidelines," the Solicitor eneral invo#es the police poer of thePhilippine State.

Iss'e)hether %epartment &rder ndly discriminates against omen.

*el+) %epartment &rder applies only to "female contract or#ers," /t it does not there/y ma#e an ndediscrimination /eteen the sexes. ?E:ality /efore the la" nder the $onstittion does not import a perfectidentity of rights among all men and omen. It admits of classifications, provided that () sch classificationsrest on s/stantial distinctions0 (1) they are germane to the prposes of the la0 (2) they are not confined toexisting conditions0 and (@) they apply e:ally to all mem/ers of the same class. The classification made the preference for female or#ers rests on s/stantial distinctions. The sordid tales of maltreatment

sffered /y migrant !ilipina or#ers, even rape and varios forms of tortre, confirmed /y testimonies ofretrning or#ers, are compelling motives for rgent overnment action. As precisely the careta#er of$onstittional rights, the $ort is called pon to protect victims of exploitation. In flfilling that dty, the$ort sstains the overnment6s efforts. There is no evidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances,!ilipino men a/road have /een afflicted ith an identical predicament. %iscrimination in this case is 7stified.!rther, the impgned gidelines are applica/le to all female domestic overseas or#ers, not all !ilipinaor#ers. -ad the /an /een given niversal applica/ility, then it old have /een nreasona/le and ar/itrary,de to the fact that not all of them are similarly circmstanced. hat the $onstittion prohi/its is the singlingot of a select person or grop of persons ithin an existing class, to the pre7dice of sch a person or gropor reslting in an nfair advantage to another person or grop of persons. here the classification is /ased onsch distinctions that ma#e a real difference as infancy, sex, and stage of civili>ation of minority grops, the/etter rle is to recogni>e its validity only if the yong, the omen, and the cltral minorities are singled otfor favora/le treatment.

9, Sison v. Ancheta [GR L-"9$!# " &'l/ !9]

En Banc, Fernando (J): 9 concur, 2 concur in result, 1 concur in separate opinion, 1 took no part

(acts) Antero 9. Sison ;r., as taxpayer, alleges that Section of BP 28 (allegedly modifying Section 1 ofthe *CC 5ational Internal Devene $ode, hich provides for rates of tax on citi>ens or residents on aFtaxa/le compensation income, /F taxa/le net income, cF royalties, pri>es, and other innings, dF interestfrom /an# deposits and yield or any other monetary /enefit from deposit s/stittes and from trst fnd andsimilar arrangements, eF dividends and share of individal partner in the net profits of taxa/le partnership, fF

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )


4/18


ad7sted gross income. ) ndly discriminated against him /y the imposition of higher rates of tax pon hisincome arising from the exercise of his profession vis4a4vis those hich are imposed pon fixed income orsalaried individal taxpayers. -e characteri>es the a/ove section as ar/itrary amonting to class legislation,oppressive and capricios in character0 that there is a transgression of /oth the e:al protection and deprocess clases of the $onstittion as ell as of the rle re:iring niformity in taxation.

Iss'e) hether professionals and /sinessmen, li#e Sison, are ndly discriminated for not /eing entitled todedctions for income tax prposes.

*el+)The rle of taxation shall /e niform and e:ita/le. This re:irement is met hen the tax operates iththe same force and effect in every place here the s/7ect may /e fond. The rle of niformity does not callfor perfect niformity or perfect e:ality, /ecase this is hardly attaina/le. Taxpayers may /e classified intodifferent categories. It is enogh that the classification mst rest pon s/stantial distinctions that ma#e realdifferences. In the case of the gross income taxation em/odied in BP 28, the discerni/le /asis ofclassification is the sscepti/ility of the income to the application of generali>ed rles removing all dedcti/leitems for all taxpayers ithin the class and fixing a set of redced tax rates to /e applied to all of them.Taxpayers ho are recipients of compensation income are set apart as a class. As there is practically no

overhead expense, these taxpayers are not entitled to ma#e dedctions for income tax prposes /ecase theyare in the same sitation more or less. &n the other hand, in the case of professionals in the practice of theircalling and /sinessmen, there is no niformity in the costs or expenses necessary to prodce their income. Itold not /e 7st then to disregard the disparities /y giving all of them >ero dedction and indiscriminatelyimpose on all ali#e the same tax rates on the /asis of gross income. There is ample 7stification to adopt thegross system of income taxation to compensation income, hile contining the system of net income taxationas regards professional and /siness income.

9 People v. *ernan+e0 [GR L-6%"-6# ! &'l/ !9"6]

Resolution En Banc, Concepcion (J): concur, 1 concurs in result

(acts) () Amado G. -ernande> alias Gictor alias Soliman alias Amado alias AG- alias Gictor Soliman, (1)

illermo $apadocia alias -an Bantiling alias $ap alias . $apadocia, (2) 9ariano P. Balgos alias Ba#alalias Tony $ollantes alias Bonifacio, (@) Alfredo Salo alias Elias alias !red alias A.B.S. alias A.B., (8)Andres Baisa, ;r. alias Ben alias Andy (H) enaro de la $r> alias on>alo alias orio alias Arong, (C)A:ilino Bnsol alias Anong, (+) Adriano Samson alias %anoy, (*) ;an ;. $r> alias ;ohnny 1, alias ;essieilson alias illiam, () ;aco/o Espino, () Amado Dacanday, (1) !ermin Dodillas, and (2) ;lian'manog alias 9ane, ere accsed of the crime of re/ellion ith mltiple mrder, arsons and ro//eries.The prosection maintained that -ernande> is charged ith re/ellion complexed ith mrders, arsons andro//eries, for hich the capital pnishment may /e imposed. The defense contends, among other things, thatre/ellion can not /e complexed ith mrder, arson, or ro//ery. The loer cort sentenced -ernande> merelyto life imprisonment. A petition for /ail as filed /y Amado -ernande> on 1+ %ecem/er *82, hich asdenied /y a resoltion of the Spreme $ort dated 1 !e/rary *8@. A similar petition for /ail as filed /y-ernande> on 1H ;ne *8@ and reneed on 11 %ecem/er *88.

Iss'e)hether -ernande> is entitled to right to /ail.

