G.R. No.

L-25246 September 12, 1974

BENJAMIN VICTORIANO, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION and ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY, INC.,
defendants, ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS' UNION

Facts:
Victoriano is a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers Union who later resigned from his
affiliation to the union by reason of the prohibition of his religion for its members to become affiliated
with any labor organization. He is a member of Iglesia Ni Cristo. Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc., where he
is employed, required its employees to join the union but with the enaction of R.A. No. 3350,
employees that are member of a religious sects which prohibit affiliation of their members of such
labor organization are not required to join.
He wrote a resignation to the Union but was dismissed by the Elizalde Rope Factory, Inc. The
Union contended that R.A No. 3350 impairs obligation of contract stipulated in their CBA and favors
religious sects in providing exemption to be affiliated with any labor unions.

Issue:
Whether or not R.A. No. 3350 constitutes a valid classification.
Ruling:
Yes. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which
means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for
real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be
limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the
class.
The Court believes that Republic Act No. 3350 satisfies the aforementioned
requirements. The Act classifies employees and workers, as to the effect and coverage
of union shop security agreements, into those who by reason of their religious beliefs and
convictions cannot sign up with a labor union, and those whose religion does not prohibit
membership in labor unions. Tile classification rests on real or substantial, not merely
imaginary or whimsical, distinctions. There is such real distinction in the beliefs, feelings
and sentiments of employees. Employees do not believe in the same religious faith and
different religions differ in their dogmas and cannons. Religious beliefs, manifestations
and practices, though they are found in all places, and in all times, take so many varied
forms as to be almost beyond imagination. There are many views that comprise the
broad spectrum of religious beliefs among the people. There are diverse manners in
which beliefs, equally paramount in the lives of their possessors, may be articulated.
Today the country is far more heterogenous in religion than before, differences in religion
do exist, and these differences are important and should not be ignored.
G.R. No. L-45987             May 5, 1939

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CAYAT

Facts:
Cayat, a native of Baguio, and a member of the non-Christian tribes, was
arrested for possessing one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an intoxicating liquor, which is not a
native wine. He was found guilty of violating Act No. 1639. The law made it unlawful for
any native of the Philippines who is a member of a non-Christian tribe within the meaning
of Act 1397 to buy, receive, have in his possession, or drink any ardent spirits, ale, beer,
wine or intoxicating liquors of any kind, other than the so-called native wines and liquors
which the members of such tribes have been accustomed to prior to the passage of the
law. Cayat challenges the constitutionality of Act 1639 on the grounds that it is
discriminatory and denies the equal protection of the laws, violates due process clause,
and is an improper exercise of police power.

Issue:
Whether or not Act No. 1639 satisfies the requisites of a valid classification.

Ruling:
Yes. It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the
equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
classification. The classification (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be
germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only;
and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class.
 
Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. This distinction is unquestionably reasonable,
for the Act was intended to meet the peculiar conditions existing in the non-Christian
tribes.
G.R. No. 81958 June 30, 1988

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, et. al

Fact:

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued an order giving guidelines
to the temporary suspension of deployment of Filipino Overseas Workers. The petitioner
challenged the Department Order contending that it is discriminatory, violation of the right to
travel, and constitutionally infirm.
Further, they argued that the order was passed in the absence of prior consultations. It
is claimed, finally, to be in violation of the Charter’s non-impairment clause and that it would
cause great and irreparable injury to PASEI members should the Order be further enforced.

Issue:
Whether or not the Department Order is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and
Discriminatory against sexes

Held:
No. The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested measure
should be nullified. 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. 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. It admits of classifications, provided that: such
classifications rest on substantial distinctions; they are germane to the purposes of the law;
they are not confined to existing conditions; and they apply equally to all members of the
same class.
The Court is well aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen female labor force
abroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative working conditions marked by, in not
a few cases, physical and personal abuse. The sordid tales of maltreatment suffered by
migrant Filipina workers, even rape and various forms of torture, confirmed by testimonies of
returning workers, are compelling motives for urgent Government action. As precisely the
caretaker of Constitutional rights, the Court is called upon to protect victims of exploitation.
In fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the Government’s efforts.
G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993

THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION et. al.

vs.
HON. PETE PRADO

Facts:
R.A. No. 7354 was implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation.
On its implementation, it withdraw the franking privilege of the Supreme
Court, and lower courts, along with certain other government offices. Thus,
prompting its members who feel that their official functions as judges will be
prejudiced. The National Land Registration Authority has taken common cause
insofar as its own activities, such as sending of requisite notices in registration
cases, affect judicial proceedings. On its motion, it has been allowed to
intervene. The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354, which of
the grounds that it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of
the Judiciary.

Issue: Whether Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 is in violation of the equal

protection clause of the Constitution.

Held: Yes. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due
process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and
fair play. The court find its repealing clause to be a discriminatory provision
that denies the Judiciary the equal protection of the laws guaranteed for all
persons or things similarly situated. The distinction made by the law is
superficial. It is not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences
between the Judiciary and the grantees of the franking privilege. This is not a
question of wisdom or power into which the Judiciary may not intrude. It is a
matter of arbitrariness that the Court has the duty and power to correct.
G.R. No. 120095 August 5, 1996

JMM PROMOTION AND MANAGEMENT, INC., and KARY INTERNATIONAL,

INC., petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et. Al

Facts:
Due to the death of Sioson, a female entertainer in Japan, Pesident Aquino banned the
deployment of performing artists in Japan. It was controlled through Department Order No. 3. In this
order, entertainers are required to present an Artist Record Book as a precondition to the processing
by the POEA of any contract for overseas employment.
Herein petitioners contended that overseas employment is a property right within the
meaning of the Constitution and avers that the alleged deprivation violates due process and equal
protection of the laws.

