Download - Consti2 Equal Protection Clause (1)

8/9/2019 Consti2 Equal Protection Clause (1)

1/11

QUINTO vs COMELECFacts:Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws,COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8678, the Guidelines on the ilin! of Certi"cates ofCandidac# $CoC% and Nomination of O&cial Candidates of Re!istered Political Partiesin Connection with the Ma# '(, )('( National and Local Elections. *ections + and of Resolution No. 8678 -roide/*EC. +. Efects o Filing Certicates o Candidacy.0a% 1n# -erson holdin! a publicappointive ofceor -osition includin! actie mem2ers of the 1rmed orces of thePhili--ines, and other o&cers and em-lo#ees in !oernment3owned or controlledcor-orations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned ro! his ofce uponthe "ling o his certi"cate o candidac#$2% 1n# -erson holdin! an elective ofce or position shall not be consideredresigned upon the "ling o his certi"cate o candidac# or the sa!e or an#other elective ofce or position$1larmed that the# will 2e deemed ipso acto resi!ned from their o&ces the momentthe# "le their CoCs, -etitioners Elea4ar P. 5uinto and Gerino 1. olentino, r., whohold a--ointie -ositions in the !oernment and who intend to run in the comin!elections, "led the instant -etition for -rohi2ition and certiorari, seein! thedeclaration of the afore39uoted *ection +$a% of Resolution No. 8678 as null and oid.Petitioners also contend that %ection &' o ($)$ No$ *'+*, the basis o theassailed COMELEC resolution, contains two con:ictin! -roisions. hese must 2eharmoni4ed or reconciled to !ie e;ect to 2oth and to arrie at a declaration thatthe# are not ipso actoresi!ned from their -ositions u-on the "lin! of their CoCs.


2/11

position, including active !e!bers o the ar!ed orces, and ofcers ande!plo#ees in govern!ent2o3ned or 2controlled corporations, shall beconsidered ipso facto resigned ro! his4her ofce and !ust vacate thesa!e at the start o the da# o the "ling o his4her certi"cate o candidac#$


3/11

own choosin! for the -ur-ose of collectie 2ar!ainin! and to en!a!e in concertedactiities for the -ur-ose of collectie 2ar!ainin! and other mutual aid or -rotection.Fhat the Constitution and the


4/11

he 1ct does not re9uire as a 9uali"cation, or condition, for Aoinin! an# lawfulassociation mem2ershi- in an# -articular reli!ion or in an# reli!ious sectB neitherdoes the 1ct re9uire a&liation with a reli!ious sect that -rohi2its its mem2ers fromAoinin! a la2or union as a condition or 9uali"cation for withdrawin! from a la2orunion. oinin! or withdrawin! from a la2or union re9uires a -ositie act Re-u2lic 1ctNo. ==( onl# eem-ts mem2ers with such reli!ious a&liation from the coera!e ofclosed sho- a!reements. *o, under this 1ct, a reli!ious o2Aector is not re9uired to doa -ositie act3to eercise the ri!ht to Aoin or to resi!n from the union. ?e iseem-ted i-so Aure without need of an# -ositie act on his -art.

F?EREORE, the instant a--eal is dismissed.

7I()O/O 5% T(UT. COMMI%%IONF)CT%:

Pres. 19uino si!ned E. O. No. ' esta2lishin! Phili--ine ruth Commission of )('($PC% dated ul# =(, )('(.

PC is a mere ad hoc 2od# formed under the O&ce of the President with the -rimar#tas to inesti!ate re-orts of !raft and corru-tion committed 2# third3leel -u2lico&cers and em-lo#ees, their co3-rinci-als, accom-lices and accessories durin! the-reious administration, and to su2mit its "ndin! and recommendations to thePresident, Con!ress and the Om2udsman. PC has all the -owers of an inesti!atie2od#. ut it is not a 9uasi3Audicial 2od# as it cannot adAudicate, ar2itrate, resole,settle, or render awards in dis-utes 2etween contendin! -arties. 1ll it can do is

!ather, collect and assess eidence of !raft and corru-tion and maerecommendations. 87 cannot le!itimi4e E.O. No. ' 2ecause the dele!ated authorit# of the Presidentto structurall# reor!ani4e the O&ce of the President to achiee econom#, sim-licit#

and e&cienc# does not include the -ower to create an entirel# new -u2lic o&cewhich was hitherto ineistent lie the Hruth Commission.I

$c% E.O. No. ' ille!all# amended the Constitution and statutes when it ested theHruth CommissionI with 9uasi3Audicial -owers du-licatin!, if not su-ersedin!, thoseof the O&ce of the Om2udsman created under the '>87 Constitution and the KOcreated under the 1dministratie Code of '>87.