*el+)Inasmch as the acts specified in Article 28 of the Devised Penal $ode constitte one single crime, itfollos necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article @+, hich re:ires thereforthe commission of, at least, to crimes. -ence, the Spreme cort has never in the past convicted any personof the "complex crime of re/ellion ith mrder". hat is more, it appears that in every one of the cases ofre/ellion p/lished in the Philippine Deports (=S vs. 'agnason, 2 Phil. @C10 =S vs. Baldello, 2 Phil. 8*, =Svs. Ayala, H Phil. 80 'eage vs. People, C2 Phil. 88), the defendants therein ere convicted of simplere/ellion, althogh they had #illed several persons, sometimes peace officers. The ingredients of a crime form



5/18


part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are a/sor/ed /y the same and cannot /e pnished either separatelytherefrom or /y the application of Article @+ of the Devised Penal $ode. The la pnishing re/ellion (Article28, Devised Penal $ode) specifically mentions the act of engaging in ar and committing serios violenceamong its essential elements, ths clearly indicating that everything done in the prosection of said ar, as ameans necessary therefor, is em/raced therein. 5ational, as ell as international, las and 7risprdence

overhelmingly favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in frtherance of a political offense,are divested of their character as "common" offenses and assme the political complexion of the main crimeof hich they are mere ingredients, and, conse:ently, cannot /e pnished separately from the principaloffense, or complexed ith the same, to 7stify the imposition of a graver penalty. The policy of or statteson re/ellion is to consider all acts committed in frtherance thereof as constitting only one crime, pnisha/leith one single penalty. !rther, the settled policy of or las on re/ellion, since the /eginning of the centry,has /een one of decided leniency, in comparison ith the las enforce dring the Spanish regime. Althoghthe overnment has, for the past 8 or H years, adopted a more vigoros corse of action in the apprehensionof violators of said la and in their prosection the esta/lished policy of the State, as regards the pnishmentof the clprits has remained nchanged since *21. !rthermore, to deny /ail it is not enogh that theevidence of gilt is strong0 it mst also appear that in case of conviction the defendant6s criminal lia/ilityold pro/a/ly call for a capital pnishment. Ths, in conclsion, nder the allegations of the amended

information against -ernande>, the mrders, arsons and ro//eries descri/ed therein are mere ingredients ofthe crime of re/ellion allegedly committed /y said defendants, as means "necessary" for the perpetration ofsaid offense of re/ellion0 that the crime charged in the amended information is, therefore, simple re/ellion,not the complex crime of re/ellion ith mltiple mrder, arsons and ro//eries0 that the maximm penaltyimposa/le nder sch charge cannot exceed 1 years of prision mayor and a fine of P1,0 and that, inconformity ith the policy of the Spreme $ort in dealing ith accsed persons amena/le to a similarpnishment, said defendant may /e alloed /ail.

99 People v. Isinain [GR L-",# (e1r'ar/ !9"%]

Second !ivision, Ben"#on (J): $ concur

(acts) In the morning of C 9arch *@C, =r/ano $r>, the encargado of the cocont grove of Artro

Esta:io in 'atan and Balagtasan, $ity of Jam/oanga, as informed /y one of the gards that there ere 2persons stealing coconts in the said plantation. $r> called Ernesto !argas, Esta:ios trc# driver, andaccompanied /y some la/orers, proceeded to the plantation. There the grop sa 2 persons, choppingcoconts. hen they approached, the trespassers started to rn aay, /t $r> fired a shot into the air, andone stopped and as apprehended. -e trned ot to /e 9oro Isnain, ho, pon investigation /y the precinctcommander of the police station ('t. Bcoy) ac#noledged his clpa/ility, as#ed for pardon and identified hisconfederates as 9oros Addi and A#i# (ho are still at large). Before the 7stice of the peace he pleaded giltyto the charge. -oever, in the $ort of !irst Instance ($!I), he changed his mind. -e admitted he had /eenarrested dring the raid, /t s/mitted the flimsy excse that he had merely gone to the place /ecase he asthirsty, and confessed that he 7oined the other to thieves in order to drin# cocont ater. -is attorney deofficio raised the constittionality of Article 2 of the Devised Penal $ode, as it allegedly pnishes thelarceny of sch prodcts (the stealing of coconts) more heavily than the ta#ing aay of similar prodce (riceand sgar) and there/y denies 9oro Isinain e:al protection of the las.

Iss'e)hether the harsher penalties in the theft of coconts over other o/7ects of theft renders the penal lacontrary to the constittional garanty on e:al protection of the la.

*el+) 5o. Althogh the constittional garanty re:ires the treatment ali#e, in the same place and nder li#ecircmstances and conditions, of all persons s/7ected to state legislation0 a state, as a part of its police poer,may exercise a large measre of discretion, ithot violating the e:al protection garanty, in creating anddefining criminal offenses, and may ma#e classifications as to persons amena/le to pnishment, so long as theclassifications are reasona/le and the legislation /ears e:ally on all in the same class, and, here a



6/18


reasona/le classification is made as /eteen persons or corporations, the persons or corporations in each classmay /e dealt ith in a manner different from that employed ith regard to the persons or corporations inother classes. -erein, on the theft of coconts, the prpose of the heavier penalty is to encorage and protectthe development of the cocont indstry as one of the sorces of the national economy. =nli#e rice and sgarcane farms here the range of vision is no/strcted, cocont groves can not /e efficiently atched /ecase

of the natre of the groth of cocont trees0 and ithot a special measre to protect this #ind of property, itill /e the favorite resort of thieves. There is therefore, some reason for the special treatment accorded theindstry and as it can not /e said that the classification is entirely ithot /asis.

!%% 2have0 v. P2GG [GR !$%,!6# 9 Dece31er !99]

First !ivision, %an"ani&an (J): ' concur

(acts)!rancisco I. $have>, as "taxpayer, citi>en and former government official ho initiated the prosectionof the 9arcoses and their cronies ho committed nmitigated plnder of the p/lic treasry and thesystematic s/7gation of the contry6s economy," alleges that hat impelled him to /ring the action ereseveral nes reports /annered in a nm/er of /roadsheets sometime in Septem/er **C referring to () thealleged discovery of /illions of dollars of 9arcos assets deposited in varios coded acconts in Siss /an#s0

and (1) the reported exection of a compromise, /eteen the government (throgh P$) and the 9arcosheirs, on ho to split or share these assets. $have>, invo#ing his constittional right to information and thecorrelative dty of the state to disclose p/licly all its transactions involving the national interest, demandsthat the Presidential $ommission on ood overnment (P$) ma#e p/lic any and all negotiations andagreements pertaining to P$6s tas# of recovering the 9arcoses6 ill4gotten ealth. -e claimed that anycompromise on the alleged /illions of ill4gotten ealth involves an isse of "paramont p/lic interest," sinceit has a "de/ilitating effect on the contry6s economy" that old /e greatly pre7dicial to the national interestof the !ilipino people. P$ claimed $have>s action is prematre as he has not as#ed the P$ to disclosethe negotiations and agreements and that the proposed terms of the Agreements have not /ecome effectiveand /inding. They frther aver that the 9arcos heirs have s/mitted the s/7ect Agreements to theSandigan/ayan for its approval, hich the Dep/lic has opposed as it has not /een ratified nor s/mitted tothe President for approval0 and that the 9arcos heirs have failed to comply ith the nderta#ings,

