1. Requisites for Valid Classification

C. Equal Protection

• Requisites for Valid Classification
• Standards of Judicial Review
• Rational Basis Test
• Strict Scrutiny test
• Intermediate Scrutiny Test

1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 1

> SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

The equal protection of the law clause merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.

The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended to prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by territory within which is to operate. It does not demand absolute equality among residents. (Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957)

Scope

The guarantees of the Bill of Rights are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color, or nationality. All natural persons, and artificial persons, only in so far as their property is concerned, are protected by the Equal Protection clause. (Smith, Bell & Co. v. Natividad, G.R. No. 15574, Sept. 17, 1919)

The Constitution does not require absolute equality among persons. It is enough that all persons under like circumstances or conditions are given the same privileges and required to follow the same obligations. In short, a classification based on valid and reasonable standards does not violate the equal protection clause. (Tiu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127410, Jan. 20, 1999)

REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION

The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars.

All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be: (GEES)

• Be Germane to the purposes of the law;
• Not limited to Existing conditions only;
• Applied Equally to all members of the same class; and
• Rest on Substantial distinctions which make for real differences. (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, G.R. No. L-2524, Sept. 12, 1974) Citation verification pending: G.R. No. L-25246.

General Banking Law of 2002

The General Banking Law provides a shorter period for redemption of three (3) months or earlier to juridical entities compared to the one (1) year redemption period given to natural persons. However, this does not violate the equal protection clause. Equal protection permits of reasonable classification. The difference in the treatment of juridical persons and natural persons was based on the nature of the properties foreclosed — whether these are used as residence, for which the more liberal one-year redemption period is retained, or used for industrial or commercial purposes, in which case a shorter term is deemed necessary to reduce the period of uncertainty in the ownership of property and enable mortgagee banks to dispose sooner of these acquired assets. (Zomer Development Co. v. Special 20th Division of the CA, G.R. No. 194461, Jan. 07, 2020)

Classification Freeze Provision

The classification freeze provision does not violate the equal protection and uniformity of taxation. Even though it failed to promote fair competition among the players in the industry, the classification freeze provision was not precipitated by a veiled attempt or hostile attitude on the part of Congress to unduly favor older brands. Since the provision was done in good faith and is germane to the purpose of the law, the Court cannot declare it unconstitutional nor question its wisdom. (British American Tobacco v. Camacho, G.R. No. 163583, Apr. 15, 2009 — date subject to owner verification)

VAWC

RA 9262 (An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children - VAWC) is not violative of the equal protection clause. There is a valid classification. The unequal power relationship that women are more likely to be victims of violence and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women make for real differences justifying the classification. The distinction is germane to the purpose of the law to address violence committed against women. The law applies to women and children who suffer violence and abuse. (Garcia v. Hon. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013)

Discounts to PWDs

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9442 or the Magna Carta for Persons with Disability granting the PWDs a 20% discount on the purchase of medicine, and a tax deduction scheme was adopted wherein covered establishments may deduct the discount granted from gross income based on the net cost of goods sold or services rendered. The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary. With respect to R.A. No. 9442, its expressed public policy is the rehabilitation, self-development and self-reliance of PWDs. Persons with disability form a class separate and distinct from the other citizens of the country. Indubitably, such substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law. Hence, the classification and treatment accorded to the PWDs fully satisfy the demands of equal protection. Thus, Congress may pass a law providing for a different treatment to persons with disability apart from the other citizens of the country. (Drugstores Association of the Philippines, Inc. and Northern Luzon Drug Corporation v. National Council on Disability Affairs, et al., G.R. No. 194561, Sept. 14, 2016)

Tax Ordinance Specific to an Entity

When the taxing ordinance was enacted, Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. was the only sugar central in the City. A reasonable classification should be in terms applicable to future conditions as well. The taxing ordinance should not be singular and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central from the coverage of the tax. A subsequently established sugar central cannot be subject to tax because the ordinance expressly points to Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. as the entity to be levied upon. (Ormoc Sugar Company v. Ormoc City, G.R. No. L-23794, Feb. 17, 1968)

