September 2017 - page 13

FACTS: The trial court issued an order suspending petitioner until the termination of the case on the basis of Section 47, RA 6975 (DILG Act of 1990) which suspends a member of the PNP with complaints for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law is 6 years and one day or more from office until the case is terminated. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the imposition of preventive suspension of over 90 days is a violation of petitioner’s constitutional right to equal protection of laws. HELD: NO. The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent judge issued two search warrants under which the business addresses of the “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers were searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner, publisher-editor of the “We Forum” newspaper, were seized. The issuance was upon application of an intelligence officer and the joint affidavit of two members of the team which conducted a surveillance of the premises…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Governing Board of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) issued Resolution No. 01, series of 1994 amending and increasing the compensation and other benefits under Part. II, Section C, paragraph 1 and Section L, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Seafarers. POEA also issued Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1994 informing all Filipino seafarers, manning agencies, shipowners, managers and principals hiring Filipino seafarers of the said adjustments. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the assailed issuances violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. HELD: NO. There can be no dispute about the dissimilarities…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Department of Labor and Employment issued Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988, for the temporary suspension of deployment of Filipino domestic and household workers. The Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) challenges said order for being discriminatory against domestic helpers and women of similar skills. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the assailed department order violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. HELD: NO. There is no question that Department Order No. 1 applies only to “female contract workers,” but it does not thereby make an undue discrimination between the sexes. There is strong evidence that women…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1486 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1606 which provides that public officers and employees convicted with estafa may only appeal their conviction by certiorari to the Supreme Court, whereas other estafa indictees are given more prospects of reversal of the decision against them as they are entitled to appeal to the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Supreme Court. ISSUE(S): Whether or not PD 1486 as amended by PD 1606 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. HELD: NO. The constitutional mandate for the creation of a special court to…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Amado Hernandez and several others were accused of the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. They were convicted of the crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not there is a complex crime of rebellion with murder. HELD: NO. Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients to the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants as means “necessary” for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion. The crime, therefore, is simple rebellion. Motion for bail is GRANTED.

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioners were meted out life terms for the complex crime of rebellion with murder and other crimes. They invoked the ruling in People v Hernandez where the existence of the offense was negated and the accused were sentenced to a penalty of prision mayor. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Hernandez doctrine applies in the case at bar. HELD: YES. The continued incarceration after the twelve-year period when such is the maximum length of imprisonment in accordance with our controlling doctrine, when others similarly convicted have been freed, is fraught with implications at war with equal protection. That is not…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner asked the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) for the same prime time and the same number of television and radio stations all over the country to be used in its campaign for “NO” votes in the plebiscite for the amendments to the 1973 Constitution proposed by the Batasang Pambansa as that utilized by President Marcos in his nationwide “Pulong-Pulong sa Pangulo” in campaigning for “YES” votes on the proposed constitutional amendments. ISSUE(S): Whether or not COMELEC’s denial of petitioner’s request to be afforded the same privilege as the president was violative of the equal protection clause. HELD: NO. It…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Interim Batasang Pambansa enacted Batas Blg. 51 providing for local elections on January 30, 1980. The said legislation classified the chartered cities into “highly urbanized” and “component” cities based on the annual income of each city and provided that “the registered voter of a component city may be entitled to vote in the election of the officials of a province of which the city is a component, if its charter provides”, while “voters registered in a high urbanized city shall not participate nor vote in the election of the officials of the province in which the highly urbanized…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The 1978 Election Code (Presidential Decree No. 1269) grants voters the option for straight party or block voting where the vote for a party, group or aggrupation would be counted as a vote for all its candidates. ISSUE(S): Whether or not block voting violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. HELD: NO. The equal protection clause does not forbid all legal classifications. What it proscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is not violated by a reasonable classification based upon substantial distinctions, where the classification is germane to the purpose of the law and applies…

Keep Reading