EQUAL PROTECTION
least with respect to the average child. His utterances cannot be
SORIANO vs. LAGUARDIA
FACTS:
 August 10, 2004 at 10 pm, petitioner Eliseo P. Soriano, who is the
host of the program Ang Dating Daan made this remarks:
“Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba.
Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay
Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang
babae yan. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra
ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.”
(Michael Sandoval was then a minister of INC and a regular host of
the TV Program Ang Tamang Daan.)
 Two days after, MTRCB, along with private respondents who are all
members of Inglesia ni Cristo (INC), filed separate but almost
identical affidavit-complaints against Soriano.
 The MTRCB gave a 20-day preventive suspension to Soriano’s And
Dating Daan TV program for defamatory utterances against an INC
minister. Soriano was later imposed with a three-month suspension
from his TV program .
ISSUE: Whether or not the preventive suspension order by the MTRCB
denied him his right to the equal protection clause.
RULING:
NO.
Supreme Court ruled that Soriano’s statement can be treated as obscene, at
considered as protected speech. Jurisprudence provides that it should be
“context-based”; however, in Soriano’s case, his utterances are considered to
be obscene after considering the use of television broadcasting as a medium,
the time of the show, and the “G” rating of the show, which are all factors that
the utterances susceptible to children viewers.
The equal protection clause demands that "all persons subject to legislation
should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the
privileges conferred and liabilities imposed." It guards against undue favor
and individual privilege as well as hostile discrimination.
Surely, petitioner cannot, under the premises, place himself in the same
shoes as the INC ministers, who, for one, are not facing administrative
complaints before the MTRCB. For another, he offers no proof that the said
ministers, in their TV programs, use language similar to that which he used in
his own, necessitating the MTRCB’s disciplinary action.
If the immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner
remains temporarily gagged and is unable to answer his critics, this does not
become a deprivation of the equal protection guarantee.
Furthermore, his suspension is not a prior restraint but a form of permissible
administrative sanction or subsequent punishment. MTRCB may validly
impose such sanction under its charter without running afoul of the free
speech clause. It was a sanction for the indecent contents of Soriano’s
utterances in a “G” rated TV program.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the MTRCB in Adm. Case No. 01-04 dated
September 27, 2004 is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION of
limiting the suspension to the program Ang Dating Daan. As thus modified,
the fallo of the MTRCB shall read as follows:
 CHAMBER OF REAL vs. ROMULO

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, a Decision is hereby rendered, FACTS:

