NUNEZ VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN

“Equal Protection” – Creation of the Sandiganbayan

Nuñez assails the validity of the PD 1486 creating the Sandiganbayan as amended by PD 1606.
He was accused before the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public and
commercial documents committed in connivance with his other co-accused, all public officials, in
several cases. It is the claim of Nuñez that PD1486, as amended, is violative of the due
process, equal protection, and ex post facto clauses of the Constitution. He claims that the
Sandiganbayan proceedings violates Nuñez’s right to equal protection, because – appeal as a
matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion; – appeal likewise was shrunk
and limited only to questions of law, excluding a review of the facts and trial evidence; and there
is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the SC, instead of the traditional two
chances; while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of right covering both
law and facts and to two appellate courts, i.e., first to the CA and thereafter to the SC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the creation of Sandiganbayan violates equal protection insofar as appeals
would be concerned.

HELD: The SC ruled against Nuñez. The 1973 Constitution had provided for the creation of a
special court that shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving public officials charged
with graft and corruption. The constitution specifically makes mention of the creation of a special
court, the Sandiganbayan, precisely in response to a problem, the urgency of which cannot be
denied, namely, dishonesty in the public service. It follows that those who may thereafter be tried
by such court ought to have been aware as far back as January 17, 1973, when the present
Constitution came into force, that a different procedure for the accused therein, whether a private
citizen as petitioner is or a public official, is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause
of the Constitution. Further, the classification therein set forth met the standard requiring that it
“must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the
purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to
each member of the class.” Further still, decisions in the Sandiganbayan are reached by a
unanimous decision from 3 justices – a showing that decisions therein are more conceivably
carefully reached than other trial courts.