Equal Protection Franking Privilege of the Judiciary

Phil. Judges Association vs. Prado FACTS: A circular implemented to withdraw franking privilege from the judiciary. Phil. Judges Association (PJA) assailed the said law complaining that the law would adversely impair the communication within the judiciary as it may impair the sending of judicial notices. PJA averred that the law is discriminatory as it disallowed the franking privilege of the Judiciary but has not disallowed the franking privilege of others such as the executive, former executives and their widows among others. The respondents counter that there is no discrimination because the law is based on a valid classification in accordance with the equal protection clause. In fact, the franking privilege has been withdrawn not only from the Judiciary but from others as well. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of equal protection before the law. HELD: The SC ruled that there is a violation of the equal protection clause. The judiciary needs the franking privilege as badly as it is vital to its operation. Evident to that need is the high expense allotted to the judiciarys franking needs. The Postmaster cannot be sustained in contending that the removal of the franking privilege from the judiciary is in order to cut expenditure. This is untenable for if the Postmaster would intend to cut expenditure by removing the franking privilege of the judiciary, then they should have removed the franking privilege all at once from all the other departments. If the problem of the respondents is the loss of revenues from the franking privilege, the remedy is to withdraw it altogether from all agencies of the government, including those who do not need it. The problem is not solved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others, especially where there is no substantial distinction between those favored, which may or may not need it at all, and the Judiciary, which definitely needs it. The problem is not solved by violating the Constitution. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things without distinction. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection, as where, for example, a law prohibiting mature books to all persons, regardless of age, would benefit the morals of the youth but violate the liberty of adults. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all others in these same particulars. In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from which the franking privilege has been withdrawn, Sec 35 has placed the courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong. If it recognizes the need of the President of the Philippines and the members of Congress for the franking privilege, there is no reason why it should not recognize a similar and in fact greater need on the part of the Judiciary for such privilege.

VERA VS CUEVAS FACTS: Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of filled milk products. They brought an action for a declaration of their rights in respect of section 169 of the Tax Code. This provision required that "all condensed skimmed milk in whatever form, from which the fatty part has been removed totally or in part or put on sale in the Philippines shall be clearly and legibly marked on its immediate containers with the words: This milk is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one year of age .

ISSUES: What provision of the law was assailed as a denial of the equal protection of the law? Is there a violation of equal protection if there is an unequal enforcement of the law? Is an unequal enforcement of the law a denial of due process?

HELD: Section 169 is being enforced only against respondent manufacturers of filled milk product and not as against manufacturers, distributors or sellers of condensed skimmed milk in which, as admitted by the petitioner, the fatty part has been removed and substituted with vegetable or corn oil. The enforcement of Section 169 against the private respondents only but not against other persons similarly situated as the private respondents amounts to an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the laws, for the law, equally enforced, would similarly offend against the Constitution.

Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights

Facts: It all started with a "Demolition Notice," giving them a grace-period of 3 days (within which to vacate the premises of North EDSA. The CHR issued an Order, directed the petitioners to "desist from further demolition, with the warning that violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest.

Issue: Would a violation of civil rights be tantamount to a violation of human rights? How about political rights?

Held: Not necessarily , there are a only various specific civil and political rights that must be envisioned initially like freedom from political detention and arrest prevention of torture, right to fair and public trials, as well as crimes involving disappearance, salvaging, hamletting and collective violations. So, it is limited to politically related crimes precisely to protect the civil and political rights of a specific group of individuals, and therefore, not opening it up to all of the definite areas.

PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION VS PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO. INC.

FACTS: The legitimate labor union composed of employees of the respondent decided to stage a mass demonstration to protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. The Company warned the union that the workers of the 1st shift, without leave of absence approved by the company who fail to report on March 4 shall be dismissed because it is a violation of the NO LOCKOUT, NO STRIKE in the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) but the union countered that it was too late to change their plans. Company filed charges against petitioner in the 1st shift with violation of the CBA.PBMEO was found guilty of bargaining in bad faith and the officers of PBMEO, as a consequence, were considered to have lost their status as employees in, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of said order on the grounds that it is contrary to law and evidence as well asked for 10 days within which to file their arguments. Their motion was 2 days late according to the rules of CIR and accordingly DISMISSED ISSUE: What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights? How did the Court define Bill of Rights? HELD The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles." The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Laski proclaimed that "the happiness of the individual, not the well-being of the State, was the criterion by which its behaviour was to be judged. His interests, not its power, set the limits to the authority it was entitled to exercise."

MIRASOL VS. DPWH,

FACTS: Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of an administrative regulation banning the use of motorcycles at the toll way on the ground that it is baseless and unwarranted for failure to provide scientific and objective data on the dangers of motorcycles plying the highways. Respondent avers that the toll ways were not designed to accommodate motorcycles and that their presence in the toll ways will compromise safety and traffic considerations. ISSUE: Is the use of public highways by a motor vehicle subject to police power? What is the test of a police power measure? When can a classification be assailed as a violation of the equal protection clause? Did the Supreme Court find that there was a substantial difference between a motorcycle and other forms of transport? Did the regulation violate the right to travel? What is a license?

