Vera to Flores Case Digest (Equal Protection Clause)

7/25/2019 Vera to Flores Case Digest (Equal Protection Clause)

1/61

People of the Philippines vs Jose

Vera

65 Phil. 56 Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Equal Protection

Probation Law

Separation of Powers Unue !elegation of Powers Power to Paron

Constitutionalit" of Laws #a" the State $uestion %ts &wn Laws

In 1934, Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a criminal case filed against him by the

ong!ong and "hanghai #an!ing Cor$oration %"#C&' In 193(, he filed for $robation' )he

matter was referred to the Insular *robation +ffice which recommended the denial of Cu

Unjiengs $etition for $robation' - hearing was set by .udge .ose /era concerning the

$etition for $robation' )he *rosecution o$$osed the $etition' 0ventually, due to delays in the

hearing, the *rosecution filed a $etition for certiorari with the "u$reme Court alleging that

courts li!e the Court of irst Instance of Manila %which is $resided over by .udge /era& have

no jurisdiction to $lace accused li!e Cu Unjieng under $robation because under the law %-ct

2o' 41 or )he *robation aw&, $robation is only meant to be a$$lied in $rovinces with

$robation officers5 that the City of Manila is not a $rovince, and that Manila, even if

construed as a $rovince, has no designated $robation officer 6 hence, a Manila court

cannot grant $robation'

Meanwhile, "#C also filed its own comment on the matter alleging that -ct 41 is

unconstitutional for it violates the constitutional guarantee on e7ual $rotection of the laws'

"#C averred that the said law ma!es it the $rerogative of $rovinces whether or nor to

a$$ly the $robation law 6 if a $rovince chooses to a$$ly the $robation law, then it will

a$$oint a $robation officer, but if it will not, then no $robation officer will be a$$ointed 6

hence, that ma!es it violative of the e7ual $rotection clause'

urther, "#C averred that the *robation aw is an undue delegation of $ower because it

gave the o$tion to the $rovincial board to whether or not to a$$ly the $robation law 6

however, the legislature did not $rovide guidelines to be followed by the $rovincial board'


2/61

urther still, "#C averred that the *robation aw is an encroachment of the e8ecutives

$ower to grant $ardon' )hey say that the legislature, by $roviding for a $robation law, had in

effect encroached u$on the e8ecutives $ower to grant $ardon' %Ironically, the *rosecution

agreed with the issues raised by "#C 6 ironic because their main stance was the non

a$$licability of the $robation law only in Manila while recogni:ing its a$$lication in$rovinces&'

or his $art, one of the issues raised by Cu Unjieng is that, the *rosecution, re$resenting

the "tate as well as the *eo$le of the *hili$$ines, cannot 7uestion the validity of a law, li!e

-ct 41, which the "tate itself created' urther, Cu Unjieng also castigated the fiscal of

Manila who himself had used the *robation aw in the $ast without 7uestion but is now

7uestioning the validity of the said law %esto$$el&'

ISSUE:

1' May the "tate 7uestion its own laws;

' Is -ct 41 constitutional;

HELD:

1'


3/61

$rovincial boards follow in determining whether or not to a$$ly the $robation law in their

$rovince' )his only creates a roving commission which will act arbitrarily according to its

whims'

Encroach)ent of E*ecuti(e Power

)hough -ct 41 is unconstitutional, the "u$reme Court recogni:ed the $ower of Congress

to $rovide for $robation' *robation does not encroach u$on the *residents $ower to grant

$ardon' *robation is not $ardon' *robation is within the $ower of Congress to fi8 $enalties

while $ardon is a $ower of the $resident to commute $enalties'


4/61

FERDINAND R. MARCOS II,petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, THE

COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE and

HERMINIA D. DE GUZMAN, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TORRES, JR., J.:

In this *etition for ?eview on Certiorari+@overnment action is once again

assailed as $reci$itate and unfair, suffering the basic and oftly im$lored

re7uisites of due $rocess of law' "$ecifically, the $etition assails the

Aecision=1>of the Court of -$$eals dated 2ovember 9, 1994 in C-@'?' "*

2o' 313(3, where the said court heldB

"In view of all the foregoing, we rule that the deficiency income tax assessments and

estate tax assessment, are already final and (u)nappealable and the subse!uent levy

of real properties is a tax remedy resorted to by the government, sanctioned by

ection #$% and #$& of the 'ational Internal evenue ode* +his summary tax

remedy is distinct and separate from the other tax remedies (such as Judicial ivil

actions and riminal actions), and is not affected or precluded by the pendency of any

other tax remedies instituted by the government*

-../0., premises considered, 1udgment is hereby rendered 2I3II'4 the

petition for certiorari with prayer for estraining 0rder and In1unction*

'o pronouncements as to costs*

0 02..2*"

More than seven years since the demise of the late erdinand 0' Marcos,

the former *resident of the ?e$ublic of the *hili$$ines, the matter of the

settlement of his estate, and its dues to the government in estate ta8es, are

still unresolved, the latter issue being now before this Court for

resolution'"$ecifically, $etitioner erdinand ?' Marcos II, the eldest son of the

decedent, 7uestions the actuations of the res$ondent Commissioner of

Internal ?evenue in assessing, and collecting through the summary remedy of

evy on ?eal *ro$erties, estate and income ta8 delin7uencies u$on the estate

and $ro$erties of his father, des$ite the $endency of the $roceedings on
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn1


