Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993
THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES SSOCITION, !"#$ re%. b$ &'( Pre(&!e)',
*ERNRDO P. *ESMIS, +&,e-Pre(&!e)' .or Le/0# ..0&r(, MRINO M.
UMLI, D&re,'or .or P0(&/, M010'&, 0)! P0(0$, Me'ro M0)&#0, L2REDO C.
2LORES, 0)! C30&rm0) o. '3e Comm&''ee o) Le/0# &!, JESUS G.
*ERSMIR, Pre(&!&)/ J"!/e( o. '3e Re/&o)0# Tr&0# Co"r', *r0),3 45,
5"e6o) C&'$ 0)! *r0),3e( 170, 177 0)! 177, P0(&/, Me'ro M0)&#0, re(%e,'&ve#$8
'3e NTIONL CON2EDERTION O2 THE JUDGES SSOCITION O2
THE PHILIPPINES, ,om%o(e! o. '3e METROPOLITN TRIL COURT
JUDGES SSOCITION re%. b$ &'( Pre(&!e)'. REINTO 5UILL o. '3e
MUNICIPL TRIL CIRCUIT COURT, M0)&#09 THE MUNICIPL JUDGES
LEGUE O2 THE PHILIPPINES re%. b$ &'( Pre(&!e)', TOMS G.
TL+ER9 b$ '3em(e#ve( 0)! &) be30#. o. 0## '3e J"!/e( o. '3e Re/&o)0# Tr&0#
0)! S30r&:0 Co"r'(, Me'ro%o#&'0) Tr&0# Co"r'( 0)! M")&,&%0# Co"r'(
'3ro"/3o"' '3e Co")'r$, petitioners,
vs.
HON. PETE PRDO, &) 3&( ,0%0,&'$ 0( Se,re'0r$ o. '3e De%0r'me)' o.
Tr0)(%or'0'&o) 0)! Comm")&,0'&o)(, JORGE +. SRMIENTO, &) 3&( ,0%0,&'$
0( Po('m0('er Ge)er0#, 0)! '3e PHILIPPINE POSTL CORP., respondents.

CRU;, J.:
The basic issue raised in this petition is the independence of the Judiciary. t is
asserted by the petitioners that this hall!ar" of republicanis! is i!paired by the
statute and circular they are here challen#in#. The $upre!e Court is itself affected by
these !easures and is thus an interested party that should ordinarily not also be a
%ud#e at the sa!e ti!e. &nder our syste! of #overn!ent, ho'ever, it cannot inhibit
itself and !ust rule upon the challen#e, because no other office has the authority to
do so. (e shall therefore act upon this !atter not 'ith officiousness but in the
dischar#e of an unavoidable duty and, as al'ays, 'ith detach!ent and fairness.
The !ain tar#et of this petition is $ection )* of R.A. No. +)*, as i!ple!ented by
the Philippine Postal Corporation throu#h its Circular No.
-./.0. These !easures 'ithdra' the fran"in# privile#e fro! the $upre!e Court, the
Court of Appeals, the Re#ional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the 1and Re#istration Co!!ission and its Re#isters of
2eeds, alon# 'ith certain other #overn!ent offices.
The petitioners are !e!bers of the lo'er courts 'ho feel that their official functions
as %ud#es 'ill be pre%udiced by the above/na!ed !easures. The National 1and
Re#istration Authority has ta"en co!!on cause 'ith the! insofar as its o'n
activities, such as sendin# of re3uisite notices in re#istration cases, affect %udicial
proceedin#s. 4n its !otion, it has been allo'ed to intervene.
The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. +)*, on the #rounds that5 678 its
title e!braces !ore than one sub%ect and does not e9press its purposes: 6.8 it did not
pass the re3uired readin#s in both ;ouses of Con#ress and printed copies of the bill
in its final for! 'ere not distributed a!on# the !e!bers before its passa#e: and 6)8
it is discri!inatory and encroaches on the independence of the Judiciary.
(e approach these issues 'ith one i!portant principle in !ind, to 'it, the
presu!ption of the constitutionality of statutes. The theory is that as the %oint act of
the 1e#islature and the E9ecutive, every statute is supposed to have first been
carefully studied and deter!ined to be constitutional before it 'as finally enacted.
;ence, unless it is clearly sho'n that it is constitutionally fla'ed, the attac" a#ainst
its validity !ust be re%ected and the la' itself upheld. To doubt is to sustain.