particlarly the collation and s/mission of an inventory of their assets. &n * Agst **+, loria, $elnan,Scarlet and Teresa, all srnamed ;opson, filed /efore the $ort a 9otion for Intervention, attaching theretotheir Petition in Intervention. They aver that they are "among the , claimants hose right to claim fromthe 9arcos !amily andKor the 9arcos Estate is recogni>ed /y the decision in In re Estate of !erdinand9arcos, -man Dights 'itigation, 9aximo -ilao, et al., $lass Plaintiffs 5o. *14881H, = .S. $ort ofAppeals for the *th $ircit =S App. 'exis @C*H, ;ne H, **@ and the %ecision of the Siss Spreme $ortof %ecem/er , **C"0 and as sch, they claim to have personal and direct interest in the s/7ect matter ofthe case, since a distri/tion or disposition of the 9arcos properties may adversely affect their legitimateclaims. In a minte Desoltion issed on 1@ Agst **+, the $ort granted their motion to intervene.

Iss'e) hether the civil and criminal lia/ilities of the 9arcoses may /e compromised, as em/odied in theeneral and Spplemental Agreements /eteen the P$ and the 9arcoses.

*el+) In general, the la encorages compromises in civil cases, except ith regard to the folloing mattersL() the civil stats of persons, (1) the validity of a marriage or a legal separation, (2) any grond for legalseparation, (@) ftre spport, (8) the 7risdiction of corts, and (H) ftre legitime. And li#e any othercontract, the terms and conditions of a compromise mst not /e contrary to la, morals, good cstoms, p/licpolicy or p/lic order. A compromise is /inding and has the force of la /eteen the parties, nless theconsent of a party is vitiated sch as /y mista#e, frad, violence, intimidation or nde inflence orhen there is forgery, or if the terms of the settlement are so palpa/ly nconsciona/le. In the latter instances,the agreement may /e invalidated /y the corts. In the a/sence of an express prohi/ition, the rle oncompromises in civil actions nder the $ivil $ode is applica/le to P$ cases. Sch principle is prsant to



7/18


the o/7ectives of Exective &rder (E&) @, particlarly the 7st and expeditios recovery of ill4gotten ealth,so that it may /e sed to hasten economic recovery. -oever, any compromise relating to the civil lia/ilityarising from an offense does not atomatically terminate the criminal proceeding against or extingish thecriminal lia/ility of the malefactor. hile a compromise in civil sits is expressly athori>ed /y la, there isno similar general sanction as regards criminal lia/ility. The athority mst /e specifically conferred. The

poer to grant criminal immnity as conferred on P$ /y Section 8 of E& @, as amended /y E& @4A.!rom the ording of the la, hoever, it can /e easily dedced that the person referred to is a itness in theproceeding, not the principal respondent, defendant or accsed. -erein, the eneral and SpplementalAgreements /eteen the P$ and the 9arcos heirs have serios legal flas. !irst, the Agreements do notconform to the a/ove re:irements of E& @ and @4A. $riminal immnity nder Section 8 cannot /e grantedto the 9arcoses, ho are the principal defendants in the spate of ill4gotten ealth cases pending /efore theSandigan/ayan. Second, nder Item 1 of the eneral Agreement, the P$ commits to exempt from allforms of taxes the properties to /e retained /y the 9arcos heirs. This is a clear violation of the $onstittion.The poer to tax and to grant tax exemptions is vested in the $ongress and, to a certain extent, in the locallegislative /odies. The P$ has a/soltely no poer to grant tax exemptions, even nder the cover of itsathority to compromise ill4gotten ealth cases. Third, the government /inds itself to case the dismissal ofall cases against the 9arcos heirs, pending /efore the Sandigan/ayan and other corts. This is a direct

encroachment on 7dicial poers, particlarly in regard to criminal 7risdiction. &nce a case has /een filed/efore a cort of competent 7risdiction, the matter of its dismissal or prsance lies ithin the fll discretionand control of the 7dge, once 7risdiction is ac:ired /y the trial cort. The P$, as the governmentprosector of ill4gotten ealth cases, cannot garantee the dismissal of all sch criminal cases against the9arcoses pending in the corts, for said dismissal is not ithin its sole poer and discretion. !orth, thegovernment also aives all claims and conterclaims, "hether past, present, or ftre, matred or inchoate,"against the 9arcoses. Again, this all4encompassing stiplation is contrary to la. =nder the $ivil $ode, anaction for ftre frad may not /e aived. The stiplation in the Agreement does not specify the exact scopeof ftre claims against the 9arcoses that the government there/y relin:ishes. This is a palpa/le violation ofthe de process and e:al protection garantees of the $onstittion. It effectively ensconces the 9arcoses/eyond the reach of the la. It also sets a dangeros precedent for p/lic acconta/ility. It is a virtal arrantfor p/lic officials to amass p/lic fnds illegally, since there is an open option to compromise their lia/ility

in exchange for only a portion of their ill4gotten ealth. !ifth, the Agreements do not provide for a definite ordetermina/le period ithin hich the parties shall flfill their respective prestations. It may ta#e a lifetime/efore the 9arcoses s/mit an inventory of their total assets. Sixth, the Agreements do not state ithspecificity the standards for determining hich assets shall /e forfeited /y the government and hich shall /eretained /y the 9arcoses. hile the Spplemental Agreement provides that the 9arcoses shall /e entitled to18M of the N28H million Siss deposits (less government recovery expenses), sch sharing arrangementpertains only to the said deposits. 5o similar splitting scheme is defined ith respect to the other properties.5either is there, anyhere in the Agreements, a statement of the /asis for the 184C8 percent sharing ratio.!inally, the a/sence of then President Damos6 approval of the principal Agreement, and express conditiontherein, renders the compromise incomplete and nenforcea/le. 5evertheless, even if sch approval ereo/tained, the Agreements old still not /e valid.

!%! 4'ne0 v. San+i5an1a/an [GR L-"%"!-"%6!,# $% &an'ar/ !9]

En Banc, Fernando (J): concur, 2 took no part

(acts)Information ere filed against Dfino G. 5ne> /efore Sandigan/ayan on 1 !e/rary and 1H 9arch*C* for the crime of estafa throgh falsification of p/lic and commercial docments committed inconnivance ith his co4accsed, all p/lic officials, in several cases. Thereafter, on 8 9ay, pon /eingarraigned, he filed a motion to :ash on constittional and 7ridical gronds. A ee# later, the Sandigan/ayandenied the motion. A motion for reconsideration as filed a day later, and as li#eise denied. 5ne> filed apetition for certiorari and prohi/ition ith the Spreme $ort, claiming that Presidential %ecree @+H, hichcreated the Sandigan/ayan, is violative of the de process, e:al protection, and ex post facto clases of the



8/18


$onstittion.

