Lawyerly

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

MENDOZA, J.

Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods evolved from being a component of demographic management, to one centered on the promotion of public health, particularly, reproductive health.[69] Under that policy, the country gave priority to one's right to freely choose the method of family planning to be adopted, in conformity with its adherence to the commitments made in the International Conference on Population and Development.[70] Thus, on August 14, 2009, the country enacted R.A. No. 9710 or "The Magna Carta for Women," which, among others, mandated the State to provide for comprehensive health services and programs for women, including family planning and sex education.[71]

GR No. 204819

2014-04-08

JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA

MENDOZA, J.

Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods evolved from being a component of demographic management, to one centered on the promotion of public health, particularly, reproductive health.[69] Under that policy, the country gave priority to one's right to freely choose the method of family planning to be adopted, in conformity with its adherence to the commitments made in the International Conference on Population and Development.[70] Thus, on August 14, 2009, the country enacted R.A. No. 9710 or "The Magna Carta for Women," which, among others, mandated the State to provide for comprehensive health services and programs for women, including family planning and sex education.[71]

GR No. 153266

2010-03-18

VICTORIA C. GUTIERREZ v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET

ABAD, J.

In any event, the Court is not persuaded that the continued grant of COLA to the uniformed personnel to the exclusion of other national government officials run afoul the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another. The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class.[32]

GR No. 164785

2009-04-29

ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA

VELASCO JR., J.

Petitioner's position does not persuade. The equal protection clause demands that "all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed."[23] It guards against undue favor and individual privilege as well as hostile discrimination.[24] Surely, petitioner cannot, under the premises, place himself in the same shoes as the INC ministers, who, for one, are not facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB. For another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in their TV programs, use language similar to that which he used in his own, necessitating the MTRCB's disciplinary action. If the immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is unable to answer his critics, this does not become a deprivation of the equal protection guarantee. The Court need not belabor the fact that the circumstances of petitioner, as host of Ang Dating Daan, on one hand, and the INC ministers, as hosts of Ang Tamang Daan, on the other, are, within the purview of this case, simply too different to even consider whether or not there is a prima facie indication of oppressive inequality.

GR No. 162224

2007-06-07

2ND LT. SALVADOR PARREÑO v. COA

CARPIO, J.

The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification.[18] To be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class.[19]

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. 153866

2005-02-11

CIR v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY

PANGANIBAN, J.

Wisely accorded to ecozones created under RA 7916[117] was the government's policy -- spelled out earlier in RA 7227 -- of converting into alternative productive uses[118] the former military reservations and their extensions,[119] as well as of providing them incentives[120] to enhance the benefits that would be derived from them[121] in promoting economic and social development.[122]

GR No. 148208

2004-12-15

CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

PUNO, J.

Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification.[15] The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class.[16] If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another.[17] The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class.[18]

GR No. 148208

2004-12-15

CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS

PUNO, J.

Given the current status of these pending bills, the arguments raised by petitioner against the assailed provision become all the more tenuous and amorphous. I feel we should leave that provision untouched, and instead just accord proper courtesy to our legislators to determine at the proper time and in the manner they deem best the appropriate content of any modifications to it. Besides, there is an omnipresent presumption of constitutionality in every legislative enactment.[135] No confutation of the proviso was ever shown before; none should be considered now.

GR Nos. 118757 & 121571

2004-10-19

ROBERTO BRILLANTE v. CA

TINGA, J,

The equal protection clause is not absolute; rather, it permits of reasonable classification. If the classification is characterized by real and substantial differences, one class may be treated differently from another.[87] It is sufficient that the law operates equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons are treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed.[88]

	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods evolved from being a component of demographic management, to one centered on the promotion of public health, particularly, reproductive health.[69] Under that policy, the country gave priority to one's right to freely choose the method of family planning to be adopted, in conformity with its adherence to the commitments made in the International Conference on Population and Development.[70] Thus, on August 14, 2009, the country enacted R.A. No. 9710 or "The Magna Carta for Women," which, among others, mandated the State to provide for comprehensive health services and programs for women, including family planning and sex education.[71]
	GR No. 204819 2014-04-08	JAMES M. IMBONG v. PAQUITO N. OCHOA MENDOZA, J.
Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods evolved from being a component of demographic management, to one centered on the promotion of public health, particularly, reproductive health.[69] Under that policy, the country gave priority to one's right to freely choose the method of family planning to be adopted, in conformity with its adherence to the commitments made in the International Conference on Population and Development.[70] Thus, on August 14, 2009, the country enacted R.A. No. 9710 or "The Magna Carta for Women," which, among others, mandated the State to provide for comprehensive health services and programs for women, including family planning and sex education.[71]
	GR No. 153266 2010-03-18	VICTORIA C. GUTIERREZ v. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET ABAD, J.
In any event, the Court is not persuaded that the continued grant of COLA to the uniformed personnel to the exclusion of other national government officials run afoul the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another. The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class.[32]
	GR No. 164785 2009-04-29	ELISEO F. SORIANO v. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA VELASCO JR., J.
Petitioner's position does not persuade. The equal protection clause demands that "all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed."[23] It guards against undue favor and individual privilege as well as hostile discrimination.[24] Surely, petitioner cannot, under the premises, place himself in the same shoes as the INC ministers, who, for one, are not facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB. For another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in their TV programs, use language similar to that which he used in his own, necessitating the MTRCB's disciplinary action. If the immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is unable to answer his critics, this does not become a deprivation of the equal protection guarantee. The Court need not belabor the fact that the circumstances of petitioner, as host of Ang Dating Daan, on one hand, and the INC ministers, as hosts of Ang Tamang Daan, on the other, are, within the purview of this case, simply too different to even consider whether or not there is a prima facie indication of oppressive inequality.
	GR No. 162224 2007-06-07	2ND LT. SALVADOR PARREÑO v. COA CARPIO, J.
The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification.[18] To be reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (b) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each member of the class.[19]
	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. 153866 2005-02-11	CIR v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY PANGANIBAN, J.
Wisely accorded to ecozones created under RA 7916[117] was the government's policy -- spelled out earlier in RA 7227 -- of converting into alternative productive uses[118] the former military reservations and their extensions,[119] as well as of providing them incentives[120] to enhance the benefits that would be derived from them[121] in promoting economic and social development.[122]
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification.[15] The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class.[16] If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another.[17] The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class.[18]
	GR No. 148208 2004-12-15	CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS PUNO, J.
Given the current status of these pending bills, the arguments raised by petitioner against the assailed provision become all the more tenuous and amorphous. I feel we should leave that provision untouched, and instead just accord proper courtesy to our legislators to determine at the proper time and in the manner they deem best the appropriate content of any modifications to it. Besides, there is an omnipresent presumption of constitutionality in every legislative enactment.[135] No confutation of the proviso was ever shown before; none should be considered now.
	GR Nos. 118757 & 121571 2004-10-19	ROBERTO BRILLANTE v. CA TINGA, J,
The equal protection clause is not absolute; rather, it permits of reasonable classification. If the classification is characterized by real and substantial differences, one class may be treated differently from another.[87] It is sufficient that the law operates equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons are treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed.[88]

CONRADO L. TIU v. CA