(e consider first the ob%ection based on Article <, $ec. .=6l8, of the Constitution
providin# that >Every bill passed by the Con#ress shall e!brace only one sub%ect
'hich shall be e9pressed in the title thereof.>
The purposes of this rule are5 678 to prevent hod#e/pod#e or >lo#/rollin#> le#islation:
6.8 to prevent surprise or fraud upon the le#islature by !eans of provisions in bills of
'hich the title #ives no inti!ation, and 'hich !i#ht therefore be overloo"ed and
carelessly and unintentionally adopted: and 6)8 to fairly apprise the people, throu#h
such publication of le#islative proceedin#s as is usually !ade, of the sub%ect of
le#islation that is bein# considered, in order that they !ay have opportunity of bein#
heard thereon, by petition or other'ise, if they shall so desire.
1
t is the sub!ission of the petitioners that $ection )* of R.A. No. +)*, 'hich
'ithdre' the fran"in# privile#e fro! the Judiciary is not e9pressed in the title of the
la', nor does it reflect its purposes.
R.A. No. +)*, is entitled >An Act Creatin# the Philippine Postal Corporation,
2efinin# its Po'ers, ?unctions and Responsibilities, Providin# for Re#ulation of the
ndustry and for 4ther Purposes Connected There'ith.>
The ob%ectives of the la' are enu!erated in $ection ), 'hich provides5
The $tate shall pursue the follo'in# ob%ectives of a nation'ide
postal syste!5
a8 to enable the econo!ical and speedy transfer of !ail and other
postal !atters, fro! sender to addressee, 'ith full reco#nition of
their privacy or confidentiality:
b8 to pro!ote international interchan#e, cooperation and
understandin# throu#h the unha!pered flo' or e9chan#e of postal
!atters bet'een nations:
c8 to cause or effect a 'ide ran#e of postal services to cater to
different users and chan#in# needs, includin# but not li!ited to,
philately, transfer of !onies and valuables, and the li"e:
d8 to ensure that sufficient revenues are #enerated by and 'ithin
the industry to finance the overall cost of providin# the varied
ran#e of postal delivery and !essen#erial services as 'ell as the
e9pansion and continuous up#radin# of service standards by the
sa!e.
$ec. )* of R.A. No. +)*,, 'hich is the principal tar#et of the petition, reads as
follo's5
$ec. )*. Repealing Clause. @ All acts, decrees, orders, e9ecutive
orders, instructions, rules and re#ulations or parts thereof
inconsistent 'ith the provisions of this Act are repealed or
!odified accordin#ly.
All fran"in# privile#es authoriAed by la' are hereby repealed,
e9cept those provided for under Co!!on'ealth Act No. .=*,
Republic Acts Nu!bered =-, 70B, 7,7,, .B0+ and *B*-. The
Corporation !ay continue the fran"in# privile#e under Circular
No. )* dated 4ctober .,, 7-++ and that of the <ice President,
under such arran#e!ents and conditions as !ay obviate abuse or
unauthoriAed use thereof.
The petitionersC contention is untenable. (e do not a#ree that the title of the
challen#ed act violates the Constitution.
The title of the bill is not re3uired to be an inde9 to the body of the act, or to be as
co!prehensive as to cover every sin#le detail of the !easure. t has been held that if
the title fairly indicates the #eneral sub%ect, and reasonably covers all the provisions
of the act, and is not calculated to !islead the le#islature or the people, there is
sufficient co!pliance 'ith the constitutional re3uire!ent.
<
To re3uire every end and !eans necessary for the acco!plish!ent of the #eneral
ob%ectives of the statute to be e9pressed in its title 'ould not only be unreasonable
but 'ould actually render le#islation i!possible.
3
As has been correctly e9plained5
The details of a le#islative act need not be specifically stated in its
title, but !atter #er!ane to the sub%ect as e9pressed in the title, and
adopted to the acco!plish!ent of the ob%ect in vie', !ay properly
be included in the act. Thus, it is proper to create in the sa!e act
the !achinery by 'hich the act is to be enforced, to prescribe the
penalties for its infraction, and to re!ove obstacles in the 'ay of
its e9ecution. f such !atters are properly connected 'ith the
sub%ect as e9pressed in the title, it is unnecessary that they should
also have special !ention in the title 6$outhern Pac. Co. v. Bartine,
7+B ?ed. +.*8.
