04. DUMLAO vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. L-52245, January 22, 1980

FACTS
Petitioner Dumlao former Nueva Vizcaya governor questions the constitutionality of Sec. 4 of
Batas Pambansa Blg 52 as discriminatory and contrary to equal protection and due process guarantees of
the Constitution. Sec 4 states that any retired elective provincial or municipal official who has received
payments of retirement benefits and shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of
office to which he seeks to be elected, shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from
which he has retired. Dumlao also alleges that such provision is directed against him and that the
classification is based on purely arbitrary grounds.

ISSUE
Whether or not equal protection law is violated in Sec. 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg 52

HELD
No. Dumlao’s contention that the provision is against him personally is belied by the fact that
several petitions for the disqualification of other candidates have been filed with the COMELEC, equal
protection is subject to rational classification. Employees 65 years old (subject to compulsory retirement)
have been classified differently from the younger ones for the purpose of public service. Reason to
disqualify from same office, because the retired employee has already declared himself tired and
unavailable from the same government work but by virtue of a change of mind, he would like to assume
same post, purpose of the law is to allow emergence of younger blood in the local government. The
constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is subject to rational classification. One class can
be treated differently from another class. In this case, employees 65 years of age are classified differently
from younger employees. It is within the competence of the legislature to prescribe qualifications for
candidates provided they are reasonable.
 05. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs. DRILON
G.R. No. L-81958, June 30, 1988

FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Association of Service Exporters (PASEI) challenges the validity of
Department Order No. 1 entitled “Guidelines governing the temporary suspension of deployment of
Filipino domestic and household workers” of herein respondent Department Of Labor and Employment
(DOLE). Petitioner contends that the Department Order is in discrimination against males or females, and
does not apply to all Filipino workers but to domestic helpers only, and that it violated the right to travel.

ISSUE
Whether or not the assailed Department Order violated the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.

HELD
No. The Department Order No. 1 applies only to “female contract workers” but it does not
thereby make an undue discrimination between sexes. There is strong evidence that the women domestic
workers are being ill-treated abroad in massive instances. It is well settled that equality before the law
under the constitution does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and women. The same
cannot be said of our male workers. It is avowed objective of Department Order No. 1 to “enhance the
protection for Filipino female overseas workers” this court has no quarrel that in the midst of the terrible
mistreatment, Filipina workers have suffered abroad, a ban on deployment will be for their own good and
welfare. It is based on substantial distinctions, distinctions are borne by evidence, and there is no such
evidence for male workers. It does not narrowly apply to existing conditions; they apply indefinitely so
long as those conditions exist.

Department Order No. 1 does not impair the right to travel. The consequence of the deployment ban has
on the right to travel does not impair the right, as the right to travel is a subject among other things, to
requirements of “public safety” as may be provided by law.
 06. Garcia v. Drilon
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013

FACTS
The Petitioner Jesus Garcia admitted having an affair with a bank manager. Because of this his
infidelity emotionally wounded private respondent which spawned several quarrels that left respondent
wounded. He also unconsciously beat up their daughter, Jo-ann. Rosalie the wife filed a petition before
the RTC of Bacolod City a Temporary Protection Order against her husband, pursuant to RA 9262 entitled
“An Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, providing for protective measures for
victims, prescribing penalties therefore and for other purposes. She claimed to be a victim of physical,
emotional, psychological and economic violence. Petitioner warned her that if she pursued legal battle,
she would not get a single centavo from him. After she confronted him about his affair, he forbade her to
hold office. This deprived her of access of full information about their business. Hence, no source of
income.

The RTC found reasonable ground to believe there was imminent danger of violence against respondent
and her children and issued a Temporary Protection Orders (TPO) pursuant to RA 9262. Petitioner
challenge the constitutionality of RA. 9262 on making gender-based classification.

ISSUE
Whether or not CA committed serious error in failing to conclude that RA 9262 is discriminatory,
unjust and violated the equal protection clause.

HELD
No. RA 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection of the laws. Equal protection
simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. The non-identical treatment of women and men under RA 9262 is
justified to put them on equal footing and to give substance to the policy and aim of the state to ensure the
equality of women and men in light of the biological, historical, social, and cultural endowed differences
between men and women.

Therefore RA 9262 is based on a valid classification and did not violate the equal protection clause of
favoring women over men as victims of violence and abuse to whom the Senate extends its protection.