Lawyerly

GR No. 170139

2014-08-05

SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES

LEONEN, J.

The equal protection clause does not infringe on this legislative power.[101] A law is void on this basis, only if classifications are made arbitrarily.[102] There is no violation of the equal protection clause if the law applies equally to persons within the same class and if there are reasonable grounds for distinguishing between those falling within the class and those who do not fall within the class.[103] A law that does not violate the equal protection clause prescribes a reasonable classification.[104]

GR No. 180016

2014-04-29

LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.[28]

GR No. 192935

2010-12-07

LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

MENDOZA, J.

The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments.[2] The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.[3] Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it.[4]

GR No. 189698

2010-02-22

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

PUNO, C.J.

(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.[37]

GR No. 189698

2009-12-01

ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMELEC

NACHURA, J.

(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.[108]

GR No. 176951

2008-11-18

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC

CARPIO, J.

Not all classifications are prohibited, however. The equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take away from Congress the power of classification.[136] Thus, it is hornbook doctrine that the guaranty of the equal protection of the law is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.[137]

GR No. 132527

2005-07-29

COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION v. RUBEN TORRES

AZCUNA, J.

Petitioners' contention cannot be sustained. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.[27] Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinction, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.[28]

GR No. 148208

2004-12-15

CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

PUNO, J.

Being a constitutional limitation first recognized[175] in Rubi[176] -- citing Yick Wo[177] -- as one "derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,"[178] this clause prescribes certain requirements for validity: the challenged statute must be applicable to all members of a class, reasonable, and enforced by the regular methods of procedure prescribed, rather than by purely arbitrary means.[179] Its reasonableness must meet the requirements enumerated in Vera[180] and later summarized in Cayat.[181]

GR No. 143076

2003-06-10

PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION v. SECRETARY

PUNO, J.

We are not persuaded. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances."[8] Thus, the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a law based on reasonable classification. Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.[9]

GR No. 135385

2000-12-06

ISAGANI CRUZ v. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT

PER CURIAM

When the Spaniards settled permanently in the Philippines in 1565, they found the Filipinos living in barangay settlements scattered along water routes and river banks. One of the first tasks imposed on the missionaries and the encomenderos was to collect all scattered Filipinos together in a reduccion.[67] As early as 1551, the Spanish government assumed an unvarying solicitous attitude towards the natives.[68] The Spaniards regarded it a sacred "duty to conscience and humanity to civilize these less fortunate people living in the obscurity of ignorance" and to accord them the "moral and material advantages" of community life and the "protection and vigilance afforded them by the same laws."[69]

GR No. 135385

2000-12-06

ISAGANI CRUZ v. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT

PER CURIAM

"In dealing with the uncivilized tribes of the Islands, the Commission should adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government, and under which many of those tribes are now living in peace and contentment, surrounded by civilization to which they are unable or unwilling to conform. Such tribal government should, however, be subjected to wise and firm regulation; and, without undue or petty interference, constant and active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs."[80]

	GR No. 170139 2014-08-05	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. JOY C. CABILES LEONEN, J.
The equal protection clause does not infringe on this legislative power.[101] A law is void on this basis, only if classifications are made arbitrarily.[102] There is no violation of the equal protection clause if the law applies equally to persons within the same class and if there are reasonable grounds for distinguishing between those falling within the class and those who do not fall within the class.[103] A law that does not violate the equal protection clause prescribes a reasonable classification.[104]
	GR No. 180016 2014-04-29	LITO CORPUZ v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.[28]
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments.[2] The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.[3] Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it.[4]
	GR No. 189698 2010-02-22	ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS PUNO, C.J.
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.[37]
	GR No. 189698 2009-12-01	ELEAZAR P. QUINTO v. COMELEC NACHURA, J.
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.[108]
	GR No. 176951 2008-11-18	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
Not all classifications are prohibited, however. The equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment does not take away from Congress the power of classification.[136] Thus, it is hornbook doctrine that the guaranty of the equal protection of the law is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.[137]
	GR No. 132527 2005-07-29	COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION v. RUBEN TORRES AZCUNA, J.
Petitioners' contention cannot be sustained. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.[27] Classification, to be valid, must (1) rest on substantial distinction, (2) be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) not be limited to existing conditions only, and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.[28]
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
Being a constitutional limitation first recognized[175] in Rubi[176] -- citing Yick Wo[177] -- as one "derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,"[178] this clause prescribes certain requirements for validity: the challenged statute must be applicable to all members of a class, reasonable, and enforced by the regular methods of procedure prescribed, rather than by purely arbitrary means.[179] Its reasonableness must meet the requirements enumerated in Vera[180] and later summarized in Cayat.[181]
	GR No. 143076 2003-06-10	PHILIPPINE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION v. SECRETARY PUNO, J.
We are not persuaded. The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that "no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances."[8] Thus, the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a law based on reasonable classification. Classification, to be reasonable, must (1) rest on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to all members of the same class.[9]
	GR No. 135385 2000-12-06	ISAGANI CRUZ v. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT PER CURIAM
When the Spaniards settled permanently in the Philippines in 1565, they found the Filipinos living in barangay settlements scattered along water routes and river banks. One of the first tasks imposed on the missionaries and the encomenderos was to collect all scattered Filipinos together in a reduccion.[67] As early as 1551, the Spanish government assumed an unvarying solicitous attitude towards the natives.[68] The Spaniards regarded it a sacred "duty to conscience and humanity to civilize these less fortunate people living in the obscurity of ignorance" and to accord them the "moral and material advantages" of community life and the "protection and vigilance afforded them by the same laws."[69]
	GR No. 135385 2000-12-06	ISAGANI CRUZ v. SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENT PER CURIAM
"In dealing with the uncivilized tribes of the Islands, the Commission should adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government, and under which many of those tribes are now living in peace and contentment, surrounded by civilization to which they are unable or unwilling to conform. Such tribal government should, however, be subjected to wise and firm regulation; and, without undue or petty interference, constant and active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs."[80]

PEOPLE v. CAYAT