Iss'e) hether the trial of the accsed, a p/lic official, /y the Sandigan/ayan ndly discriminates againstthe accsed, in light of the difference of the procedres (especially appellate) in the Sandigan/ayan vis4a4visreglar corts.

*el+) The $onstittion provided for /t did not create a special $ort, the Sandigan/ayan, ith "7risdictionover criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrpt practices and sch other offenses committed /yp/lic officers and employees, inclding those in government4oned or controlled corporations, in relation totheir office as may /e determined /y la." It came into existence ith the issance in *C+ of a Presidential%ecree. $lassification mst /e /ased on s/stantial distinctions hich ma#e real differences0 it mst /egermane to the prposes of the la0 it mst not /e limited to existing conditions only, and mst apply e:allyto each mem/er of the class. The constittion specifically ma#es mention of the creation of a special cort,the Sandigan/ayan, precisely in response to a pro/lem, i.e. dishonesty in the p/lic service, the rgency ofhich cannot /e denied. It follos that those ho may thereafter /e tried /y sch cort oght to have /eenaare as far /ac# as C ;anary *C2, hen the present $onstittion came into force, that a differentprocedre for the accsed therein, hether petitioner is a private citi>en or a p/lic official, is not necessarily

offensive to the e:al protection clase of the $onstittion. !rther, the omission of the $ort of Appeals asintermediate tri/nal does not deprive protection of li/erty. The innocence or gilt of an accsed in theSandigan/ayan is passed pon /y 247dge cort of its division. 9oreover, a nanimos vote is re:ired,failing hich "the Presiding ;stice shall designate to other 7stices from among the mem/ers of the $ortto sit temporarily ith them, forming a division of five 7stices, and the concrrence of a ma7ority of schdivision shall /e necessary for rendering 7dgment." If convicted, the Sandigan/ayan en /anc has the dty ifhe see#s a revie to see hether any error of la as committed to 7stify a reversal of the 7dgment.

!% Lacson v. Exec'tive Secretar/ [GR !%96# % &an'ar/ !999]

En Banc, *artine# (J): 1 concur

(acts) &n + 9ay **8, persons /elieved to /e mem/ers of the Oratong Baleleng gang ere slain along

$ommonealth Avene in on $ity /y elements of the Anti4Ban# Do//ery and Intelligence Tas# rop(ABDIT) headed /y P5P $hief Sperintendent ;eel $anson. The ABDIT as composed of policeofficers from the Traffic 9anagement $ommand (T9$) led /y Senior Sperintendent !rancisco J/ia, ;r.0PA$$ Tas# !orce -a/agat (PA$$4T!-) headed /y $hief Sperintendent Panfilo 9. 'acson0 $entral Police%istrict $ommand ($P%$) led /y $hief Sperintendent Dicardo de 'eon0 and the $riminal Investigation$ommand ($I$) headed /y $hief Sperintendent Domeo Acop. Acting on a media expose of SP&1 Edardodelos Deyes, a mem/er of the $I$, alleged that hat actally transpired as a smmary exection and not ashoot4ot /eteen the Oratong Baleleng gang mem/ers and the ABDIT. &m/dsman Aniano %esiertoformed a panel of investigators headed /y the %epty &m/dsman for 9ilitary Affairs, BienvenidoBlancaflor, to investigate the incident. This panel later a/solved from any criminal lia/ility all the P5Pofficers and personnel allegedly involved in the + 9ay **8 incident, ith a finding that the said incidentas a legitimate police operation. -oever, a revie /oard led /y &verall %epty &m/dsman !ranciscoGilla modified the Blancaflor panel6s finding and recommended the indictment for mltiple mrder against 1Haccsed, inclding 'acson, J/ia, and Acop. This recommendation as approved /y the &m/dsman, exceptfor the ithdraal of the charges against $hief Spt. Dicardo de 'eon. &n 1 5ovem/er **8, 'acson asamong those charged as principal in informations for mrder /efore the Sandigan/ayan6s Second %ivision,hile Acop and J/ia ere among those charged in the same informations as accessories after4the4fact. =ponmotion /y all the accsed in the informations, the Sandigan/ayan alloed them to file a motion forreconsideration of the &m/dsman6s action. After condcting a reinvestigation, the &m/dsman filed on 9arch **H, amended informations /efore the Sandigan/ayan, herein 'acson as charged only as anaccessory, together ith Acop and J/ia and others. &ne of the accsed as dropped from the case. &n 84H9arch **H, all the accsed filed separate motions :estioning the 7risdiction of the Sandigan/ayan,



9/18


asserting that nder the amended informations, the cases fall ithin the 7risdiction of the DT$ prsant toSection 1 (paragraphs a and c) of Dep/lic Act (DA) C*C8. They contend that the said la limited the7risdiction of the Sandigan/ayan to cases here one or more of the " principal accsed" are governmentofficials ith Salary rade (S) 1C or higher, or P5P officials ith the ran# of $hief Sperintendent(Brigadier eneral) or higher. The highest ran#ing principal accsed in the amended informations has the

ran# of only a $hief Inspector, and none has the e:ivalent of at least S 1C. &n + 9ay **H, a resoltionpenned /y ;stice %emetrio, ith ;stices 'agman and de 'eon concrring, and ;stices Bala7adia andarchitorena dissenting, the Sandigan/ayan admitted the amended information and ordered the casestransferred to the on $ity DT$ hich has original and exclsive 7risdiction nder Dep/lic Act, as noneof the principal accsed has the ran# of $hief Sperintendent or higher. &n C 9ay **H, the &ffice of theSpecial Prosector moved for a reconsideration, insisting that the cases shold remain ith theSandigan/ayan. hile motions for reconsideration ere pending resoltion, and even /efore the isse of7risdiction cropped p ith the filing of the amended informations on 9arch **H, -B 11** and -B *@(sponsored /y Depresentatives Edcel $. 'agman and 5eptali 9. on>ales II, respectively), as ell as SB +@@(sponsored /y Senator 5eptali on>ales), ere introdced in $ongress, definingKexpanding the 7risdiction ofthe Sandigan/ayan /y deleting the ord "principal" from the phrase "principal accsed" in Section 1(paragraphs a and c) of DA C*C8. These /ills ere consolidated and later approved into la as DA +1@* /y

the President of the Philippines on 8 !e/rary **C. &n 8 9arch **C, the Sandigan/ayan promlgated aDesoltion denying the motion for reconsideration of the Special Prosector, rling that it "stands pat in itsresoltion dated + 9ay **H. &n the same day, the Sandigan/ayan issed an Addendm to its 8 9arch **CDesoltion granting the Special Prosectors motion for reconsideration in light of the enactment of DA +1@*,admitting the amended information, and retaining 7risdiction to try and decide the cases. 'acson, ths,:estions the constittionality of Section @ of DA +1@*, inclding Section C thereof hich provides that thesaid la "shall apply to all cases pending in any cort over hich trial has not /egn as of the approvalhereof."