5/61

$robate of the will of the late $resident, which is doc!eted as "$' *roc' 2o'

1D9 in the ?egional )rial Court of *asig, #ranch 1E('

*etitioner had filed with the res$ondent Court of -$$eals a *etition

for Certiorariand *rohibition with an a$$lication for writ of $reliminary

injunction andFor tem$orary restraining order on .une G, 1993, see!ing to

I* 5nnul and set aside the 'otices of 6evy on real property dated /ebruary ##, $77%

and 3ay #8, $77%, issued by respondent ommissioner of Internal evenue9

II* 5nnul and set aside the 'otices of ale dated 3ay #:, $77%9

III* .n1oin the -ead evenue .xecutive 5ssistant 2irector II (ollection ervice),

from proceeding with the 5uction of the real properties covered by 'otices ofale*

-fter the $arties had $leaded their case, the Court of -$$eals rendered its

Aecision=>on 2ovember 9, 1994, ruling that the deficiency assessments for

estate and income ta8 made u$on the $etitioner and the estate of the

deceased *resident Marcos have already become final and una$$ealable,

and may thus be enforced by the summary remedy of levying u$on the

$ro$erties of the late *resident, as was done by the res$ondent

Commissioner of Internal ?evenue'

"-../0., premises considered 1udgment is hereby rendered 2I3II'4 the

petition for ertiorari with prayer for estraining 0rder and In1unction*

'o pronouncements as to cost*

0 02..2*"

Un$erturbed, $etitioner is now before us assailing the validity of the

a$$ellate courtHs decision, assigning the following as errorsB

-' ?0"*+2A02) C+U?) M-2I0")< 0??0A I2 ?UI2@ )-) )0 "UMM-?< )-

?0M0AI0" ?0"+?)0A )+ #< )0 @+/0?2M02) -?0 2+) -0C)0A -2A*?0CUA0A #< )0 *02A02C< + )0 "*0CI- *?+C00AI2@ +? )0 -+J-2C0

+ )0 -)0 *?0"IA02)H" -0@0A JI')+ )0 C+2)?-?


6/61

#' ?0"*+2A02) C+U?) -?#I)?-?I< 0??0A I2 "J00*I2@< A0CIAI2@ )-)

"I2C0 )0 )- -""0""M02)" + *0)I)I+20? -2A I" *-?02)" -A -?0-Aewise, copies of the deficiency tax assessments issued

against petitioner /erdinand =Fongbong= 3arcos II were also personally and

constructively served upon him (through his careta>er) on eptember $#, $77$, at his

last >nown address at 2on 3ariano 3arcos t* corner P* 4uevarra t*, an Juan,

3*3* (5nnexes =J= and =J$= of the Petition)* +hereafter, /ormal 5ssessment notices

were served on 0ctober #8, $77#, upon 3rs* 3arcos cHo petitioner, at his office,

-ouse of epresentatives, Fatasan Pambansa, AueBon ity* 3oreover, a notice to

+axpayer inviting 3rs* 3arcos (or her duly authoriBed representative or counsel), to a

conference, was furnished the counsel of 3rs* 3arcos, 2ean 5ntonio oronel but to

no avail*


8/61

+he deficiency tax assessments were not protested administratively, by 3rs* 3arcos

and the other heirs of the late president, within %8 days from service of said

assessments*

0n /ebruary ##, $77%, the FI ommissioner issued twentytwo notices of levy on

real property against certain parcels of land owned by the 3arcoses to satisfy the

alleged estate tax and deficiency income taxes of pouses 3arcos*

0n 3ay #8, $77%, four more 'otices of 6evy on real property were issued for the

purpose of satisfying the deficiency income taxes*

0n 3ay #:, $77%, additional four (C) notices of 6evy on real property were again

issued* +he foregoing tax remedies were resorted to pursuant to ections #8D and #$%

of the 'ational Internal evenue ode ('I)*

In response to a letter dated 3arch $#, $77% sent by 5tty* 6oreto 5ta (counsel of

herein petitioner) calling the attention of the FI and re!uesting that they be duly

notified of any action ta>en by the FI affecting the interest of their client /erdinand

=Fongbong 3arcos II, as well as the interest of the late president copies of the

aforesaid notices were served on 5pril @, $77% and on June $8, $77%, upon 3rs*

Imelda 3arcos, the petitioner, and their counsel of record, =2e For1a, 3edialdea, 5ta,

Fello, 4uevarra and erapio 6aw 0ffice=*

'otices of sale at public auction were posted on 3ay #:, $77%, at the lobby of the

ity -all of +acloban ity* +he public auction for the sale of the eleven ($$) parcels

of land too> place on July D, $77%* +here being no bidder, the lots were declared

forfeited in favor of the government*

0n June #D, $77%, petitioner /erdinand =Fongbong= 3arcos II filed the instant petition

for certiorari and prohibition under ule :D of the ules of ourt, with prayer for

temporary restraining order andHor writ of preliminary in1unction*"