This is particularly true of the repealin# clause, on 'hich Cooley 'rites5 >The repeal
of a statute on a #iven sub%ect is properly connected 'ith the sub%ect !atter of a ne'
statute on the sa!e sub%ect: and therefore a repealin# section in the ne' statute is
valid, not'ithstandin# that the title is silent on the sub%ect. t 'ould be difficult to
conceive of a !atter !ore #er!ane to an act and to the ob%ect to be acco!plished
thereby than the repeal of previous le#islations connected there'ith.>
=
The reason is that 'here a statute repeals a for!er la', such repeal is the effect and
not the sub%ect of the statute: and it is the sub%ect, not the effect of a la', 'hich is
re3uired to be briefly e9pressed in its title.
5
As observed in one case,
7
if the title of
an act e!braces only one sub%ect, 'e apprehend it 'as never clai!ed that every
other act 'hich repeals it or alters by i!plication !ust be !entioned in the title of
the ne' act. Any such rule 'ould be neither 'ithin the reason of the Constitution,
nor practicable.
(e are convinced that the 'ithdra'al of the fran"in# privile#e fro! so!e a#encies
is #er!ane to the acco!plish!ent of the principal ob%ective of R.A. No. +)*,, 'hich
is the creation of a !ore efficient and effective postal service syste!. 4ur rulin# is
that, by virtue of its nature as a repealin# clause, $ection )* did not have to be
e9pressly included in the title of the said la'.

The petitioners !aintain that the second para#raph of $ec. )* coverin# the repeal of
the fran"in# privile#e fro! the petitioners and this Court under E.4. .B+, P2 700.
and P2 .= 'as not included in the ori#inal version of $enate Bill No. +.B or ;ouse
Bill No. ,.BB. As this para#raph appeared only in the Conference Co!!ittee Report,
its addition, violates Article <, $ec. .=6.8 of the Constitution, readin# as follo's5
6.8 No bill passed by either ;ouse shall beco!e a la' unless it has
passed three readin#s on separate days, and printed copies thereof
in its final for! have been distributed to its Me!bers three days
before its passa#e, e9cept 'hen the President certifies to the
necessity of its i!!ediate enact!ent to !eet a public cala!ity or
e!er#ency. &pon the last readin# of a bill, no a!end!ent thereto
shall be allo'ed, and the vote thereon shall be ta"en i!!ediately
thereafter, and the yeasand nays entered in the Journal.
The petitioners also invo"e $ec. +, of the Rules of the ;ouse of Representatives,
re3uirin# that a!end!ent to any bill 'hen the ;ouse and the $enate shall have
differences thereon !ay be settled by a conference co!!ittee of both cha!bers.
They stress that $ec. )* 'as never a sub%ect of any disa#ree!ent bet'een both
;ouses and so the second para#raph could not have been validly added as an
a!end!ent.
These ar#u!ent are unacceptable.
(hile it is true that a conference co!!ittee is the !echanis! for co!pro!isin#
differences bet'een the $enate and the ;ouse, it is not li!ited in its %urisdiction to
this 3uestion. ts broader function is described thus5
A conference co!!ittee !ay, deal #enerally 'ith the sub%ect
!atter or it !ay be li!ited to resolvin# the precise differences
bet'een the t'o houses. Even 'here the conference co!!ittee is
not by rule li!ited in its %urisdiction, le#islative custo! severely
li!its the freedo! 'ith 'hich ne' sub%ect !atter can be inserted
into the conference bill. But occasionally a conference co!!ittee
produces une9pected results, results beyond its !andate, These
e9cursions occur even 'here the rules i!pose strict li!itations on
conference co!!ittee %urisdiction. This is sy!pto!atic of the
authoritarian po'er of conference co!!ittee 62avies, 1e#islative
1a' and Process5 n a Nutshell, 7-0= Ed., p.078.
t is a !atter of record that the conference Co!!ittee Report on the bill in 3uestion
'as returned to and duly approved by both the $enate and the ;ouse of
Representatives. Thereafter, the bill 'as enrolled 'ith its certification by $enate
President Neptali A. DonAales and $pea"er Ra!on <. Mitra of the ;ouse of
Representatives as havin# been duly passed by both ;ouses of Con#ress. t 'as then
presented to and approved by President CoraAon C. A3uino on April ), 7--..
&nder the doctrine of separation po'ers, the Court !ay not in3uire beyond the
certification of the approval of a bill fro! the presidin# officers of Con#ress. Casco
Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez
7
laid do'n the rule that the enrolled bill, is
conclusive upon the Judiciary 6e9cept in !atters that have to be entered in the
%ournals li"e the yeas and nayson the final readin# of the
bill8.