$d% E.O. No. ' iolates the e9ual -rotection clause as it selectiel# tar!ets forinesti!ation and -rosecution o&cials and -ersonnel of the -reious administrationas if corru-tion is their -eculiar s-ecies een as it ecludes those of the otheradministrations, -ast and -resent, who ma# 2e indicta2le.

Res-ondents, throu!h O*G, 9uestioned the le!al standin! of -etitioners and ar!uedthat/

'Q E.O. No. ' does not arro!ate the -owers of Con!ress 2ecause the PresidentDseecutie -ower and -ower of control necessaril# include the inherent -ower toconduct inesti!ations to ensure that laws are faithfull# eecuted and that, in an#eent, the Constitution, Reised 1dministratie Code of '>87, PK No. '+'6'6 $asamended%, R.1. No. >>7( and settled Auris-rudence, authori4e the President tocreate or form such 2odies.

)Q E.O. No. ' does not usur- the -ower of Con!ress to a--ro-riate funds 2ecausethere is no a--ro-riation 2ut a mere allocation of funds alread# a--ro-riated 2#Con!ress.

=Q he ruth Commission does not du-licate or su-ersede the functions of theOm2udsman and the KO, 2ecause it is a fact3"ndin! 2od# and not a 9uasi3Audicial2od# and its functions do not du-licate, su--lant or erode the latterDs Aurisdiction.

+Q he ruth Commission does not iolate the e9ual -rotection clause 2ecause it wasalidl# created for lauda2le -ur-oses.

I%%UE%:

'. FON the -etitioners hae le!al standin! to "le the -etitions and 9uestion E. O.No. 'B). FON E. O. No. ' iolates the -rinci-le of se-aration of -owers 2# usur-in! the-owers of Con!ress to create and to a--ro-riate funds for -u2lic o&ces, a!enciesand commissionsB

=. FON E. O. No. ' su--lants the -owers of the Om2udsman and the KOB+. FON E. O. No. ' iolates the e9ual -rotection clause.

(ULIN/:he -ower of Audicial reiew is su2Aect to limitations, to wit/ $'% there must 2e anactual case or controers# callin! for the eercise of Audicial -owerB $)% the -ersonchallen!in! the act must hae the standin! to 9uestion the alidit# of the su2Aectact or issuanceB otherwise stated, he must hae a -ersonal and su2stantial interestin the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct inAur# as a result of itsenforcementB $=% the 9uestion of constitutionalit# must 2e raised at the earliesto--ortunit#B and $+% the issue of constitutionalit# must 2e the er# lis mota of thecase.

'. he -etition -rimaril# inoes usur-ation of the -ower of the Con!ress as a 2od#to which the# 2elon! as mem2ers. o the etent the -owers of Con!ress are

im-aired, so is the -ower of each mem2er thereof, since his o&ce confers a ri!ht to-artici-ate in the eercise of the -owers of that institution.

Le!islators hae a le!al standin! to see to it that the -rero!atie, -owers and-riile!es ested 2# the Constitution in their o&ce remain iniolate. hus, the# areallowed to 9uestion the alidit# of an# o&cial action which, to their mind, infrin!eson their -rero!aties as le!islators.

Fith re!ard to irao!o, he has not shown that he sustained, or is in dan!er ofsustainin!, an# -ersonal and direct inAur# attri2uta2le to the im-lementation of E. O.No. '.

Locus standi is Ha ri!ht of a--earance in a court of Austice on a !ien 9uestion.I


5/11

Ki&cult# of determinin! locus standi arises in -u2lic suits. ?ere, the -lainti; whoasserts a H-u2lic ri!htI in assailin! an alle!edl# ille!al o&cial action, does so as are-resentatie of the !eneral -u2lic. ?e has to show that he is entitled to seeAudicial -rotection. ?e has to mae out a su&cient interest in the indication of the-u2lic order and the securin! of relief as a Hciti4enI or Hta-a#er.