It has been re$eatedly observed, and not without merit, that the

enforcement of ta8 laws and the collection of ta8es, is of $aramountim$ortance for the sustenance of government' )a8es are the lifeblood of the

government and should be collected without unnecessary

hindrance' owever, such collection should be made in accordance with law

as any arbitrariness will negate the very reason for government itself' It is

therefore necessary to reconcile the a$$arently conflicting interests of the


9/61

authorities and the ta8$ayers so that the real $ur$ose of ta8ation, which is the

$romotion of the common good, may be achieved' =3>

Jhether or not the $ro$er avenues of assessment and collection of the

said ta8 obligations were ta!en by the res$ondent #ureau is now the subject

of the CourtHs in7uiry'

*etitioner $osits that notices of levy, notices of sale, and subse7uent sale

of $ro$erties of the late *resident Marcos effected by the #I? are null and

void for disregarding the established $rocedure for the enforcement of ta8es

due u$on the estate of the deceased' )he case of Aomingo vs' @arlitos =4>is

s$ecifically cited to bolster the argument that the ordinary $rocedure by which

to settle claims of indebtedness against the estate of a deceased, $erson, as

in an inheritance %estate& ta8, is for the claimant to $resent a claim before the

$robate court so that said court may order the administrator to $ay the amounttherefor' )his remedy is allegedly, e8clusive, and cannot be effected through

any other means'

*etitioner goes further, submitting that the $robate court is not $recluded

from denying a re7uest by the government for the immediate $ayment of

ta8es, and should order the $ayment of the same only within the $eriod fi8ed

by the $robate court for the $ayment of all the debts of the decedent' In this

regard, $etitioner cites the case of Collector of Internal ?evenue vs' )he

-dministratri8 of the 0state of 0charri %(D *hil E&, where it was held thatB

"+he case of Pineda vs* ourt of /irst Instance of +ayabas and ollector of Internal

evenue (D# Phil &8%), relied upon by the petitionerappellant is good authority on the

proposition that the court having control over the administration proceedings has

1urisdiction to entertain the claim presented by the government for taxes due and to

order the administrator to pay the tax should it find that the assessment was proper,

and that the tax was legal, due and collectible* 5nd the rule laid down in that case

must be understood in relation to the case of ollector of ustoms vs* -aygood,

supra*, as to the procedure to be followed in a given case by the government to

effectuate the collection of the tax* ategorically stated, where during the pendency of

1udicial administration over the estate of a deceased person a claim for taxes is

presented by the government, the court has the authority to order payment by the

administrator9 but, in the same way that it has authority to order payment or

satisfaction, it also has the negative authority to deny the same* hile there are cases

where courts are re!uired to perform certain duties mandatory and ministerial in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn4


10/61

character, the function of the court in a case of the present character is not one of

them9 and here, the court cannot be an organism endowed withlatitude of 1udgment in

one direction, and converted into a mere mechanical contrivance in another direction*"

+n the other hand, it is argued by the #I?, that the stateHs authority to

collect internal revenue ta8es is $aramount' )hus, the $endency of $robate

$roceedings over the estate of the deceased does not $reclude the

assessment and collection, through summary remedies, of estate ta8es over

the same' -ccording to the res$ondent, claims for $ayment of estate and

income ta8es due and assessed after the death of the decedent need not be

$resented in the form of a claim against the estate' )hese can and should be

$aid immediately' )he $robate court is not the government agency to decide

whether an estate is liable for $ayment of estate of income ta8es' Jellsettled

is the rule that the $robate court is a court with s$ecial and limited jurisdiction'

Concededly, the authority of the ?egional )rial Court, sitting, albeitwith

limited jurisdiction, as a $robate court over estate of deceased individual, is

not a trifling thing' )he courtHs jurisdiction, once invo!ed, and made effective,

cannot be treated with indifference nor should it be ignored with im$unity by

the very $arties invo!ing its authority'

In testament to this, it has been held that it is within the jurisdiction of the

$robate court to a$$rove the sale of $ro$erties of a deceased $erson by his

$ros$ective heirs before final adjudication5=E>

to determine who are the heirs ofthe decedent5=(>the recognition of a natural child5=D>the status of a woman

claiming to be the legal wife of the decedent5 =G>the legality of disinheritance of

an heir by the testator5=9>and to $ass u$on the validity of a waiver of hereditary

rights'=1>

)he $ivotal 7uestion the court is tas!ed to resolve refers to the authority of

the #ureau of Internal ?evenue to collect by the summary remedy of levying

u$on, and sale of real $ro$erties of the decedent, estate ta8 deficiencies,

without the cognition and authority of the court sitting in $robate over the

su$$osed will of the deceased'

)he nature of the $rocess of estate ta8 collection has been described as

followsB

"trictly spea>ing, the assessment of an inheritance tax does not directly involve the

administration of a decedent=s estate, although it may be viewed as an incident to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn10