Iss'e) hether 'acson and his co4accsed ere placed nder a different category from those sitatedsimilarly to them, in light of the amendments nder Dep/lic Act +1@*.

*el+) The classification /eteen those pending cases involving the concerned p/lic officials hose trial hasnot yet commenced and hose cases cold have /een affected /y the amendments of the Sandigan/ayan7risdiction nder DA +1@*, as against those cases here trial had already started as of the approval of thela, rests on s/stantial distinction that ma#es real differences. In the first instance, evidence against themere not yet presented, hereas in the latter the parties had already s/mitted their respective proofs,examined itnesses and presented docments. Since it is ithin the poer of $ongress to define the7risdiction of corts s/7ect to the constittional limitations, it can /e reasona/ly anticipated that analteration of that 7risdiction old necessarily affect pending cases, hich is hy it has to provide for aremedy in the form of a transitory provision. Sections @ and C does not place 'acson and intervenors nder adifferent category from those similarly sitated as them. Precisely, paragraph a of Section @ provides that itshall apply to "all cases involving" certain p/lic officials and, nder the transitory provision in Section C, to"all cases pending in any cort." -oever, to fall nder the exclsive original 7risdiction of theSandigan/ayan, the folloing re:isites mst concrL () the offense committed is a violation of (a) D.A.2*, as amended (the Anti4raft and $orrpt Practices Act), (/) D.A. 2C* (the la on ill4gotten ealth), (c)$hapter II, Section 1, Title GII, Boo# II of the Devised Penal $ode (the la on /ri/ery), (d) Exective &rder5os. , 1, @, and @4A, issed in *+H (se:estration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies hether simpleor complexed ith other crimes0 (1) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (/), (c) and (e) is ap/lic official or employee holding any of the positions enmerated in paragraph a of Section @0 and (2) theoffense committed is in relation to the office. Specifically, an offense is said to have /een committed inrelation to the office if it (the offense) is "intimately connected" ith the office of the offender and perpetratedhile he as in the performance of his official fnctions. This intimate relation /eteen the offense chargedand the discharge of official dties "mst /e alleged in the information. -erein, the amended informations



10/18


are anting of specific factal averments to sho the intimate relationKconnection /eteen the offensecharged and the discharge of official fnction of the offenders. 9ere allegation in the amended informationthat the offense as committed /y the accsed p/lic officer "in relation to his office" is not sfficient. Thatphrase is merely a conclsion of la, not a factal averment that old sho the close intimacy /eteen theoffense charged and the discharge of the accsed6s official dties. !or failre to sho in the amended

informations that the charge of mrder as intimately connected ith the discharge of official fnctions of theaccsed P5P officers, the offense charged in the s/7ect criminal cases is plain mrder and, therefore, ithinthe exclsive original 7risdiction of the DT$, not the Sandigan/ayan.

!%$ Soriano v. 2o'rt of Appeals [GR !$9$6# arch !999]

Second !ivision, +uisum&in" (J): concur

(acts) &n C %ecem/er **2, Donald Soriano as convicted of the crime of Dec#less Imprdence reslting tohomicide, serios physical in7ries and damage to property. &n + 9arch **@, his application for pro/ationas granted /y the trial cort, hich imposed pon him terms and conditions () to meet his familyresponsi/ilities, (1) to devote himself to a specific employment and not to change employment ithot priornotice to the spervising officer0 andKor to prse a prescri/ed seclar stdy or vocational training, and (2) to

indemnify the heirs of the victim Isidrino %alyong in the amont of P*+,8H. as ordered /y the $ort. &n1H April **@, Assistant Prosector Ben7amin A. !adera filed a motion to cancel Soriano6s pro/ation de tohis failre to satisfy his civil lia/ility to the heirs of the victim, and a spplemental motion alleging Soriano6scommission of another crime for hich at that time he as aaiting arraignment. The Jam/ales Parole andPro/ation &ffice filed a comment recommending that Soriano /e alloed to contine ith his pro/ation andthat he /e re:ired instead to s/mit a program of payment of his civil lia/ility. &n 1 ;ne **@, the trialcort denied the prosector6s motion and directed Soriano to s/mit a program of payment of the civil lia/ilityimposed pon him. Thereafter, pro/ation officer 5elda %a 9aycong received information that Soriano6sfather, ho oned the vehicle involved in the accident hich #illed %alyong, received PH,8. asinsrance payment. Said amont as not trned over to the heirs of %alyong. %a 9aycong considered this aviolation of the terms and conditions of the pro/ation, and ths, s/mitted a manifestation to the trial cortpraying that Soriano /e made to explain his non4compliance ith the cort6s order of 1 ;ne **@, or that he

/e cited for contempt for sch non4compliance. The trial cort granted %a 9aycongs prayers in its 8 Agst**@ order, and ordered the Soriano once again to s/mit his program of payment. Soriano instead filed amotion for reconsideration explaining that he did not receive any notice of the order dated 1 ;ne **@., ashis consel failed to notify Soriano after he received a copy of said order on 12 ;ne **@. &n @ &cto/er**@, the trial cort issed an order declaring Soriano in contempt of cort for his failre to comply ith itsorders of 1 ;ne **@ and 8 Agst **@, and revo#ed the grant of pro/ation to Soriano and ordered that he/e arrested to serve the sentence originally imposed pon him. Soriano filed a special civil action forcertiorari ith the $ort of Appeals. The appellate cort dismissed the petition, holding that Soriano6s"st//orn nillingness" to comply ith the orders of the trial cort "shos his refsal to reform himself andto correct a rong." Sorianos motion for reconsideration as li#eise denied /y the appellate cort. Sorianofiled the petition for revie ith the Spreme $ort.

Iss'e)hether the re:irement to pay indemnity to the victims heirs, in light of the convicts application forpro/ation, is violative of the e:al protection clase of the $onstittion.