he -erson who im-u!ns the alidit# of a statute must hae Ha -ersonal andsu2stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain directinAur# as a result.I he Court, howeer, "nds reason in irao!oDs assertion that the-etition coers matters of transcendental im-ortance to Austif# the eercise ofAurisdiction 2# the Court. here are constitutional issues in the -etition whichdesere the attention of this Court in iew of their seriousness, noelt# and wei!htas -recedents

he Eecutie is !ien much leewa# in ensurin! that our laws are faithfull#eecuted. he -owers of the President are not limited to those s-eci"c -owers underthe Constitution. One of the reco!ni4ed -owers of the President !ranted -ursuant tothis constitutionall#3mandated dut# is the -ower to create ad hoc committees. his:ows from the o2ious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws hae 2eenfaithfull# eecuted. he -ur-ose of allowin! ad hoc inesti!atin! 2odies to eist is toallow an in9uir# into matters which the President is entitled to now so that he can2e -ro-erl# adised and !uided in the -erformance of his duties relatie to theeecution and enforcement of the laws of the land.

). here will 2e no a--ro-riation 2ut onl# an allotment or allocations of eistin!funds alread# a--ro-riated. here is no usur-ation on the -art of the Eecutie ofthe -ower of Con!ress to a--ro-riate funds. here is no need to s-ecif# the amountto 2e earmared for the o-eration of the commission 2ecause, whateer funds theCon!ress has -roided for the O&ce of the President will 2e the er# source of thefunds for the commission. he amount that would 2e allocated to the PC shall 2esu2Aect to eistin! auditin! rules and re!ulations so there is no im-ro-riet# in thefundin!.

=. PC will not su--lant the Om2udsman or the KO or erode their res-ectie-owers.

eli!i2le for Audicial reiew. here are standards that hae to 2e followed in theeercise of the function of Audicial reiew, namel#/ $'% the eistence of an


6/11

a--ro-riate caseB $)% an interest -ersonal and su2stantial 2# the -art# raisin! theconstitutional 9uestionB $=% the -lea that the function 2e eercised at the earliesto--ortunit#B and $+% the necessit# that the constitutional 9uestion 2e -assed u-on inorder to decide the case.


7/11

a--eal as a matter of ri!ht coerin! 2oth law and facts and to two a--ellate courts,i.e., "rst to the C1 and thereafter to the *C.

I%%UE: Fhether or not the creation of *andi!an2a#an iolates e9ual -rotectioninsofar as a--eals would 2e concerned.

.EL0:he *C ruled a!ainst NuSe4. he '>7= Constitution had -roided for thecreation of a s-ecial court that shall hae ori!inal Aurisdiction oer cases inolin!-u2lic o&cials char!ed with !raft and corru-tion. he constitution s-eci"call# maesmention of the creation of a s-ecial court, the *andi!an2a#an, -recisel# in res-onseto a -ro2lem, the ur!enc# of which cannot 2e denied, namel#, dishonest# in the-u2lic serice. 7=, when the -resent Constitutioncame into force, that a di;erent -rocedure for the accused therein, whether a-riate citi4en as -etitioner is or a -u2lic o&cial, is not necessaril# o;ensie to thee9ual -rotection clause of the Constitution. urther, the classi"cation therein setforth met the standard re9uirin! that it Hmust 2e 2ased on su2stantial distinctionswhich mae real di;erencesB it must 2e !ermane to the -ur-oses of the lawB it mustnot 2e limited to eistin! conditions onl#, and must a--l# e9uall# to each mem2er ofthe class.I urther still, decisions in the *andi!an2a#an are reached 2# a unanimousdecision from = Austices a showin! that decisions therein are more conceia2l#carefull# reached than other trial courts.

MAKASIAR, J., conc!!in" an# #iss$ntin"%< reiterate m# concurrin! and dissentin! o-inion in the NuSe4 caseB 2ecause thecrime was committed seeral da#s 2efore the -romul!ation on une '', '>78 of P.K.No. '+86 and eleen $''% months 2efore the -romul!ation on Kecem2er '(, '>78 ofP.K. '6(6.