4
The %ournals are the!selves also bindin# on the $upre!e Court, as 'e held in
the old 6but still valid8 case of U.S. vs. Pons,
9
'here 'e e9plained the reason thus5
To in3uire into the veracity of the %ournals of the Philippine
le#islature 'hen they are, as 'e have said, clear and e9plicit,
'ould be to violate both the, letter and spirit of the or#anic la's by
'hich the Philippine Dovern!ent 'as brou#ht into e9istence, to
invade a coordinate and independent depart!ent of the
Dovern!ent, and to interfere 'ith the le#iti!ate po'ers and
functions, of the 1e#islature.
Applyin# these principles, 'e shall decline to loo" into the petitionersC char#es that
an a!end!ent 'as !ade upon the last readin# of the bill that eventually beca!e
R.A. No. +)*, and that copies thereof in its final for! 'ere not distributed a!on#
the !e!bers of each ;ouse. Both the enrolled bill and the le#islative %ournals certify
that the !easure 'as duly enacted i.e., in accordance 'ith Article <, $ec. .=6.8 of
the Constitution. (e are bound by such official assurances fro! a coordinate
depart!ent of the #overn!ent, to 'hich 'e o'e, at the very least, a beco!in#
courtesy.

The third and !ost serious challen#e of the petitioners is based on the e3ual
protection clause.
t is alle#ed that R.A. No. +)*, is discri!inatory because 'hile 'ithdra'in# the
fran"in# privile#e fro! the Judiciary, it retains the sa!e for the President of the
Philippines, the <ice President of the Philippines: $enators and Me!bers of the
;ouse of Representatives, the Co!!ission on Elections: for!er Presidents of the
Philippines: the National Census and $tatistics 4ffice: and the #eneral public in the
filin# of co!plaints a#ainst public offices and officers.
10
The respondents counter that there is no discri!ination because the la' is based on a
valid classification in accordance 'ith the e3ual protection clause. n fact, the
fran"in# privile#e has been 'ithdra'n not only fro! the Judiciary but also the
4ffice of Adult Education, the nstitute of National 1an#ua#e: the
Teleco!!unications 4ffice: the Philippine 2eposit nsurance Corporation: the
National ;istorical Co!!ission: the Ar!ed ?orces of the Philippines: the Ar!ed
?orces of the Philippines 1adies $teerin# Co!!ittee: the City and Provincial
Prosecutors: the Tanodbayan 64ffice of $pecial Prosecutor8: the Eabataan#
Baran#ay: the Co!!ission on the ?ilipino 1an#ua#e: the Provincial and City
Assessors: and the National Council for the (elfare of 2isabled Persons.
11
The e3ual protection of the la's is e!braced in the concept of due process, as every
unfair discri!ination offends the re3uire!ents of %ustice and fair play. t has
nonetheless been e!bodied in a separate clause in Article $ec. 7., of the
Constitution to provide for a !ore, specific #uaranty a#ainst any for! of undue
favoritis! or hostility fro! the #overn!ent. Arbitrariness in #eneral !ay be
challen#ed on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed
parta"es of an un'arranted partiality or pre%udice, the sharper 'eapon to cut it do'n
is the e3ual protection clause.
Accordin# to a lon# line of decisions, e3ual protection si!ply re3uires that all
persons or thin#s si!ilarly situated should be treated ali"e, both as to ri#hts
conferred and responsibilities i!posed,
1<
$i!ilar sub%ects, in other 'ords, should not
be treated differently, so as to #ive undue favor to so!e and un%ustly discri!inate
a#ainst others.
The e3ual protection clause does not re3uire the universal application of the la's on
all persons or thin#s 'ithout distinction. This !i#ht in fact so!eti!es result in
une3ual protection, as 'here, for e9a!ple, a la' prohibitin# !ature boo"s to all
persons, re#ardless of a#e, 'ould benefit the !orals of the youth but violate the
liberty of adults. (hat the clause re3uires is e3uality a!on# e3uals as deter!ined
accordin# to a valid classification. By classification is !eant the #roupin# of persons
or thin#s si!ilar to each other in certain particulars and different fro! all others in
these sa!e particulars.