*el+) The re:irement to pay indemnity to the victim6s heirs is not violative of the e:al protection clase ofthe $onstittion. Soriano6s application for pro/ation had already /een granted. Satisfaction of his civil lia/ilityas not made a re:irement /efore he cold avail of pro/ation, /t as a condition for his contineden7oyment of the same. The trial cort cold not have done aay ith imposing payment of civil lia/ility as acondition for pro/ation. This is not an ar/itrary imposition /t one re:ired /y la. It is a conse:ence ofSoriano6s having /een convicted of a crime, and petitioner is /ond to satisfy this o/ligation regardless ofhether or not he is placed nder pro/ation. There is no reason hy Soriano cannot comply ith a simple



11/18


order to frnish the trial cort ith a program of payment of his civil lia/ility. -e may, indeed, /e poor, /tthis is precisely the reason hy the trial cort gave him the chance to ma#e his on program of payment.Onoing his on financial condition, he is in the /est position to formlate a program of payment that fits hisneeds and capacity. Sorianos refsal to comply ith orders cannot /e anything /t deli/erate. -e has refsedto comply ith the trial cort6s directive, /y :estioning instead the constittionality of the re:irement

imposed and harping on his alleged poverty as the reason for his failre to comply. Since pro/ation is not ana/solte right, and that it is a mere privilege hose grant rests pon the discretion of the trial cort. Its grantis s/7ect to certain terms and conditions that may /e imposed /y the trial cort. -aving the poer to grantpro/ation, it follos that the trial cort also has the poer to order its revocation in a proper case and nderappropriate circmstances.

!% 74ID8 v. 2o3elec [GR "6"!"# $ April !9!]

En Banc, Barredo (J): ' concur, 1 concur in result, 1 took no part, 1 on oicial leave

(acts)=5I%& IS a political organi>ation or aggrpation campaigning for "5&" votes to the amendments tothe $onstittion of the Philippines of *C2 proposed /y the Batasang Pam/ansa. $omelec issed 2 resoltionsall dated 8 9arch *+ (Desoltion @HC providing for Dles and Deglations for "e:al opportnity" on

p/lic discssions and de/ates on the ple/iscite :estions to /e s/mitted to the people on C April *+0Desoltion @H+ providing "e:al time on the se of the /roadcast media radio and televisionF in theple/iscite campaign"0 and Desoltion @H* providing for "e:al space on the se of the print media in the*+ ple/iscite of C April *+".) =5I%& addressed a letter to $omelec on 9arch *+ to grant it thesame opportnity as given President 9arcos, ho as campaigning for QRES. It also re:ested radio andtelevision coverage for its Pla>a 9iranda meeting on a letter dated C 9arch *+. $omelec issed aresoltion on + 9arch*+ denying the re:est of =5I%&0 stating that 9arcos condct his plong4plongin light of the official government thrst to amend the constittion and in his capacity as PresidentKPrime9inister and not as head of any political party to hich the =5I%& or any of its leaders does not have thesame constittional prerogatives vested in the PresidentKPrime 9inister, as sch, it has no right to "demand"e:al coverage /y media accorded President 9arcos. =5I%& sent a letter serving as its motion forreconsideration. The $omelec denied the letter4motion for lac# of merit in its resoltion of 11 9arch *+.

=5I%& appealed to the Spreme $ort.

Iss'e)hether the opposition shold /e given the same opportnity and facilities given to the President tocommnicate and dialoge ith the people on matters affecting the plan of government or of p/lic interest.

*el+)It is ndenia/le and /t natral that the head of state of every contry in the orld mst, from the verynatre of his position, /e accorded certain privileges not e:ally availa/le to those ho are opposed to him inthe sense that, since the head of state has the grave and tremendos responsi/ility of planning andimplementing the plan of government itself, either /y virte of the poplar mandate given to him nder thecorresponding provisions of the $onstittion and the las or any other dly recogni>ed grant of poer andathority, the opposition cannot /e placed at par ith him, since logically the opposition can only fiscali>e theadministration and pnctali>e its errors and shortcomings to the end that hen the dly schedled time forthe people to exercise their inaliena/le poer to ma#e a /etter choice, the opposition may have the chance toma#e them accept the alternative they can offer. Therefore, hen the head of state is afforded theopportnity or hen he feels it incm/ent pon him to commnicate and dialoge ith the people on anymatter affecting the plan of government or any other matter of p/lic interest, no office or entity of thegovernment is o/liged to give the opposition the same facilities /y hich its contrary vies may /eventilated.

!%" 2eni0a v. 2o3elec [GR L-"$%# &an'ar/ !9%]

En Banc, Concepcion Jr (J): 1- concur, 1 took no part

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )


12/18


(acts)&n 11 %ecem/er *C*, the Interim Batasang Pam/ansa enacted Batas Pam/ansa 8 providing for localelections on 2 ;anary *+. To implement this Act, $omelec adopted Desoltion @1, exclding + cities(inclding $e/ and 9andae) from participating in the election of provincial officials. Becase of itsincome, the $ity of $e/ is classified as a highly r/ani>ed city and the voters thereof cannot ta#e part in theelection of the elective provincial officials of the province of $e/, althogh the $harter of $e/ $ity allos

the :alified voters of the city to vote in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of $e/. The$ity of 9andae is classified as a component city. Bt the registered voters of the city cannot vote for theprovincial elective officials /ecase its $harter expressly provides that the registered voters of the city cannotparticipate in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of $e/, except to /e a candidate therefor.Damon B. $eni>a, !ederico $. $a/ilao ;r., 5elso ;. Dosal and Ale7andro D. Alinsg filed the petition forprohi/ition and mandams ith a prayer for a rit of preliminary in7nction, as taxpayers and registeredvoters in the $ities of $e/ and 9andae. They vigorosly assail Section 2 of BP 8, hich ses the annalincome of a given city as the /asis for classification of hether or not a particlar city is a highly r/ani>edcity hose voters may not participate in the election of provincial officials of the province here the city isgeographically located0 and DA 88* ($harter of 9andae $ity), hich ent into effect ithot the /enefit ofratification /y the residents of 9andae in a ple/iscite or referendm. They prayed that a restraining order totemporarily prohi/it the election for Provincial overnor and elective provincial officials in $e/, prohi/iting

the 5ational Treasrer to release p/lic fnds and the $ommission on Adit ($&A) to pass in adit said fndsin connection ith and for the prpose of holding the local elections0 and after hearing render Section 2 of BP++8 void, as ell as Section *H, Article 3GIII of DA 88* ($harter of 9andae).

Iss'e)hether the exclsion of inha/itants of highly r/ani>ed cities and component cities from electingprovincial government officials violate the e:al protection of la.

