Slide 1 Formal Equality

The idea of formal equality can be traced back to Aristotle and his dictum that equality meant
“things that are alike should be treated alike”.6 This is the most widespread understanding of
equality today. Formal equality promotes individual justice as the basis for a moral claim to
virtue and is reliant upon the proposition that fairness (the moral virtue) requires consistent or
equal treatment
On the basis of the same standard, provisions will not be equal if the circumstances are not
equal, but must be equal if the circumstances are the same. In any case, everyone must be
given the equal opportunity to measure up, sometimes referred to as “legal or formal equality.”
The law is applied equally to all persons without fear or favor. Thus, the same punishment is
imposed on a rich man and a poor man because wealth is not a valid differing standard under
the law. This is where reasonable classification comes in. Everyone classified as belonging to
the same category is to be treated the same way. Like shall be treated alike. Unlike shall be
treated unlike. Things that are fundamentally different cannot be treated the same. Lady Justice
cannot be blind of distinctions. Equality does not have to mean same treatment, but
“proportionate treatment.” If by a reasonable standard, one has to separate the sheep from the
goat, one has to treat them differently, then this will be just. Again, there must be reasonable
standard for classification, a general and necessary rule to qualify or disqualify; otherwise, the
classification is “discriminatory.
Slide 2 Proportional Equality
Proportional Equality:  according to Aristotle, there are two kinds of equality, numerical and
proportional.7 A  form of treatment of others or, as a result of it, a distribution is numerically
equal when it treats all persons as indistinguishable, thus granting them the same quantity of a
good, per capita. That is not always just. In contrast, a form of treatment of others or a
distribution is proportional or relatively equal when it treats all relevant persons in relation to
their due. Just numerical equality is, according to Aristotle, a special case of proportional
equality: numerical equality is only just under special circumstances, viz. if persons are equal in
distributionally relevant respects, then the corresponding proportions of the distributed goods
must be equal too. Proportional equality specifies formal equality further; it is the more precise
and detailed, hence, actually the more comprehensive formulation of what formal equality must
entail in order to be morally acceptable. It indicates what produces an adequate equality: if
factors speak for unequal treatment or distribution because the persons concerned are unequal
in relevant respects, the treatment or distribution proportional to these factors is just. Unequal
claims to treatment or distribution must be considered proportionally: this is the prerequisite for
persons being considered equally in a just sense.
Slide 3 Moral Equality
More specifically, in spite of descriptive differences in certain relevant respects, all persons
should be regarded and treated as moral equals, so that they are essentially entitled to the
same basic moral rights and duties. The principle of treatment as an equal is not the same as
equal treatment; it does not imply being entitled to an equal share, but being treated as a free
and equal person.9 Following this assertion of the fundamental moral equality of all persons,
different persons should be equal in their social status. This is the morally and politically
fundamental principle of basic moral equality. As a moral ideal, it asserts that all people are of
equal moral worth (or in other words: equal dignity) and that there are some claims that people
are entitled to make on one another simply by virtue of their status as persons.10
From moral equality, one can derive a prohibition on arbitrary unequal treatment; that is, a
prohibition on discrimination. Even if justice already implies that nobody should be arbitrarily put
at a disadvantage, this explication still leaves open which differences between persons are
morally irrelevant and therefore should not be considered and which differences are to be
considered. Moral equality does not completely fill in this variable, but it restricts it in an
important respect. Different treatments of concerned parties based on differences in gender,
race, social background, ethnicity, language, culture, religion or due to social hierarchies, etc.,
are morally arbitrary. This is because differences in natural endowments are differences for
which the respective people are not themselves responsible, and therefore cannot justify
different treatment. Otherwise the principle of moral equality would be violated.
Slide 4 Presumptions of Equality
Presumption of Equality requires that individuals be treated equally in the absence of relevant
information that would discriminate between them. Presumption norms are procedural
constraints, but their justification can be sought in the possible or expected outcomes of the
procedures they regulate. This is the avenue pursued here. The suggestion is that in the
absence of information that would discriminate between the individuals, equal treatment
minimizes the expected unfairness of the outcome. A related suggestion is that equal treatment
under these circumstances also minimizes the maximal possible unfairness of the outcome.
Whether these suggestions are correct or not depends on the properties of the underlying
unfairness measure.
GARCIA vs DRILON and GARCIA
Slide 5 Rights and Equality

Equality affirms that all human beings are born free and equal. Equality presupposes that
all individuals have the same rights and deserve the same level of respect. All people have
the right to be treated equally. This means that laws, policies and programs should not be
discriminatory, and also that public authorities should not apply or enforce laws, policies
and programs in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner.