11/61

complete settlement of an estate, and, under some statutes, it is made the duty of the

probate court to ma>e the amount of the inheritance tax a part of the final decree of

distribution of the estate* It is not against the property of decedent, nor is it a claim

against the estate as such, but it is against the interest or property right which the heir,

legatee, devisee, etc*, has in the property formerly held by decedent* /urther, undersome statutes, it has been held that it is not a suit or controversy between the parties,

nor is it an adversary proceeding between the state and the person who owes the tax

on the inheritance* -owever, under other statutes it has been held that the hearing and

determination of the cash value of the assets and the determination of the tax are

adversary proceedings* +he proceeding has been held to be necessarily a proceeding

in rem*;$$that the court recogni:ed the liberal

treatment of claims for ta8es charged against the estate of the decedent' "uch

ta8es, we said, were e8em$ted from the a$$lication of the statute of non

claims, and this is justified by the necessity of government funding,

immortali:ed in the ma8im that ta8es are the lifeblood of the

government' 'ectigalia ner(i sunt rei publicae ta8es are the sinews of the

state'

"+axes assessed against the estate of a deceased person, after administration is opened,

need not be submitted to the committee on claims in the ordinary course of

administration* In the exercise of its control over the administrator, the court may

direct the payment of such taxes upon motion showing that the taxes have been

assessed against the estate*"
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn12


12/61

"uch liberal treatment of internal revenue ta8es in the $robate

$roceedings e8tends so far, even to allowing the enforcement of ta8

obligations against the heirs of the decedent, even after distribution of the

estateHs $ro$erties'

"laims for taxes, whether assessed before or after the death of the deceased, can be

collected from the heirs even after the distribution of the properties of the

decedent* +hey are exempted from the application of the statute of nonclaims* +he

heirs shall be liable therefor, in proportion to their share in the inheritance*" ;$%

*etitioner s$ecifically $oints out that a$$lying Memorandum Circular 2o'

3G(G, im$lementing "ections 31G and 34 of the old ta8 code %?e$ublic -ctE3&, the #I?Hs 2otices of evy on the Marcos $ro$erties, were issued

beyond the allowed $eriod, and are therefore null and voidB

"***the 'otices of 6evy on eal Property (5nnexes 8 to '' of 5nnex of this

Petition) in satisfaction of said assessments were still issued by respondents well

beyond the period mandated in evenue 3emorandum ircular 'o* %&:&* +hese


14/61

'otices of 6evy were issued only on ## /ebruary $77% and #8 3ay $77% when at

least seventeen ($@) months had already lapsed from the last service of tax assessment

on $# eptember $77$* 5s no notices of distraint of personal property were first

issued by respondents, the latter should have complied with evenue 3emorandum

ircular 'o* %&:& and issued these 'otices of 6evy not earlier than three (%) monthsnor later than six (:) months from $# eptember $77$* In accordance with the

ircular, respondents only had until $# 3arch $77# (the last day of the sixth month)

within which to issue these 'otices of 6evy* +he 'otices of 6evy, having been issued

beyond the period allowed by law, are thus void and of no effect*";$Den cogniBance of in the civil or criminal action for the collection thereof*

888

(c) 5ny internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of limitation

above prescribed, may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court

within three years following the assessment of the tax*

888

)he omission to file an estate ta8 return, and the subse7uent failure to

contest or a$$eal the assessment made by the #I? is fatal to the $etitionerHs

cause, as under the abovecited $rovision, in case of failure to file a return,

the ta8 may be assessed at any time within ten years after the omission, and


15/61

any ta8 so assessed may be collected by levy u$on real $ro$erty within three

years following the assessment of the ta8' "ince the estate ta8 assessment

had become final and una$$ealable by the $etitionerHs default as regards

$rotesting the validity of the said assessment, there is now no reason why the

#I? cannot continue with the collection of the said ta8' -ny objection againstthe assessment should have been $ursued following the avenue $aved in

"ection 9 of the 2I?C on $rotests on assessments of internal revenue

ta8es'

*etitioner further argues that the numerous $ending court cases

7uestioning the late $residentHs ownershi$ or interests in several $ro$erties

%both real and $ersonal& ma!e the total value of his estate, and the

conse7uent estate ta8 due, inca$able of e8act $ecuniary determination at this

time')hus, res$ondentsH assessment of the estate ta8 and their issuance of

the 2otices of evy and sale are $remature and o$$ressive' e $oints out the$endency of "andiganbayan Civil Case 2os' 134 and 141, which

were filed by the government to 7uestion the ownershi$ and interests of the

late *resident in real and $ersonal $ro$erties located within and outside the

*hili$$ines' *etitioner, however, omits to allege whether the $ro$erties levied

u$on by the #I? in the collection of estate ta8es u$on the decedentHs estate

were among those involved in the said cases $ending in the

"andiganbayan' Indeed, the court is at a loss as to how these cases are

relevant to the matter at issue' )he mere fact that the decedent has $ending

cases involving illgotten wealth does not affect the enforcement of ta8assessments over the $ro$erties indubitably included in his estate'

*etitioner also e8$resses his reservation as to the $ro$riety of the #I?Hs

total assessment of *3,9,(D,(3G', stating that this amount deviates

from the findings of the Ae$artment of .usticeHs *anel of *rosecutors as $er

its resolution of "e$tember 1991' -llegedly, this is clear evidence of the

uncertainty on the $art of the @overnment as to the total value of the estate of

the late *resident'

)his is, to our mind, the $etitionerHs last ditch effort to assail the

assessment of estate ta8 which had already become final and una$$ealable'