imposing a penalty of THREE (3) MONTHS SUSPENSION on the television

 Petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. is
program, Ang Dating Daan, subject of the instant petition.
questioning the constitutionality of Section 27 (E) of Republic Act
Co-respondents Joselito Mallari, Luzviminda Cruz, and UNTV Channel 37 8424 and the revenue regulations issued by the BIR to implement
and its owner, PBC, are hereby exonerated for lack of evidence. said provision and those involving creditable withholding taxes.
 According to the said provision, A corporation, beginning on its fourth
year of operation, is assessed an MCIT of 2% of its gross income
when such MCIT is greater than the normal corporate income tax
imposed under Section 27(A) (Applying the 30% tax rate to net
income).
 Chamber assails the validity of the imposition of minimum corporate
income tax (MCIT) on corporations and creditable withholding tax
(CWT) on sales of real properties classified as ordinary assets. CWT
is being levied only on real estate enterprises.
 If the regular income tax is higher than the MCIT, the corporation
does not pay the MCIT.
 Any excess of the MCIT over the normal tax shall be carried forward
and credited against the normal income tax for the three immediately
succeeding taxable years.
 The Secretary of Finance is hereby authorized to suspend the
imposition of the [MCIT] on any corporation which suffers losses on
account of prolonged labor dispute, or because of force majeure, or
because of legitimate business reverses..
 CHAMBER claims that the MCIT under Section 27(E) of RA 8424 is
unconstitutional because it is highly oppressive, arbitrary and
confiscatory which amounts to deprivation of property without due
process of law. It explains that gross income as defined under said
provision only considers the cost of goods sold and other direct
expenses; other major expenditures, such as administrative and
 interest expenses which are equally necessary to produce gross
income, were not taken into account. Thus, pegging the tax base of
the MCIT to a corporation’s gross income is tantamount to a
confiscation of capital because gross income, unlike net income, is
not "realized gain."
ISSUE: Whether or not the revenue regulations are violative of the equal
protection clause.
RULING:
NO.
The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that no person or
class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances. Stated differently, all persons belonging to the same class
shall be taxed alike. It follows that the guaranty of the equal protection of the
laws is not violated by legislation based on a reasonable classification.
Classification, to be valid, must:
(1) rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) be germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) not be limited to existing conditions only;
(4) apply equally to all members of the same class.
Inequalities which result from a singling out of one particular class for
taxation, or exemption, infringe no constitutional limitation. The real estate
industry is, by itself, a class and can be validly treated differently from other
business enterprises.
Petitioner, in insisting that its industry should be treated similarly as
manufacturing enterprises, fails to realize that what distinguishes the real
estate business from other manufacturing enterprises, for purposes of the
imposition of the CWT, is not their production processes but the prices of
their goods sold and the number of transactions involved. The income from
the sale of a real property is bigger and its frequency of transaction limited,
making it less cumbersome for the parties to comply with the withholding tax
scheme.
On the other hand, each manufacturing enterprise may have tens of
thousands of transactions with several thousand customers every month
involving both minimal and substantial amounts. To require the customers of
manufacturing enterprises, at present, to withhold the taxes on each of their
transactions with their tens or hundreds of suppliers may result in an
inefficient and unmanageable system of taxation and may well defeat the
purpose of the withholding tax system.
As already discussed, the Secretary may adopt any reasonable method to
carry out its functions. Under Section 57(B), it may choose what to subject to
CWT.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Costs against petitioner.
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs. TEVES
FACTS:
 2005- former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed into law
R.A. No. 9335 or also known as Attrition Act of 2005.
What is RA No. 9335? It seeks to:
Optimize the revenue-generation capability and collection of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
The law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to
exceed their revenue targets by providing a system of rewards and sanctions
through the creation of a Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund) and a
Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service,
regardless of employment status.
 However, on 2008, the constitutionality of the law was first challenge
in the case of Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima. Since BOCEA
was seeking similar reliefs as that of the petitioners in Abakada Guro
Party List v. Purisima, BOCEA filed a Motion to consolidate the
present case with Abakada on April 16, 2008.
 Pending action on said motion, the Court rendered its decision in
Abakada on August 14, 2008. Thus, the consolidation of this case
with Abakada was rendered no longer possible.
 They contended that the enactment and implementation of R.A. No.
9335 are tainted with constitutional infirmities in violation of the
fundamental rights of its members, petitioner BOCEA, an
association of rank-and-file employees of the Bureau of Customs
(BOC), duly registered with the DOLE and CSC.
 R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR violate the BIR and BOC employees’ right
to equal protection of the law because R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR
unduly discriminates against BIR and BOC employees as compared
to employees of other revenue generating government agencies like
the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, Department of
Transportation and Communication, the Air Transportation Office, the
Land Transportation Office, and the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
Office, among others, which are not subject to attrition
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 9335 and its IRR violate the right of BIR and BOC
officials and employees to the equal protection of the laws.
RULING:
NO.
It was held in Abakada vs. Purisima that RA 9335 is the optimization of the
revenue generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. Since
the subject of the law is the revenue-generation capability and collection of
the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law
should logically pertain to the said agencies. Moreover, the law concerns
only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common distinct
primary function of generating revenues for the national government
through the collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.
RA 9335 in no way violates the security of tenure of officials and employees
of the BIR and the BOC.
The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an employee cannot be
dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law
and only after due process is accorded the employee.
In the case of RA 9335, it lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal
(when the revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7.5%) with
due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of collection. This
standard is analogous to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance
FACTS:
of official duties, a ground for disciplinary action under civil service laws. The
action for removal is also subject to civil service laws, rules and regulations
and compliance with substantive and procedural due process.
Also, under the said law, the concerned BIR or BOC official or employee is
not simply given a target revenue collection and capriciously left without any
quarter. R.A. No. 9335 and its IRR clearly give due consideration to all
relevant factors.
WHEREFORE, the present petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer
for injunctive relief/s is DISMISSED.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. HYPERMIX FEEDS
 Petitioner COC issued CMO 27-2003, which for Tariff purposes,
classifies wheat according to the:
1. Importer or consignee
2. Country of origin
3. Port of discharge
 Furthermore, CMO 27-2003 provides for the proper procedure for
protest or Valuation and Classification Review Committee (VCRC)
cases. Under this procedure, the release of the articles that were the
subject of protest required the importer to post a cash bond to cover
the tariff differential.
 Under these factors, wheat would then be classified either as food
grade or feed grade with a corresponding tariff at 3% and 7%
respectively.
 Respondent Hypermix, a wheat importer, filed a petition for
Declaratory Relief with the RTC contending that CMO 27-2003 was
issued without following the mandate of the Revised Administrative
Code on public participation, prior notice, and publication or
registration with the University of the Philippines Law Center.
 RTC issued a TRO effective for 20 days from notice.
 COC maintains that it was an administrative rule, not a legislative in
nature.
 Hypermix alleged that the regulation summarily adjudged it to be a
feed grade supplier without the benefit of prior assessment and
examination; thus, despite having imported food grade wheat, it
would be subjected to the 7% tariff upon the arrival of the shipment,
forcing them to pay 133% more than was proper.
  Also, Hypermix claimed that the equal protection clause of the
Constitution was violated when the regulation treated non-flour
millers differently from flour millers for no reason at all.
ISSUE: Whether or not the issuance of CMO 27-2003 violated equal
protection clause when the regulation treated non-flour millers differently from
flour millers for no reason at all.
RULING:
YES.
opposite. The application of the regulation forecloses the possibility that other
corporations that are excluded from the list import food grade wheat; at the
same time, it creates an assumption that those who meet the criteria do not
import feed grade wheat.
In the first case, importers are unnecessarily burdened to prove the
classification of their wheat imports; while in the second, the state carries that
burden.
Petitioner Commissioner of Customs went beyond his powers when the
regulation limited the customs officer’s duties mandated by Section 1403 of

The Court held that it is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal the Tariff and Customs Law.

protection clause of the Constitution.

COC violated respondent’s right to equal protection of laws when they

The equal protection clause means that no person or class of persons shall provided for an unreasonable classification in the application of the

be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by other persons or other regulation. COC went beyond his powers of delegated authority when the

classes in the same place in like circumstances. Thus, the guarantee of the regulation limited the powers of the customs officer to examine and assess

equal protection of laws is not violated if there is a reasonable classification. imported articles.

For a classification to be reasonable, it must be shown that:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is DENIED.

(1) it rests on substantial distinctions;

(2) it is germane to the purpose of the law;

(3) it is not limited to existing conditions only;

(4) it applies equally to all members of the same class.

On the other hand, CMO 27-2003 does not meet these requirements. It
cannot be seen how the quality of wheat is affected by who imports it, where
it is discharged, or which country it came from.

It is also not clear how the regulation intends to "monitor more closely wheat
importations and thus prevent their misclassification." A careful study of CMO
27-2003 shows that it not only fails to achieve this end, but results in the