Criminal Law › Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law › Constitutional Limitations on the Power to Enact Penal Laws

1. Equal Protection

Equal Protection

Concept

Equal protection requires the State to treat similarly situated persons alike. It forbids arbitrary or invidious distinctions, but does not prohibit every classification. The question is whether the distinction is relevant to a legitimate governmental objective. This limitation applies when the State enacts or implements measures affecting persons subject to its laws. (Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const.)1 (Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, 7 December 2010)2

Governing provisions

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. It places equal protection alongside the guarantee of due process, although each calls for a distinct inquiry. (Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const.)1 (Albano v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 257610, 24 January 2023)3

Requisites / Rules

  • Identify the distinction. Determine which persons or groups the measure treats differently, and whether they are similarly situated in relation to its objective. A distinction irrelevant to a legitimate objective offends equal protection. (Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010)2
  • Apply the appropriate review. Under rational-basis review, the government must have a legitimate interest, and the classification must reasonably further it. A reasonable classification is permissible; an unreasonable or invidious one is not. (Albano v. Commission on Elections)3 (Zomer Development Company, Inc. v. Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 194461, 7 January 2020)4 (Central Bank v. Bangko Sentral NG Pilipinas and the Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 148208, 15 December 2004)5
  • Account for fundamental rights. Where ordinances affect the fundamental rights of minors, strict scrutiny requires the State to show that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored as the least restrictive means. (Kabataan v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, 8 August 2017)6
  • Examine continued operation. A provision valid when adopted may become unconstitutional if later legislation changes the factual or legal setting and its continued operation produces invidious discrimination. (Central Bank v. Bangko Sentral NG Pilipinas and the Executive Secretary)5

Distinctions

Rational-basis review asks whether a classification reasonably connects a legitimate interest to the chosen means. Strict scrutiny, as applied to ordinances affecting minors’ fundamental rights, demands a compelling interest and a necessary, narrowly tailored measure. Substantive due process separately asks whether government has sufficient justification for taking life, liberty, or property. (Zomer Development Company, Inc. v. Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals)4 (Kabataan v. Quezon City)6 (Albano v. Commission on Elections)3

Key doctrines

A distinction between juridical and natural persons concerning redemption periods was supported by differences in property use and policy reasons concerning banking solvency and liquidity. By contrast, the Philippine Truth Commission measure was held unconstitutional for violating equal protection. These outcomes illustrate why the objective and the basis for differential treatment must be examined together. (Zomer Development Company, Inc. v. Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals)4 (Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010)2

Exceptions

Different treatment is not, by itself, unconstitutional: reasonable classifications remain permissible. Nor may moral disapproval alone supply a substantial governmental interest for excluding a class from public benefits; its selective application implicates equal protection. (Central Bank v. Bangko Sentral NG Pilipinas and the Executive Secretary)5 (Ang Ladlad LGBT Party Represented Herein by Its Chair v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, 8 April 2010)7

Bar tip

State who is treated differently, identify the governmental objective, then test the connection between them. If minors’ fundamental rights are affected, address strict scrutiny rather than stopping at rational basis. (Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010)2 (Albano v. Commission on Elections)3 (Kabataan v. Quezon City)6

Authorities

  • (Spark) v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, 8 August 2017
  • Albano v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 257610, 24 January 2023
  • Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const.
  • Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No. 192935, 7 December 2010
  • Central Bank (Now Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas) Employees Association, Inc. v. Secretary, G.R. No. 148208, 15 December 2004
  • Chair v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190582, 8 April 2010
  • Zomer Development Company, Inc. v. Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 194461, 7 January 2020