1)%EI 5% 0(ILON

Facts:he Phili--ine 1ssociation of *erice E-orters, 88, the *olicitor General, on 2ehalf of the*ecretar# of La2or and 1dministrator of the POE1, "led a Comment informin! theCourt that on 8 March '>88, the La2or *ecretar# lifted the de-lo#ment 2an in thestates of >, -etitioner


8/11

(ULIN/:

NO. he Constitution, 1rticle T7), containin! the a2oe3cited rule. headditional !rounds raisedwere due -rocess and e9ual -rotection.Issue:Fhether or not there was a iolation of the Constitution on academic freedom, due-rocess and e9ual-rotection..eld:No. he court u-held the constitutionalit# of the NM1 as a measure intended tolimit the admission tomedical schools onl# to those who hae initiall# -roed theircom-etence and -re-aration for a medical education.Ratio/Fhile eer# -erson is entitled to as-ire to 2e a doctor, he does not hae aconstitutional ri!ht to 2e a doctor. hisis true of an# other callin! in which the -u2licinterest is inoledB and the closer the lin, the lon!er the 2rid!e tooneUs am2ition.he *tate has the res-onsi2ilit# to harness its human resources and to see to it thatthe# are notdissi-ated or, no less worse, not used at all. hese resources must 2ea--lied in a manner that will 2est -romotethe common !ood while also !iin! theindiidual a sense of satisfaction.he Court feels that it is not enou!h to sim-l#inoe the ri!ht to 9ualit# education as a !uarantee of theConstitution/ one mustshow that he is entitled to it 2ecause of his -re-aration and -romise. he-riateres-ondent has failed the NM1 "e times. Fhile his -ersistence isnoteworth#, to sa# the least, it is certainl#mis-laced, lie a ho-eless loe. Node-reciation is intended or made a!ainst the -riate res-ondent.


9/11

1 re-ort came in showin! that aaila2le data from the Postal *erice O&ce showthat from anuar# '>88 to une '>>), the total olume of fran mails amounted toP>(,+)+,'7.((, of this amount, fran mails from the udiciar# and other a!encieswhose functions include the serice of Audicial -rocesses, such as the interenor, theKe-artment of ustice and the O&ce of the Om2udsman, amounted to P86,+8',7>.ran mails comin! from the udiciar# amounted to P7=,7+,86+.((, and thosecomin! from the -etitioners reached the total amount of P6(,>>',+='.((. he-ostmasterDs conclusion is that 2ecause of this considera2le olume of mail from theudiciar#, the franin! -riile!e must 2e withdrawn from it. 1ctin! from this, Pradoim-lemented Circ. No. >))8 as the % which 2ars natie non3Christians from drinin!!in or an# other li9uor outside of their customar# alcoholic drins. Ca#at, a natie ofthe Cordillera, was cau!ht with an 13'3' !in in iolation of this 1ct. ?e was thenchar!ed and sentenced to -a# P.(( and to 2e im-risoned in case of insolenc#.Ca#at admitted his !uilt 2ut he challen!ed the constitutionalit# of the said 1ct. ?eaerred, amon! others, that it iolated his ri!ht to e9ual -rotection a;orded 2# theconstitution. ?e said this an attem-t to treat them with discrimination or Hmarthem as inferior or less ca-a2le race and less entitledI will meet with their instantchallen!e. he law sou!ht to distin!uish and classif# natie non3Christians fromChristians.


10/11

?ELK/ he *C ruled that 1ct '6=> is alid for it met the re9uisites of a reasona2leclassi"cation. he *C em-hasi4ed that it is not enou!h that the mem2ers of a !rou-hae the characteristics that distin!uish them from others. he classi"cation must,as an indis-ensa2le re9uisite, not 2e ar2itrar#. he re9uisites to 2e com-lied withareB

$'% must rest on su2stantial distinctionsB

$)% must 2e !ermane to the -ur-oses of the lawB

$=% must not 2e limited to eistin! conditions onl#B and

$+% must a--l# e9uall# to all mem2ers of the same class.

1ct No. '6=> satis"es these re9uirements. he classi"cation rests on real orsu2stantial, not merel# ima!inar# or whimsical, distinctions.


11/11

==7Us stand32# authorit# to the Eecutie to increasethe 1 rate, es-eciall# on account of the recommendator# -ower !ranted to the*ecretar# of inance, constitutes undue dele!ation of le!islatie -ower NO

?eld/ he -owers which Con!ress is -rohi2ited from dele!atin! are those which arestrictl#, or inherentl# and eclusiel#, le!islatie. Purel# le!islatie -ower which canneer 2e dele!ated is the authorit# to mae a com-lete law3 com-lete as to the timewhen it shall tae e;ect and as to whom it shall 2e a--lica2le, and to determine thee-edienc# of its enactment.

Download - Consti2 Equal Protection Clause (1)

Top Related