It is not the Ae$artment of .ustice which is the government agency tas!ed

to determine the amount of ta8es due u$on the subject estate, but the #ureau

of Internal ?evenue=1(>whose determinations and assessments are $resumed


16/61

correct and made in good faith'=1D>)he ta8$ayer has the duty of $roving

otherwise' In the absence of $roof of any irregularities in the $erformance of

official duties, an assessment will not be disturbed' 0ven an assessment

based on estimates ispri)a facievalid and lawful where it does not a$$ear to

have been arrived at arbitrarily or ca$riciously' )he burden of $roof is u$on thecom$laining $arty to show clearly that the assessment is erroneous' ailure to

$resent $roof of error in the assessment will justify the judicial affirmance of

said assessment'=1G>In this instance, $etitioner has not $ointed out one single

$rovision in the Memorandum of the "$ecial -udit )eam which gave rise to

the 7uestioned assessment, which bears a trace of falsity' Indeed, the

$etitionerHs attac! on the assessment bears mainly on the alleged im$robable

and unconscionable amount of the ta8es charged' #ut mere rhetoric cannot

su$$ly the basis for the charge of im$ro$riety of the assessments made'

Moreover, these objections to the assessments should have been raised,considering the am$le remedies afforded the ta8$ayer by the )a8 Code,with

the #ureau of Internal ?evenue and the Court of )a8 -$$eals, as described

earlier, and cannot be raised now via *etition forCertiorari, under the $rete8t

of grave abuse of discretion' )he course of action ta!en by the $etitioner

reflects his disregard or even re$ugnance of the established institutions for

governance in the scheme of a wellordered society' )he subject ta8

assessments having become final, e8ecutory and enforceable, the same can

no longer be contested by means of a disguised $rotest' In the

main, Certiorarimay not be used as a substitute for a lost a$$eal or remedy'=19>)his judicial $olicy becomes more $ronounced in view of the absence of

sufficient attac! against the actuations of government'

+n the matter of sufficiency of service of 2otices of -ssessment to the

$etitioner, we find the res$ondent a$$ellate courtHs $ronouncements sound

and resilient to $etitionerHs attac!s'

"5nent grounds %(b) and (F) both allegingHclaiming lac> of notice e find, after

considering the facts and circumstances, as well as evidences, that there was

sufficient, constructive andHor actual notice of assessments, levy and sale, sent to

herein petitioner /erdinand "Fongbong" 3arcos as well as to his mother 3rs* Imelda

3arcos*

.ven if we are to rule out the notices of assessments personally given to the careta>er

of 3rs* 3arcos at the latter=s last >nown address, on 5ugust #:, $77$ and eptember
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/jun1997/120880.htm#_edn19


17/61

$#, $77$, as well as the notices of assessment personally given to the careta>er of

petitioner also at his last >nown address on eptember $#, $77$ the subse!uent

notices given thereafter could no longer be ignored as they were sent at a time when

petitioner was already here in the Philippines, and at a place where said notices would

surely be called to petitioner=s attention, and received by responsible persons ofsufficient age and discretion*

+hus, on 0ctober #8, $77#, formal assessment notices were served upon 3rs* 3arcos

cHo the petitioner, at his office, -ouse of epresentatives, Fatasan Pambansa, A**

(5nnexes "5", "5$", "5#", "5%"9 pp* #8@#$8, ommentH3emorandum of

04)* 3oreover, a notice to taxpayer dated 0ctober &, $77# inviting 3rs* 3arcos to

a conference relative to her tax liabilities, was furnished the counsel of 3rs* 3arcos

2ean 5ntonio oronel (5nnex "F", p* #$$, ibid)* +hereafter, copies of 'otices were

also served upon 3rs* Imelda 3arcos, the petitioner and their counsel "2e For1a,

3edialdea, 5ta, Fello, 4uevarra and erapio 6aw 0ffice", on 5pril @, $77% and June$8, $77%* 2espite all of these 'otices, petitioner never lifted a finger to protest the

assessments, (upon which the 6evy and sale of properties were based), nor appealed

the same to the ourt of +ax 5ppeals*

+here being sufficient service of 'otices to herein petitioner (and his mother) and it

appearing that petitioner continuously ignored said 'otices despite several

opportunities given him to file a protest and to thereafter appeal to the ourt of +ax

5ppeals, the tax assessments sub1ect of this case, upon which the levy and sale of

properties were based, could no longer be contested (directly or indirectly) via thisinstant petition for certiorari.";#8Je cannot therefore, countenance

$etitionerHs insistence that he was denied due $rocess' Jhere there was an

o$$ortunity to raise objections to government action, and such o$$ortunity

was disregarded, for no justifiable reason, the $arty claiming o$$ression then

becomes the o$$ressor of the orderly functions of government' e who

comes to court must come with clean hands' +therwise, he not only taints his

name, but ridicules the very structure of established authority'

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court ?0"+/0A to A02< the $resent

$etition' )he Aecision of the Court of -$$eals dated 2ovember 9, 1994 is

hereby -I?M0A in all res$ects'

SO ORDERED.