*el+)The e:al protection of the la contemplates e:ality in the en7oyment of similar rights and privilegesgranted /y la. It old have /een discriminatory and a denial of the e:al protection of the la if the statteprohi/ited an individal or grop of voters in the city from voting for provincial officials hile granting it toanother individal or grop of voters in the same city. The classification of cities into highly r/ani>ed citiesand component cities on the /asis of their reglar annal income is /ased pon s/stantial distinction. The

revene of a city old sho hether or not it is capa/le of existence and development as a relativelyindependent social, economic, and political nit. It old also sho hether the city has sfficient economicor indstrial activity as to arrant its independence from the province here it is geographically sitated.$ities ith smaller income need the contined spport of the provincial government ths 7stifying thecontined participation of the voters in the election of provincial officials in some instances. These cities/eing independent of the province in the administration of their affairs leaves the provincial governmentithot governmental spervision over highly r/ani>ed cities. Sch /eing the case, it is /t 7st and properto limit the selection and election of the provincial officials to the voters of the province hose interests arevitally affected and exclde therefrom the voters of highly r/ani>ed cities. !rther, express provisions in$harter of a $ity may exclde registered voters of the city from voting for the provincial officials of theprovince. The practice of alloing voters in one component city to vote for provincial officials and denyingthe same privilege to voters in another component city is a matter of legislative discretion hich violatesneither the $onstittion nor the voter6s right of sffrage.

!%6 Philippine &'+5es Association [GR !%"$,!# !! 4ove31er !99$]

En Banc, Cru# (J): 12 concur, 1 on leave

(acts) The Philippine ;dges Association (dly represented /y its President, Bernardo P. A/esamis, Gice4President for 'egal Affairs 9ariano 9. =mali, %irector for Pasig, 9a#ati and Pasay, 9etro 9anila Alfredo $.!lores, and $hairman of the $ommittee on 'egal Aid, ;ess . Bersamira, Presiding ;dges of the DegionalTrial $ort, Branch +8, on $ity and Branches H, HC and HH, Pasig, 9etro 9anila, respectively)0 the5ational $onfederation of the ;dges Association of the Philippines (composed of the 9etropolitan Trial



13/18


$ort ;dges Association represented /y its President, Deinato es the need of the President of the Philippinesand the mem/ers of $ongress for the fran#ing privilege, there is no reason hy it shold not recogni>e a



14/18


similar and in fact greater need on the part of the ;diciary for sch privilege.

!%, 8livare0 v. San+i5an1a/an [GR !!"$$# 8cto1er !99"]

Second !ivision, Re"alado (J): ' concur, 1 on leave

(acts) &n 8 %ecem/er **1, Baclaran $redit $ooperative, Inc. (B$$I), throgh its /oard mem/er Doger de'eon, charged Paraa:e 9ayor %r. Pa/lo D. &livare> ith Giolation of the Anti4raft and $orrpt PracticesAct for nreasona/ly refsing to isse a mayor6s permit despite re:est and follo4ps to implementParaa:e Sanggniang Bayan Desoltion C@@, (series of **1) hich &livare> himself approved on H&cto/er **1. Desoltion C@@ athori>ed B$$I to set p a night manfactrer6s fair dring the $hristmasfiesta cele/ration of and at Baclaran for H days from 5ovem/er **1 to 8 !e/rary **2 for hich theyill se a portion of the service road of Doxas Bolevard. Allegedly, B$$I exerted all possi/le efforts tosecre the necessary permit /t &livare> simply refsed to isse the same nless B$$I gives money to thelatter. Attached to B$$Is Deply4Affidavit as a copy of Exective &rder dated 12 5ovem/er **1 issed /y&livare> granting a grop of Baclaran4/ased organi>ationsKassociations of vendors the holding of "$hristmasAgro4Indstrial !air Sa Baclaran" from 1+ 5ovem/er **1 to 1+ !e/rary **2 sing certain portions of the5ational and 'ocal overnment DoadsKStreets in Baclaran for fnd raising. raft Investigation &fficer (I&)

III Dingpis condcted a preliminary investigation and issed on 11 Septem/er **2 a resoltionrecommending the prosection of &livare> for violation of Section 2(f) of Dep/lic Act (DA) 2*, asamended. &n H !e/rary **@, the information as filed against &livares ($riminal $ase 111H). &n C;anary **@, &livare> filed a 9otion for Deconsideration andKor Deinvestigation allegedly to rectify error ofla and on grond of nely discovered evidence. The motion as granted on 1@ ;anary **@. &n *!e/rary **2, &m/dsman disapproved the recommendation to ithdra the information as &livare> doesnot refte the allegation and that /ad faith is evident ith his persistent refsal to isse permit. &n +!e/rary **@, &livare> volntarily srrendered and posted a cash /ail /ond ith the Sandigan/ayan for histemporary release. &n 1 !e/rary **@, &livare> filed an &mni/s 9otion for a re4examination and re4assessment of the prosection6s report and docmentary evidence ith a vie to set aside the determination ofthe existence of pro/a/le case and ltimately the dismissal of the case0 hich as denied /y theSandigan/ayan on 2 9arch **@ in &pen $ort. In vie of &livare>6s refsal to enter any plea, the cort

ordered a plea of "not gilty" entered into his record. &n + 9arch **@, the prosection filed a 9otion tosspend Accsed Pendente 'ite. &n 9arch *, @ and 8, **@, &livare> filed a 9otion to Set Aside Plea andTo Dedce %enial &rder Into riting (ith Entry of Appearance), Spplemental 9otion to Set Aside Pleaand &pposition to 9otion to Sspend Accsed and Spplemental Pleading ith Additional &pposition to9otion to Sspend Accsed0 hich ere denied /y the Sandigan/ayan on @ April **@. The Sandigan/ayan,hoever, set aside the proceedings condcted on 2 9arch **@ inclding &livare>6s arraignment thsrevo#ing the plea of "not gilty" entered in his record in the interest of 7stice and to avoid frther delay in theprompt ad7dication of the case de to technicalities. &n 1 April **@, &livare> filed a motion forreconsideration hich as granted on 8 9ay **@. $onse:ently, the case as remanded to the &ffice ofthe &m/dsman for another reinvestigation to /e terminated ithin 2 days from notice. The reinvestigationas reassigned to SP& III Angel $. 9ayoralgo ho on 2 5ovem/er **@, recommended the dismissal of thecase. &n * %ecem/er **@, %SP ;ose de . !errer reversed the recommendation, finding &livare> lia/le /ygiving narranted /enefit thr manifest partiality to another grop on the flimsy reason that complainantfailed to apply for a /siness permit. The &m/dsman approved the reversal and on 1C %ecem/er **@directed the prosection to proceed nder the existing information. &n 2 ;anary **8, &livare> filed a9otion for Issance of S/poena %ces Tecm and Ad Testificandm to %SP ;ose de . !errer, SP& IIIDoger Ber/ano, Sr., and SP& III Angel 9ayoralgo, ;r. and on H ;anary **8, &livare> filed a 9otion toStri#e &t andKor Devie Deslt of Deinvestigation. The latter motion as denied /y Sandigan/ayan.&livare> filed the petition for certiorari and prohi/ition.