HELD: Yes, the use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the police power of the state. The sole standard in measuring its exercise is reasonableness, not exact definition and scientific formulation. It is evident that assailed regulation does not impose unreasonable restrictions, but outlines precautionary measures designed to ensure public safety. A classification can only be assailed if it is deemed invidious, that is, it is not based on real or substantial differences. The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time they choose using private or public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not denied the right to move from Point A to Point B along the toll way. Petitioners are free to access the toll way, much as the rest of the public can. The mode by which petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by regulation. A drivers license issued by the LTO merely allows one to drive a particular mode of transport. It is not a license to drive or operate any form of transportation on any type of road.

Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro

FACTS: Rubi and various other Manguianes in the province of Mindoro were ordered by the provincial governor of Mindoro to remove their residence from their native habitat and to established themselves on a reservation at Tigbao in the province of Mindoro and to remain there, or be punished by imprisonment if they escaped. One of the Manguianes, Dabalos, escaped from the reservation and was taken in hand by the provincial sheriff and placed in prison, solely because he escaped from the reservation. An application for habeas corpus was made on behalf of Rubi and other Manguianes of the province, alleging that by virtue of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro creating the reservation, they had been illegally deprived of their liberty. ISSUE: What is the right to liberty? What does this right include? Did Section 2145 violate the due process of law and the equal protection of the laws? Do you agree with how the Supreme Court justified its decision in this case? HELD: By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of this section of the Administrative Code. Among other things, it was held that the term non-Christian should not be given a literal meaning or a religious signification, but that it was intended to relate to degrees of civilization. The term non-Christian it was said, refers not to religious belief, but in a way to geographical area, and more directly to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. On the other hand, none of the provisions of the Philippine Organic Law could have had the effect of denying to the Government of the Philippine Islands, acting through its Legislature, the right to exercise that most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers, the sovereign police power, in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. when to advance the public welfare, the law was found to be a legitimate exertion of the police power, And it is unnecessary to add that the prompt registration of titles to land in the Philippines constitutes an advancement of the public interests, for, besides promoting peace and good order among landowners in particular and the people in general, it helps increase the industries of the country, and makes for the development of the natural resources, with the consequent progress of the general prosperity. And these ends are pursued in a special manner by the State through the exercise of its police power. The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro was neither discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among other things: . . . one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws, there exists a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.

CORONA VS. HARBOR PILOTS FACTS: Pursuant to its power of control, regulation, and supervision of pilots and the pilotage profession, the PPA through PPA General Manager Rogelio Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92. Providing therein that "All existing regular appointments which have been previously issued either by the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only" and that "all appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance ISSUES: What is involved in this case? Procedural or substantive due process? What is the difference between substantive and procedural due process? What was the property right considered in this case? Why? Was the property right a vested right? What was the Order that was challenged? Was the Order considered a violation of due process? HELD: In essence, procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced, while substantive due process requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just. Their license is granted in the form of an appointment which allows them to engage in pilotage until they retire at the age 70 years. This is a vested right It is readily apparent that PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to enjoy their profession before their compulsory retirement. In the past, they enjoyed a measure of security knowing that after passing five examinations and undergoing years of on-the-job training, they would have a license which they could use until their retirement, unless sooner revoked by the PPA for mental or physical unfitness. Under the new issuance, they have to contend with an annual cancellation of their license which can be temporary or permanent depending on the outcome of their performance evaluation. Veteran pilots and neophytes alike are suddenly confronted with one-year terms which ipso facto expire at the end of that period. Renewal of their license is now dependent on a rigid evaluation of performance which is conducted only after the license has already been cancelled. Hence, the use of the term renewal. It is this pre-evaluation cancellation which primarily makes it unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. In a real sense, it is a deprivation of property without due process of law.

A mere license is always revocable Chavez vs. Romulo FACTS: This case is about the ban on the carrying of firearms outside of residence in order to deter the rising crime rates. Petitioner questions the ban as a violation of his right to property. ISSUE: Is there a right to bear arms? Is this a constitutional right or a statutory right? What is the nature of a license? Is a license a property right? HELD: Petitioner cannot find solace to the above-quoted Constitutional provision. In evaluating a due process claim, the first and foremost consideration must be whether life, liberty or property interest exists. The right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. It is a mere statutory creation It does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions, and such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed. A license takes his license subject to such conditions as the Legislature sees fit to impose, and one of the statutory conditions of this license is that it might be revoked by the selectmen at their pleasure. Such a license is not a contract, and a revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of any property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words in the Declaration of Rights.