19/61

Ishmael Himagan vs People

of the Philippines

,- SCR/ 5-0 Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Equal Protection

Suspension of P1P #e)bers Charge with 2ra(e 3elonies

Ishmael imagan was a $oliceman assigned in Aavao City' e was charged for the murder

of #enjamin Machitar, .r' and for the attem$ted murder of #enjamins younger brother,

#arnabe' *ursuant to "ection 4D of ?e$ublic -ct 2o' (9DE, imagan was $laced into

sus$ension $ending the murder case' )he law $rovides thatB

Upon the filing of a co)plaint or infor)ation sufficient in for) an substance against a

)e)ber of the P1P for gra(e felonies where the penalt" i)pose b" law is si* 46 "ears

an one 4 a" or )ore+ the court shall i))eiatel" suspend the accused from office

until the case is terminated. Such case shall be sub7ect to continuous trial an shall be

ter)inate within ninet" 489 a"s fro) arraign)ent of the accuse.

imagan assailed the sus$ension averring that "ection 4 of *'A' GD of the Civil "ervice

Aecree $rovides that his sus$ension should be limited to ninety %9& days only' e claims

that an im$osition of $reventive sus$ension of over 9 days is contrary to the Civil "ervice

aw and would be a violation of his constitutional right to e7ual $rotection of laws '

ISSUE: Jhether or not "ec 4D, ?- (9DE violates e7ual $rotection guaranteed by the

Constitution'

HELD: 2o' )he language of the first sentence of "ec 4D of ?- (9DE is clear, $lain and free

from ambiguity' It gives no other meaning than that the sus$ension from office of the

member of the *2* charged with grave offense where the $enalty is si8 years and one day

or more shall last until the termination of the case' )he sus$ension cannot be lifted before

the termination of the case' )he second sentence of the same "ection $roviding that the

trial must be terminated within ninety %9& days from arraignment does not 7ualify or limit

the first sentence' )he two can stand inde$endently of each other' )he first refers to the

$eriod of sus$ension' )he second deals with the time from within which the trial should be

finished'


20/61

)he reason why members of the *2* are treated differently from the other classes of

$ersons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the a$$lication of the rule on

$reventive sus$ension is concerned is that $olicemen carry wea$ons and the badge of the

law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them, as succinctly

brought out in the legislative discussions'

If a sus$ended $oliceman criminally charged with a serious offense is reinstated to his $ost

while his case is $ending, his victim and the witnesses against him are obviously e8$osed

to constant threat and thus easily cowed to silence by the mere fact that the accused is in

uniform and armed' the im$osition of $reventive sus$ension for over 9 days under "ec 4D

of ?- (9DE does not violate the sus$ended $olicemans constitutional right to e7ual

$rotection of the laws'

"u$$ose the trial is not terminated within ninety days from arraignment, should the

sus$ension of accused be lifted;

)he answer is certainly no' Jhile the law uses the mandatory word NshallO before the

$hrase Nbe terminated within ninety %9& daysO, there is nothing in ?- (9DE that suggests

that the $reventive sus$ension of the accused will be lifted if the trial is not terminated within

that $eriod' 2onetheless, the .udge who fails to decide the case within the $eriod without

justifiable reason may be subject to administrative sanctions and, in a$$ro$riate cases

where the facts so warrant, to criminal or civil liability' If the trial is unreasonably delayed

without fault of the accused such that he is de$rived of his right to a s$eedy trial, he is not

without a remedy' e may as! for the dismissal of the case' "hould the court refuse todismiss the case, the accused can com$el its dismissal by certiorari+$rohibition or

mandamus, or secure his liberty by habeas corpus'


21/61

Philippine Judges

Association vs Pete Prado

,, SCR/ 9- Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Equal Protection

3ran:ing Pri(ilege of the ;uiciar"

"ection 3E of ?e$ublic -ct 2o' D3E4 authori:ed the *hili$$ine *ostal Cor$oration %**C& to

withdraw fran!ing $rivileges from certain government agencies' ran!ing $rivilege is a

$rivilege granted to certain agencies to ma!e use of the *hili$$ine $ostal service free of

charge'

In 199, a study came about where it was determined that the bul! of the e8$enditure of the

$ostal service comes from the judiciarys use of the $ostal service %issuance of court

$rocesses&' ence, the $ostal service recommended that the fran!ing $rivilege be

withdrawn from the judiciary' -" a result, the **C issued a circular withdrawing the said

fran!ing $rivilege'

)he *hili$$ine .udges -ssociation %*.-& assailed the circular and 7uestioned the validity of

"ection 3E of ?- D3E4' *.- claimed that the said $rovision is violative of the e7ual

$rotection clause'

ISSUE: Jhether or not the withdrawal of the fran!ing $rivilege from the judiciary is valid'

HELD: 2o' )he "u$reme Court ruled that there is a violation of the e7ual $rotection clause'

)he judiciary needs the fran!ing $rivilege so badly as it is vital to its o$eration' 0vident to

that need is the high e8$ense allotted to the judiciarys fran!ing needs' )he *ostmaster

cannot be sustained in contending that the removal of the fran!ing $rivilege from the

judiciary is in order to cut e8$enditure' )his is untenable for if the *ostmaster would intend

to cut e8$enditure by removing the fran!ing $rivilege of the judiciary, then they should have

removed the fran!ing $rivilege all at once from all the other de$artments' If the $roblem is

the loss of revenues from the fran!ing $rivilege, the remedy is to withdraw it altogether from

all agencies of the government, including those who do not need it' )he $roblem is not

solved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others, es$ecially where there is no