Iss'e)hether &livare> exhi/ited partiality in the denial of K inaction over B$$Is application for license.



15/18


*el+) &livare>6s sspected partiality may /e gleaned from the fact that he issed a permit in favor of thenidentified Baclaran4/ased vendors6 associations /y the mere expedient of an exective order, hereas somany re:irements ere imposed on B$$I /efore it cold /e granted the same permit. orse, &livare> failedto sho, in apparent disregard of B$$I6s right to e:al protection, that B$$I and the nidentified Baclaran4/ased vendors6 associations ere not similarly sitated as to give at least a sem/lance of legality to the

apparent haste ith hich said exective order as issed. It old seem that if there as any interest served/y sch exective order, it as that of &livare>. As the mayor of the mnicipality, the officials referred toere definitely nder his athority and he as not ithot recorse to ta#e appropriate action on the letter4application of B$$I althogh the same as not strictly in accordance ith normal procedre. There asnothing to prevent him from referring said letter4application to the licensing department, /t hichparadoxically he refsed to do. hether &livare> as impelled /y any material interest or lterior motivemay /e /eyond the $ort for the moment since this is a matter of evidence, /t the environmental facts andcircmstances are sfficient to create a /elief in the mind of a reasona/le man that this old not /ecompletely impro/a/le, a/sent contervailing clarification. 'astly, it may not /e amiss to add that &livare>, asa mnicipal mayor, is expressly athori>ed and has the poer to isse permits and licenses for the holding ofactivities for any charita/le or elfare prpose, prsant to Section @@@ (/) (2) (iv and v) of the 'ocalovernment $ode of ** (Dep/lic Act CH). -ence, he cannot really feign total lac# of athority to act on

the letter4application of B$$I.

!% i' v. 2o'rt of Appeals [GR !,!%# % &an'ar/ !999]

En Banc, %an"ani&an (J): 1 concur

(acts) &n 2 9arch **1, $ongress, ith the approval of the President, passed into la Dep/lic Act C11C("An Act Accelerating the $onversion of 9ilitary Deservations Into &ther Prodctive =ses, $reating theBases $onversion and %evelopment Athority for this Prpose, Providing !nds Therefor and for &therPrposes.). Section 1 thereof created the S/ic Special Economic Jone and granted thereto specialprivileges, sch as tax exemptions and dty4free importation of ra materials, capital and e:ipment to/siness enterprises and residents located and residing in the said >ones. &n ;ne **2, President Damosissed Exective &rder (E&) *C clarifying the application of the tax and dty incentives. &n * ;ne **2,

the President issed E& *C4A, specifying the area ithin hich the tax4and4dty4free privilege as operative(i.e. the secred area consisting of the presently fenced4in former S/ic 5aval Base). &n 1H &cto/er **@,$onrado '. Ti, ;an T. 9onteli/ano ;r. and Isagani 9. ;ngco challenged /efore the Spreme $ort theconstittionality of E& *C4A for allegedly /eing violative of their right to e:al protection of the las,inasmch as the order granted tax and dty incentives only to /sinesses and residents ithin the "secredarea" of the S/ic Special Economic Jone and denying them to those ho live ithin the Jone /t otsidesch "fenced4in" territory. In a Desoltion dated 1C ;ne **8, the Spreme $ort referred the matter to the$ort of Appeals, prsant to Devised Administrative $irclar 4*8. Incidentally, on !e/rary **8,Proclamation 821 as issed /y President Damos, delineating the exact metes and /onds of the S/icSpecial Economic and !ree Port Jone, prsant to Section 1 of DA C11C. The $ort of Appeals denied thepetition as there is no s/stantial difference /eteen the provisions of E& *C4A and Section 1 of DA C11C,holding that E& *C4A cannot /e claimed to /e nconstittional hile maintaining the validity of DA C11C0that the intention of $ongress to confine the coverage of the SSEJ to the secred area and not to inclde theentire &longapo $ity and other areas rely on the deli/erations in the Senate0 and that the limited application ofthe tax incentives is ithin the prerogative of the legislatre, prsant to its "avoed prpose of servingFsome p/lic /enefit or interest. Ti, et. al.s motion for reconsideration as denied, and hence, they filed apetition for revie ith the Spreme $ort.

Iss'e) hether there as a violation of the e:al protection of the las hen E& *C4A granted tax and dtyincentives only to /sinesses and residents ithin the "secred area" of the S/ic Special Economic Jone anddenied sch to those ho live ithin the Jone /t otside sch "fenced4in" territory.



16/18


*el+) The E& *C4A is not violative of the e:al protection clase0 neither is it discriminatory. Thefndamental right of e:al protection of the las is not a/solte, /t is s/7ect to reasona/le classification.The classification occasioned /y E& *C4A as not nreasona/le, capricios or nfonded. It as /ased,rather, on fair and s/stantive considerations that ere germane to the legislative prpose. There ares/stantial differences /eteen the /ig investors ho are /eing lred to esta/lish and operate their indstries

in the so4called "secred area" and the present /siness operators otside the area. &n the one hand, e aretal#ing of /illion4peso investments and thosands of ne 7o/s, and on the other hand, definitely none of schmagnitde. In the first, the economic impact ill /e national0 in the second, only local. Even more important,at this time the /siness activities otside the "secred area" are not li#ely to have any impact in achieving theprpose of the la, hich is to trn the former military /ase to prodctive se for the /enefit of the Philippineeconomy. There is, then, hardly any reasona/le /asis to extend to them the /enefits and incentives accorded inDA C11C. Additionally, it ill /e easier to manage and monitor the activities ithin the "secred area," hichis already fenced off, to prevent "fradlent importation of merchandise" or smggling. The classificationapplies e:ally to all the resident individals and /sinesses ithin the "secred area." The residents, /eing inli#e circmstances or contri/ting directly to the achievement of the end prpose of the la, are notcategori>ed frther. Instead, they are all similarly treated, /oth in privileges granted and in o/ligationsre:ired. The e:al4protection garantee does not re:ire territorial niformity of las. As long as there are

actal and material differences /eteen territories, there is no violation of the constittional clase. -erein,anyone possessing the re:isite investment capital can alays avail of the same /enefits /y channeling his orher resorces or /siness operations into the fenced4off free port >one.

!%9 International School Alliance of E+'cators :ISAE; vs.


17/18


an &rder resolving the parity and representation isses in favor of the School. Then %&'E Secretary'eonardo A.


18/18

6 equal protection

Documents