CHAPTER 9: EQUAL PROTECTION
Substantial Distinctions
 Art. 3 Sec. 1 “… nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.”
 When the particular act assailed partakes of an
unwarranted partiality or prejudice – the sharper
weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. (If
arbitrariness is general, it may be challenged on the basis of
due process clause)
 Couched in indefinite language because the guaranty is
dynamic (same with due process) - provides for more
adjustability to the ‘swiftly moving facts’ of our changing
society. (So rulings are changed in light of societal
developments and other factors notwithstanding that not a
single alteration had been made in the wording of equal
protection clause)
Definition
 Requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed.
 Similar subjects should not be treated differently so as to
give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against
others.
 But substantive equality is not enough. It is required that
the law be enforced and applied equally.
Persons Protected
 All persons, natural and juridical.
 Artificial - only insofar as their property is concerned
 But by constitutional reservation, certain rights are
enjoyable only by citizens such as the right to vote, hold
public office, exploit natural resources, and operate public
utilities.
Classification
 Equal protection clause does not require the universal
application of the laws - to operate on all people without
distinction. This will result in unequal protection.
 For example:
a. Law requiring military service of all citizens - valid as
to able-bodied but oppressive to those sick and the
old.
b. Law prohibiting mature books to all persons - benefits
the morals of the youth but violates the liberty of
adults
 So, the law is not required to provide equality if they are not
similarly situated!
 Hence, what the Constitution requires is EQUALITY
AMONG EQUALS.
 The legislature is allowed to classify as long as the
classification is REASONABLE. So even if the law may
operate only on some and not all of the people, there is no
violation of equal protection clause.
 Classification is defined as the grouping of persons or things
similar to each other in certain particulars and different
from all others
 For example:
a. Minors from adults
b. Citizens from aliens
(1) Requirements of Classification – must not be arbitrary!
Hence, to be reasonable, it must conform to the following:
1. Based upon substantial distinctions
2. Germane to the purposes of the law
3. Not be limited to existing conditions only
4. Apply equally to all members of the class
A.
 Not superficial but must be substantial
 Certain physical differences of persons can in some
instances be the basis of a valid classification. E.g. woman,
being weaker, may be treated more tenderly by law than
men in specifying working conditions; Policemen and
firemen may be given better retirement privileges than
other public functionaries because of the higher risks they
have to take in the discharge of their duties.
 For example:
a. In Ceniza v. COMELEC, the classification of cities into
highly urbanized cities and component cities on the
basis of their regular annual income is based upon
substantial distinction because the revenue would
show whether they are capable of existence and
development. Moreover, the practice of allowing
voters in one component city or vote for provincial
officials and denying the same privilege to voters in
another component city is a matter of legislative
discretion which violates neither the Constitution nor
the voter’s right of suffrage. It would have been
discriminatory and denial of the equal protection of
the law if the statute prohibited an individual or group
of voters in the city from voting for provincial officials
while granting it to another individual or group of
voters in the same city.
b. In Philippine Association of Service Exporters, it was
held that Filipino female domestic working abroad
were in a class by themselves distinguishable from
other Filipino female workers and from Filipino OCWs
in general, because of the special risks to which their
class was exposed. Reports show that a number of
them had been abused and maltreated.
c. In International School Alliance of Educators, equal pay
for equal work. Persons who work with substantially
equal qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility,
under similar conditions would be paid similar
salaries. Thus, the foreign-hires and local-hires should
both enjoy the same benefits and be accorded the
same treatment.
B. Relevance to Purpose of Law
 The classification should justify the purpose of the law.
 For example:
a. The difference in physical stamina between men and
women will justify the prohibition of the latter from
employment as miners.
b. Law cannot however provide for lower passing
average for women in the bar exam because physical
strength is not the test for admission.
c. Imported cars may be taxed at a higher rate than
locally assembled automobiles for the protection of
the national economy, but their difference in origin is
nojustification for treating them differently when it
comes to punishing violations of traffic regulations.
C. Duration
 Must be enforced not only for the present but as long as the
problem sought to be corrected continues to exist.
 Meaning, the classification, to be reasonable, should be in
terms applicable to future conditions as well.
 In Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc. case, the challenged ordinance to
impose municipal tax of 1% per export on any centrifugal
sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Co. Inc is held
unconstitutional because its classification is singular and
exclusive as to exclude any subsequent established sugar
central in the city. Again, for classification to be reasonable
in must be in terms applicable to future conditions as well.
D. Applicability to All
 Not necessarily that the classification be made with
absolute symmetry. Substantial similarity will suffice. All
those covered by the classification are to be treated equally.
 However, the mere fact that an individual belonging to a
class differs from the other members, does not justify the
non-application of the law to him.
a. A sterile woman would still be entitled to the benefits
of a law protecting the reproductive functions of her
sex. Her inability to bear children does not make her
any less a woman.
 In Ichong Case, the SC rejects the argument that the Retail
Trade Nationalization Act violated the equal protection
clause because the practices resorted to by aliens, their
secret manipulations of stocks of commodities and prices,
their utter disregard of the welfare of their customers, show
the existence of real and actual, positive and fundamental
differences between an alien and a national. These
differences are certainly a valid reason for the State to
prefer the national over the alien in the retail trade.
 In Deregulation cases, the SC struck down a law
deregulating the downstream oil industry because it
favored the oligopoly of Petron, Shell and Caltex to the
prejudice of prospective investors in the oil industry that
would be saddled with the requirements already complied
with by the three oil giants.