13
(hat is the reason for the #rant of the fran"in# privile#e in the first placeF s the
fran"in# privile#e e9tended to the President of the Philippines or the Co!!ission on
Elections or to for!er Presidents of the Philippines purely as acourtesy fro! the
la'!a"in# bodyF s it offered because of the importance or status of the #rantee or
because of its need for the privile#eF 4r have the #rantees been chosen pell/!ell, as
it 'ere, 'ithout any basis at all for the selectionF
(e re%ect outri#ht the last con%ecture as there is no doubt that the statute as a 'hole
'as carefully deliberated upon, by the political depart!ents before it 'as finally
enacted. There is reason to suspect, ho'ever, that not enou#h care or attention 'as
#iven to its repealin# clause, resultin# in the un'ittin# 'ithdra'al of the fran"in#
privile#e fro! the Judiciary.
(e also do not believe that the basis of the classification 'as !ere courtesy, for it is
uni!a#inable that the political depart!ents 'ould have intended this serious sli#ht to
the Judiciary as the third of the !a%or and e3ual depart!ents the #overn!ent. The
sa!e observations are !ade if the i!portance or status of the #rantee 'as the
criterion used for the e9tension of the fran"in# privile#e, 'hich is en%oyed by the
National Census and $tatistics 4ffice and even so!e private individuals but not the
courts of %ustice.
n our vie', the only acceptable reason for the #rant of the fran"in# privile#e 'as the
perceived need of the #rantee for the acco!!odation, 'hich 'ould %ustify a 'aiver
of substantial revenue by the Corporation in the interest of providin# for a s!oother
flo' of co!!unication bet'een the #overn!ent and the people.
Assu!in# that basis, 'e cannot understand 'hy, of all the depart!ents of the
#overn!ent, it is the Judiciary, that has been denied the fran"in# privile#e. There is
no 3uestion that if there is any !a%or branch of the #overn!ent that needs the
privile#e, it is the Judicial 2epart!ent, as the respondents the!selves point out.
Curiously, the respondents 'ould %ustify the distinction on the basis precisely of this
need and, on this basis, deny the Judiciary the fran"in# privile#e 'hile e9tendin# it
to others less deservin#.
n their Co!!ent, the respondents point out that available data fro! the Postal
$ervice 4ffice sho' that fro! January 7-00 to June 7--., the total volu!e of fran"
!ails a!ounted to P-B,,.,,7+*.BB. 4f this a!ount, fran" !ails fro! the Judiciary
and other a#encies 'hose functions include the service of %udicial processes, such as
the intervenor, the 2epart!ent of Justice and the 4ffice of the 4!buds!an,
a!ounted to P0=,,07,+*-. ?ran" !ails co!in# fro!the Judiciary a!ounted to
P+),*+,,0=,.BB, and those co!in# fro! the petitioners reached the total a!ount of
P=B,--7,,)7.BB. The respondentsC conclusion is that because of this considerable
volu!e of !ail fro! the Judiciary, the fran"in# privile#e !ust be 'ithdra'n fro! it.
The ar#u!ent is self/defeatin#. The respondents are in effect sayin# that the fran"in#
privile#e should be e9tended only to those 'ho do not need it very !uch, if at all,
6li"e the 'ido's of for!er Presidents8 but not to those 'ho need it badly 6especially
the courts of %ustice8. t is li"e sayin# that a person !ay be allo'ed cos!etic sur#ery
althou#h it is not really necessary but not an operation that can save his life.
f the proble! of the respondents is the loss of revenues fro! the fran"in# privile#e,
the re!edy, it see!s to us, is to 'ithdra' it alto#ether fro! all a#encies of
#overn!ent, includin# those 'ho do not need it. The proble! is not solved by
retainin# it for so!e and 'ithdra'in# it fro! others, especially 'here there is no
substantial distinction bet'een those favored, 'hich !ay or !ay not need it at all,
and the Judiciary, 'hich definitely needs it. The proble! is not solved by violatin#
the Constitution.
n lu!pin# the Judiciary 'ith the other offices fro! 'hich the fran"in# privile#e has
been 'ithdra'n, $ection )* has placed the courts of %ustice in a cate#ory to 'hich it
does not belon#. f it reco#niAes the need of the President of the Philippines and the
!e!bers of Con#ress for the fran"in# privile#e, there is no reason 'hy it should not
reco#niAe a si!ilar and in fact #reater need on the part of the Judiciary for such
privile#e. (hile 'e !ay appreciate the 'ithdra'al of the fran"in# privile#e fro! the
Ar!ed ?orces of the Philippines 1adies $teerin# Co!!ittee, 'e fail to understand
'hy the $upre!e Court should be si!ilarly treated as that Co!!ittee. And 'hile 'e
!ay concede the need of the National Census and $tatistics 4ffice for the fran"in#
privile#e, 'e are intri#ued that a si!ilar if not #reater need is not reco#niAed in the
courts of %ustice.