Issue:

Whether or not singling out of entertainers and performing artists under the
assailed department orders constitutes class legislation which violates the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.

Ruling:

No. The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual
or class privilege. The Court have held, time and again, that the equal protection clause
of the Constitution does not forbid classification for so long as such classification is based
on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the
particular legislation. If classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all
members of the class, and applies equally to present and future conditions, the
classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee.

In the case at bar, the challenged Department Order clearly applies to all performing
artists and entertainers destined for jobs abroad.
 G.R. No. L-23794             February 17, 1968

ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
THE TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY,
HON. ESTEBAN C. CONEJOS as Mayor of Ormoc City and ORMOC CITY,

Facts:

Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1964, was passed by the Municipal Board

of Ormoc City. It imposed 1% tax per export sale to the United States of
America and other foreign countries against Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc.
Payments for said tax were made, under protest, by Ormoc Sugar Company,
Inc. Later on, it filed a complaint against City of Ormoc, as well its Treasurer,
alleging that the ordinance is violative of the equal protection clause.
On the other hand, the defendants asserted that the tax ordinance was
within defendant city’s power to enact under the Local Autonomy Act and that
the same did not violate the equal protection clause of the constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not the ordinance is unconstitutional for being violative of equal
protection clause. 

Ruling.
Yes. The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically
situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of
legislation, and a classification is reasonable where (1) it is based on
substantial distinctions which make real differences; (2) these are germane to
the purpose of the law; (3) the classification applies not only to present
conditions but also to future conditions which are substantially identical to those
of the present; (4) the classification applies only to those who belong to the
same class.
The questioned ordinance does not meet the requisites for a reasonable
classification. It taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the
Ormoc Sugar Company, Inc. and none other.
G.R. No. 192935               December 7, 2010

LOUIS "BAROK" C. BIRAOGO, Petitioner,

vs.
THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010

Facts:
President Aquino III, signed Executive Order No. 1, establishing the Philippine Truth
Commission of 2010. Petitioner Louis Biraogo, in his capacity as citizen and taxpayer, filed a complaint
questioning the validity of E.O No. 1 for being violative of the legislative power of the Congress to
create public office and to appropriate funds thereof.
The Philippine Truth Commission is primary task to investigate graft and corruption
committed by the Macapagal’s administration, submit its findings and recommendations to the
President, Congress and Ombudsman.

Issue:
Whether or not E.O. No. 1 is a violation of the equal protection clause.
Ruling:

Yes. Although the purpose of the Truth Commission falls within the investigative power of
the President, the Court finds difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Executive
Order No. 1 in view of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause enshrined
in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution. It does not apply equally to
all members of the same class such that the intent of singling out the "previous
administration" as its sole object makes the PTC an "adventure in partisan hostility."
Thus, in order to be accorded with validity, the commission must also cover reports of
graft and corruption in virtually all administrations previous to that of former President
Arroyo.
G.R. No. 163583             August 20, 2008

BRITISH AMERICAN TOBACCO, petitioner,

vs.
JOSE ISIDRO N. CAMACHO

Facts:
The petitioner, British American Tobacco, owned and sold Lucky Strike, Lucky
Strike Lights and Lucky Strike Menthol Lights cigarettes. On March 11, 2003, RMO 6-
2003, was issued to give guidelines and procedures in establishing current net retail
prices of new brands of cigarettes and alcohol products. Then on 2003, there was an
implementation on the revised tax classification of certain new brands introduced in the
market based on the survey of their current net retail prices.  This increased the excise
tax of tobacco products sold by the petitioner.
This cause petitioner to file a complaint to restrain the implementation of Sec.
145 of the NIRC, RR No. 1-97, 9-2003, 22-2003 and 6-2003 on the ground that they
discriminate against new brands of cigarettes in violation of the equal protection and
uniformity provisions  of the Constitution 

Issue:
Whether or not Section 145 of the NIRC, RR No. 1-97, 9-2003, 22-2003 and 6-
2003 are violative of the equal protection clause.

Ruling:
No. In Sison Jr. v. Ancheta, the court held that “It suffices then that the laws operate
equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must
be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges
conferred and the liabilities imposed.  If the law be looked upon in terms of burden on
charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion, whatever
restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest."  Thus, classification if
rational in character is allowable.
The SC previously held: "Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable
articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing
power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of
taxation"
 G.R. No. 221318, December 16, 2015

KABATAAN PARTY-LIST,  v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

Facts:
In view of R.A. No. 10367, the COMELEC is mandated to implement
mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters to establish a clean,
complete, permanent, and updated list of voters through the adoption of biometric
technology and failure of it, will render deactivation. With this law, COMELEC
issued different resolutions governing the regulation of biometrics and procedures of
deactivation.
The petitioner contended that deactivation of voters who failed to submit to
biometrics is violative to due process and equal protection of law.

Issue:
Whether or not there is compelling state interest on the implementation of
R.A. No. 10367.

Ruling:
Yes. In this case, respondents have shown that the biometrics
validation requirement under RA 10367 advances a compelling state interest.
It was precisely designed to facilitate the conduct of orderly, honest, and
credible elections by containing - if not eliminating, the perennial problem of
having flying voters, as well as dead and multiple registrants. According to
the sponsorship speech of Senator Aquilino L. Pimentel III, the objective of
the law was to cleanse the national voter registry so as to eliminate electoral
fraud and ensure that the results of the elections were truly reflective of the
genuine will of the people. The foregoing consideration is unquestionably a
compelling state interest.