5 Years of Experience as a Lower Court Judge as Requirement for RTC Judge

Consideration of experience by JBC as one factor in choosing recommended appointees does not constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. The JBC does not discriminate when it employs number of years of service to screen and differentiate applicants from the competition. The number of years of service provides a relevant basis to determine proven competence which may be measured by experience, among other factors. The difference in treatment between lower court judges who have served at least five years and those who have served less than five years is upheld in order to meet the requirements of proven competence, experience, integrity, probity, and independence. The foregoing shows that substantial distinctions do exist between lower court judges with five year experience and those with less than five years of experience and the classification enshrined in the assailed policy is reasonable and relevant to its legitimate purpose. The Court, thus, rules that the questioned policy does not infringe on the equal protection clause as it is based on reasonable classification intended to gauge the proven competence of the applicants. Therefore, the said policy is valid and constitutional. (Villanueva v. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015)

Who May Avail

Generally: Individuals who form part of the class of persons covered by an amnesty proclamation whose acts constitute the political offenses covered by the same.

Concept

All persons or things similarly situated must be similarly treated both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed [Ichong v. Hernandez, supra].

The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or class privilege. It does not require absolute equality, but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. One class may be treated differently from another where the groupings are based on reasonable and real distinctions [Zomer Development Corporation v. CA, G.R. No. 194461 (2020)].

Requisites for valid classification

• It must rest on substantial distinctions which must make for real differences;
• It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
• It must not be limited to existing conditions only;
• It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Presumption of Validity

All classifications made by law are generally presumed to be valid unless shown otherwise by petitioner [Lacson v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096 (1999)].

Exception: A legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest [Serrano v. Gallant Maritime, G.R. No. 167614 (2009)].

Suspect Classes

Refers to classification that violates a fundamental right, or prejudices a person accorded special protection by the Constitution [Serrano v. Gallant, supra]. Suspect classes may therefore include an income-based classification.

Examples of Valid Classification

• Filipino Female Domestics Working Abroad

They are a class by themselves because of the special risks to which their class was exposed [Phil. Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958 (1988)].

• Land-Based v. Sea-Based Filipino Overseas Workers

There is dissimilarity as to work environment, safety, danger to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civil and spiritual activities [Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA, G.R. No. 114714 (1995)].

• Office of the Ombudsman

Allowing the Ombudsman to start an investigation based on an anonymous letter does not violate the equal protection clause. The Office of the Ombudsman is different from other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of government because those subject to its jurisdiction are public officials who, through official pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations against them [Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367 (1995)].

Uniformity of taxation

General Rule: Simply geographical uniformity, meaning it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found

Exception: Rule does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation, provided the requisites for valid classification are met [Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of Ormoc, G.R. No. L-23793 (1968)].

Equity

• Uniformity in taxation is effected through the apportionment of the tax burden among the taxpayers which under the Constitution must be equitable. “Equitable” means fair, just, reasonable and proportionate to the taxpayer’s ability to pay. Taxation may be uniform but inequitable where the amount of the tax imposed is excessive or unreasonable.
• The constitutional requirement of equity in taxation also implies an approach which employs a reasonable classification of the entities or individuals who are to be affected by a tax. Where the “tax differentiation is not based on material or substantial differences,” the guarantee of equal protection of the laws and the uniformity rule will likewise be infringed.

Taxation does not require identity or equality under all circumstances, or negate the authority to classify the objects of taxation.

Test of Valid Classification

Classification, to be valid, must be reasonable and this requirement is not deemed satisfied unless:

• It is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences;
• These are germane to the purpose of the legislation or ordinance;
• The classification applies not only to present conditions but also to future conditions substantially identical to those of the present; and
• The classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class [PepsiCola v. Butuan City, G.R. No. L-22814 (1968)].

The progressive system of taxation would place stress on direct rather than indirect taxes, on non-essentiality rather than essentiality to the taxpayer of the object of taxation, or on the taxpayer’s ability to pay. Example is that individual income tax system that imposes rates progressing upwards as the tax base (taxpayer’s taxable income) increases. A progressive tax, however, must not be confused with a progressive system of taxation.

While equal protection refers more to like treatment of persons in like circumstances, uniformity and equity refer to the proper relative treatment for tax purposes of persons in unlike circumstances.