64n second thou#ht, there does not see! to be any %ustifiable need for 'ithdra'in#
the privile#e fro! the Ar!ed ?orces of the Philippines 1adies $teerin# Co!!ittee,
'hich, li"e for!er Presidents of the Philippines or their 'ido's, does not send as
!uch fran" !ail as the Judiciary.8
t is 'orth observin# that the Philippine Postal Corporation, as a #overn!ent/
controlled corporation, 'as created and is e9pected to operate for the purpose of
pro!otin# the public service. (hile it !ay have been established pri!arily for
private #ain, it cannot e9cuse itself fro! perfor!in# certain functions for the benefit
of the public in e9chan#e for the franchise e9tended to it by the #overn!ent and the
!any advanta#es it en%oys under its charter.
1=
A!on# the services it should be
prepared to e9tend is free carria#e of !ail for certain offices of the #overn!ent that
need the fran"in# privile#e in the dischar#e of their o'n public functions.
(e also note that under $ection - of the la', the Corporation is capitaliAed at P7B
billion pesos, **G of 'hich is supplied by the Dovern!ent, and that it derives
substantial revenues fro! the sources enu!erated in $ection 7B, on top of the
e9e!ptions it en%oys. t is not li"ely that the retention of the fran"in# privile#e of the
Judiciary 'ill cripple the Corporation.
At this ti!e 'hen the Judiciary is bein# faulted for the delay in the ad!inistration of
%ustice, the 'ithdra'al fro! it of the fran"in# privile#e can only further deepen this
serious proble!. The volu!e of %udicial !ail, as e!phasiAed by the respondents
the!selves, should stress the dependence of the courts of %ustice on the postal service
for co!!unicatin# 'ith la'yers and liti#ants as part of the %udicial process. The
Judiciary has the lo'est appropriation in the national bud#et co!pared to the
1e#islative and E9ecutive 2epart!ents: of the P)B- billion bud#eted for 7--), only .
0,G, or less than 7G, is alloted for the %udiciary. t should not be hard to i!a#ine the
increased difficulties of our courts if they have to affi9 a purchased sta!p to every
process they send in the dischar#e of their %udicial functions.
(e are unable to a#ree 'ith the respondents that $ection )* of R.A. No. +)*,
represents a valid e9ercise of discretion by the 1e#islature under the police po'er.
4n the contrary, 'e find its repealin# clause to be a discri!inatory provision that
denies the Judiciary the e3ual protection of the la's #uaranteed for all persons or
thin#s si!ilarly situated. The distinction !ade by the la' is superficial. t is not
based on substantial distinctions that !a"e real differences bet'een the Judiciary and
the #rantees of the fran"in# privile#e.
This is not a 3uestion of 'isdo! or po'er into 'hich the Judiciary !ay not intrude.
t is a !atter of arbitrariness that this Court has the duty and po'er to correct.
<
n su!, 'e sustain R.A. No. +)*, a#ainst the attac" that its sub%ect is not e9pressed
in its title and that it 'as not passed in accordance 'ith the prescribed procedure.
;o'ever, 'e annul $ection )* of the la' as violative of Article ), $ec. 7, of the
Constitution providin# that no person shall >be deprived of the e3ual protection of
la's.>
(e arrive at these conclusions 'ith a full a'areness of the criticis! it is certain to
provo"e. (hile rulin# a#ainst the discri!ination in this case, 'e !ay ourselves be
accused of si!ilar discri!ination throu#h the e9ercise of our ulti!ate po'er in our
o'n favor. This is inevitable. Criticis! of %udicial conduct, ho'ever undeserved, is a
fact of life in the political syste! that 'e are prepared to accept.. As %ud#es, 'e
cannot debate 'ith our detractors. (e can only decide the cases before us as la'
i!poses on us the duty to be fair and our o'n conscience #ives us the li#ht to be
ri#ht.
ACC4R2ND1H, the petition is partially DRANTE2 and $ection )* of R.A. No.
+)*, is declared &NC4N$TT&T4NA1. Circular No. -./.0 is $ET A$2E insofar
as it 'ithdra's the fran"in# privile#e fro! the $upre!e Court, the Court of Appeals,
the Re#ional trail Courts, the Municipal trial Courts, and the National 1and
Re#istration Authority and its Re#ister of 2eeds to all of 'hich offices the said
privile#e shall be RE$T4RE2. The te!porary restrainin# order dated June ., 7--.,
is !ade per!anent.
$4 4R2ERE2.