22/61

substantial distinction between those favored, which may or may not need it at all, and the

.udiciary, which definitely needs it' )he $roblem is not solved by violating the Constitution'

)he e7ual $rotection clause does not re7uire the universal a$$lication of the laws on all

$ersons or things without distinction %it is true that the $ostmaster withdraw the fran!ing

$rivileges from other agencies of the government but still, the judiciary is different because

its o$eration largely relies on the mailing of court $rocesses&' )his might in fact sometimes

result in une7ual $rotection, as where, for e8am$le, a law $rohibiting mature boo!s to all

$ersons, regardless of age, would benefit the morals of the youth but violate the liberty of

adults' Jhat the clause re7uires is e7uality among e7uals as determined according to a

valid classification' #y classification is meant the grou$ing of $ersons or things similar to

each other in certain $articulars and different from all others in these same $articulars'

In lum$ing the .udiciary with the other offices from which the fran!ing $rivilege has been

withdrawn, "ec 3E has $laced the courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong'

If it recogni:es the need of the *resident of the *hili$$ines and the members of Congress

for the fran!ing $rivilege, there is no reason why it should not recogni:e a similar and in fact

greater need on the $art of the .udiciary for such $rivilege'

2nd Ve!"#n # PJA $!. Pad#

actsB )he main target of this $etition is "ection 3E of ?'-' 2o' D3E4 as im$lemented by

the *hili$$ine *ostal Cor$oration through its Circular 2o' 9G' )hese measures withdraw

the fran!ing $rivilege from the "C, C-, ?)C, M)C, Me)C and the and ?egistration

Commission and its ?egisters of Aeeds, along with certain other government offices' )he

$etitioners are members of the lower courts who feel that their official functions as judges

will be $rejudiced by the abovenamed measures' )he $etition assails the constitutionality

of ?'-' 2o' D3E4'

IssuesB

%1& Jhether or not its title embraces more than one subject and does not e8$ress its

$ur$ose

%& Jhether or not it did not $ass the re7uired readings in both ouses of Congress and

$rinted co$ies of the bill in its final form were not distributed among the members before its

$assage5

%3& Jhether or not it is discriminatory and encroaches on the inde$endence of the .udiciary

eldB


23/61

%1& -rticle /I, "ec' (%l&, of the Constitution $roviding that 0very bill $assed by the

Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be e8$ressed in the title thereof' )he

$ur$oses of this rule areB %1& to $revent hodge$odge or logrolling legislation5 %& to

$revent sur$rise or fraud u$on the legislature by means of $rovisions in bills of which the

title gives no intimation, and which might therefore be overloo!ed and carelessly andunintentionally ado$ted5 and %3& to fairly a$$rise the $eo$le, through such $ublication of

legislative $roceedings as is usually made, of the subject of legislation that is being

considered, in order that they may have o$$ortunity of being heard thereon, by $etition or

otherwise, if they shall so desire'

It is the submission of the $etitioners that "ection 3E of ?'-' 2o' D3E4 which withdrew the

fran!ing $rivilege from the .udiciary is not e8$ressed in the title of the law, nor does it reflect

its $ur$oses' ?'-' 2o' D3E4 is entitled -n -ct Creating the *hili$$ine *ostal Cor$oration,

Aefining its *owers, unctions and ?es$onsibilities, *roviding for ?egulation of the Industry

and for +ther *ur$oses Connected )herewith' )he $etitionersH contention is untenable' )hetitle of the bill is not re7uired to be an inde8 to the body of the act, or to be as

com$rehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure' It has been held that if the

title fairly indicates the general subject, and reasonably covers all the $rovisions of the act,

and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the $eo$le, there is sufficient com$liance

with the constitutional re7uirement' urthermore, the re$eal of a statute on a given subject

is $ro$erly connected with the subject matter of a new statute on the same subject5 and

therefore a re$ealing section in the new statute is valid, notwithstanding that the title is silent

on the subject' )he reason is that where a statute re$eals a former law, such re$eal is the

effect and not the subject of the statute5 and it is the subject, not the effect of a law, which isre7uired to be briefly e8$ressed in its title' )he withdrawal of the fran!ing $rivilege from

some agencies is germane to the accom$lishment of the $rinci$al objective of ?'-' 2o'

D3E4, which is the creation of a more efficient and effective $ostal service system'

%& It is a matter of record that the conference Committee ?e$ort on the bill in 7uestion was

returned to and duly a$$roved by both the "enate and the ouse of ?e$resentatives'

)hereafter, the bill was enrolled with its certification by "enate *resident 2e$tali -'

@on:ales and "$ea!er ?amon /' Mitra of the ouse of ?e$resentatives as having been

duly $assed by both ouses of Congress' It was then $resented to and a$$roved by

*resident Cora:on C' -7uino on -$ril 3, 199' Under the doctrine of se$aration $owers, theCourt may not in7uire beyond the certification of the a$$roval of a bill from the $residing

officers of Congress' )he enrolled bill is conclusive u$on the .udiciary %e8ce$t in matters

that have to be entered in the journals li!e the yeas and nays on the final reading of the bill&'

%3& It is alleged that ?'-' 2o' D3E4 is discriminatory because while withdrawing the fran!ing

