Jethro Faustine S. Climacosa LLB4101 I.

Equal Protection of the Laws- Commonly used as a Legal Principle and is one of the Fundamental Laws of the Philippine Constitution. It falls under Sec. 1, Article III of our Bill of Rights which states No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. It is the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law. It is commonly known in the Philippine jurisprudence as The Equal Protection Clause. In simpler terms means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another. It commonly works hand in hand with Due Process. The Principle applies really not in absolute equality but more of legal equality. Inherent therefore in the application of the Equal Protection Clause is the need for valid classifications so as to determine who or what could properly be grouped together for particular treatment, and excluding all others. (Political Law and Highlights, Gorospe, 2010) For the classification to be reasonable it must have the following requisites: 1. 2. 3. 4. must rest on substantial distinction must be germane to the purpose of the law must not be limited to existing conditions only must apply equally to all members of the same class

II People v Cayat 68 Phil. 12 G.R. No. L-45987 May 5, 1939

Facts: Cayat was a native from Baguio, Benguet, Mt. Province who was found guilty of violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Act 1639: It shall be unlawful for any native of the Philippine

Islands who is a member of a non-Christian tribe within the meaning of the Act Numbered Thirteen hundred and ninety-seven, 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 themselves to make prior to the passage of this Act, except as provided in section one hereof; and it shall be the duty of any police officer or other duly authorized agent of the Insular or any provincial, municipal or township government to seize and forthwith destroy any such liquors found unlawfully in the possession of any member of a non-Christian tribe.

Provision: SEC. 3. Any person violating the provisions of section one or section two of this Act shall, upon conviction thereof, be punishable for each offense by a fine of not exceeding two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, in the discretion of the court. Issues: 1. If said law is discriminatory and denies Equal Protection of laws; 2. If said law is an improper exercise of the police power of the state.

Held: It is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The guaranty of the Equal Protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. The classifications, to be reasonable: (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose 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 the requirements. Therefor it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It satisfies the requisite for the following reasons. First, the term Non-Christian does not refer to the religion of the people but of geographical distinction. Secondly, the law was created to ensure peace and public order. Thirdly, its application will apply continually until such condition exist, on the case at hand the percentage of natives creating public disorder when drinking liquor they are not accustomed with. Lastly, it applies to any native in the area and not only in a certain area. In the matter of incorrect use of police power, the law was made to ensure peace and order therefore as stated to the valid use of police power Any measure intended to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people or to increase the industries of the state, develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity is legitimate exercise of police

power, unless shown to be whimsical or capricious as to unduly interfere with the rights of an individual., makes it constitutional.

III 1. Equal Protection Clause was very important in deciding the case, since if the Sections 2 and 3 of Act 1639 did not meet even one of the requisites of the Equal Protection Clause will make the law unconstitutional even there is a valid use of Police Power. 2. On the case of People v Cayat, they are contending that the term Non-Christian being discriminatory and deny the equal protection of the laws. However the court cleared out that the term Non-Christian refers to geographical area. Thus the law being questioned meet all the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause making it constitutional.