International School Alliance of Educators vs Quisimbing

Slide 6 Human Rights

Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are
not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of
nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status.
They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth
living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the UN General

Assembly in 1948, was the first legal document to set out the fundamental human rights
to be universally protected. The UDHR, which turned 70 in 2018, continues to be the
foundation of all international human rights law. Its 30 articles provide the principles
and building blocks of current and future human rights conventions, treaties and other
legal instruments.

Human rights are rights that flow from human nature, from the demands and dignity of being
human, and therefore should be given to every human being. It is nearly universally agreed that
some of those rights are religious toleration, a general right to dissent, and freedom from
arbitrary punishment. It is not necessarily the case, however, that what the law guarantees as a
human right in one country should also be guaranteed by law in all other countries. Some human
rights might be considered fundamental in some countries, but not in others. For example, trial
by jury which we have earlier cited as an example of a civil right which is not a natural right, is a
basic human right in the United States protected by its constitution, but not so in Philippine
jurisdiction. Similar to natural rights, the definition of human rights is derived from human
nature, thus understandably not exact. The definition that it is a “right which inheres in persons
from the fact of their humanity”, however, can serve as a guideline to identify human rights. It
seems though that the concept of human rights is broadest as it encompasses a human person’s
natural rights (e.g, religious freedom) and civil rights created by law (e.g. right to trial by jury).

Natural rights- a portion of this undifferentiated natural liberty and were often broadly
categorized as the rights to life, liberty and property; or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Free exercise of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and press, right to self-
defense, right to one’s reputation.

Civil rights- habeas corpus and jury rights, do not exist in the state of nature, but exist only under
the laws of civil government or the constitution because they are essential in retaining
government. They are acquired rights which can only exist under civil government.

Natural Rights vs. Civil Rights

Civil rights are rights given to individuals by societies. They are established and enforced by
law. Natural rights exist even if a society falls apart, but civil rights would disappear without
someone to enforce them. Civil rights protect individuals from discrimination based on their
race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion, or any other protected class. Civil liberties,
like those outlined in the Bill of Rights (such as Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech),
apply legal protection to natural rights to freedom, but again, they would cease to exist without a
government to enforce them.

Natural Rights vs. Human Rights

Many people use natural rights and human rights interchangeably. However, they are slightly
different. Natural rights exist whether a government acknowledges them or not. Human rights
are a government's acknowledgment of the rights their citizens should have by virtue of being
human. They may overlap — for example, the right to live is both a natural right and a human
right — but natural rights always exist and do not change over time. A government may apply,
change or strip the legal human rights from their citizens when they desire. They may never
change one's natural rights.

Some human rights might be considered fundamental in some countries, but not in
others. For example, trial by jury is a basic human right in US but is different here in the
Philippines.

Slide 7 Equality before the Law

Equality before the law means that all human beings have the right to be treated equally before the
law.  They are also entitled to the equal protection of the law, which means all people have the right
to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against because of their race, colour, gender, language,
religion, political beliefs, status or any other unlawful reason. 
Equality before the law, in terms of our fundamental law, refers to the equal Protection Clause. This
refers to the equality in the enjoyment of similar rights and privileges granted by law. Phrased
differently, the equal protection clause under the Constitution means that no person shall be deprived
of the same protection of laws which si enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place in
like circumstances. Moreover it is well settled equal protection clause applies only to persons or
things identically situated and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subjects of legislation
A Classification is reasonable where:
a. it is based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences
b. these are germane to the purpose of the law
c. the classification applies not only to the present conditions but also to the future conditions which
are substantially identical to those of the present; and
d. the classification applies equally to all those who belong to the same class
Ormoc Sugar Central vs City of Ormoc