$rivilege from the .udiciary, it retains the same for the *resident of the *hili$$ines, the /ice


24/61

*resident of the *hili$$ines5 "enators and Members of the ouse of ?e$resentatives, the

Commission on 0lections5 former *residents of the *hili$$ines5 the 2ational Census and

"tatistics +ffice5 and the general $ublic in the filing of com$laints against $ublic offices and

officers' )he withdrawal of the fran!ing $rivileges was indeed discriminatory' If the $roblem

of the res$ondents is the loss of revenues from the fran!ing $rivilege, the remedy is towithdraw it altogether from all agencies of government, including those who do not need it'

)he $roblem is not solved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others, es$ecially

where there is no substantial distinction between those favored, which may or may not need

it at all, and the .udiciary, which definitely needs it' )he $roblem is not solved by violating

the Constitution' )he classification was not based on substantial distinctions'


25/61

Mario Gumabon vs Director

of the Bureau of Prisons

- SCR/ !octrine

Mario @umabon et al were charged with rebellion $unished under -rt' 134 of the ?evised

*enal Code' )heir offense was com$le8ed with multi$le murder, robbery, arson, and

!idna$$ing' )hey were all sentenced to reclusion $er$etua' )heir sentence had become

final and e8ecutory when the =ernane> !octrinewas $romulgated by the "u$reme Court'

)he ernande: Aoctrine sim$ly states that murder cannot be com$le8ed with rebellion

because murder, a regular crime, is necessarily absorbed by rebellion' ence, without such

com$le8ion, the $enalty must be lower than reclusion $er$etua' @umabon asserted that a

nona$$lication of the ernande: Aoctrine will lead to a de$rivation of a constitutional right,

namely, the denial of e7ual $rotection' @umabon et al, nonetheless, were convicted by

Court of irst Instance but they were convicted for the very same rebellion for which

ernande: and others were convicted 6 %)he law under which they =@umabon et al> were

convicted is the very same law under which the latter =ernande: et al> were convicted'& It

had not and has not been changed' or the same crime, committed under the same law,

how can the "C, in conscience, allow @umabon et al to suffer life im$risonment, while

others can suffer only $rision mayor;

ISSUE: Jhether or not @umabon et al is entitled to the effects of the ernande: Aoctrine'

HELD:


26/61

Jhat is re7uired under this constitutional guarantee is the uniform o$eration of legal norms

so that all $ersons under similar circumstances would be accorded the same treatment both

in the $rivileges conferred and the liabilities im$osed' -s was noted in a recent decisionB

avoritism and undue $reference cannot be allowed' or the $rinci$le is that e7ual

$rotection and security shall be given to every $erson under circumstances, which if notidentical are analogous' If law be loo!ed u$on in terms of burden or charges, those that fall

within a class should be treated in the same fashion, whatever restrictions cast on some in

the grou$ e7ually binding on the rest'


27/61

Panlo Lacson vs ecretar!

Hernando Pere"

-5 SCR/ 5 Political Law Constitutional Law Equal Protection Clause Cases

Before the Saniganba"an

+n May 1G, 199E, alleged members of the Puratong #aleleng @ang were shot to death' )he

incident was later sensationali:ed as a rub out' )his im$licated case *anfilo acson, who, at

the time of the Nrub outO was then the *2* Chief, among others, as the ones res$onsible'

)hey were accused of multi$le murder' )he case reached the "andiganbayan' In 199(,

acson et al filed se$arate motions 7uestioning the jurisdiction of the "andiganbayan' )hey

aver that the cases fall within the jurisdiction of the ?egional )rial Court $ursuant to "ection

%$ar a and c& of ?e$ublic -ct 2o' D9DE also !nown as N-n -ct )o "trengthen )he

unctional -nd "tructural +rgani:ation +f )he "andiganbayan, -mending or )hat *ur$ose

*residential Aecree 1((, -s -mendedO'

)hey contend that the said law limited the jurisdiction of the "andiganbayan to cases where

one or more of the N$rinci$al accusedO are government officials with "alary @rade %"@& D

or higher, or *2* officials with the ran! of Chief "u$erintendent %#rigadier @eneral& or

higher' )he highest ran!ing $rinci$al accused in the amended informations has the ran! of

only a Chief Ins$ector, and none has the e7uivalent of at least "@ D'

In 199D, ?e$ublic -ct 2o' G49 was $assed which basically e8$anded the jurisdiction of the

"andiganbayan' )he law was authored by agman and 2e$tali @on:ales' acson assailed

the law as it was introduced by the authors thereof in bad faith as it was made to $recisely

suit the situation in which acsons cases were in at the "andiganbayan by restoringjurisdiction thereover to it, thereby violating his right to $rocedural due $rocess and the

e7ual $rotection clause of the Constitution' urther, from the way the "andiganbayan has

footdragged for nine %9& months the resolution of a $ending incident involving the transfer

of the cases to the ?egional )rial Court, the $assage of the law may have been timed to

overta!e such resolution to render the issue therein moot, and frustrate the e8ercise of

$etitioners vested rights under the old "andiganbayan law %?- D9DE&'


28/61

ISSUE: Jhether or not the right to e7ual $rotection by acson et al has been violated with

the $assage of ?- G49'

HELD: 2o' )he "C ruled that ?- G49 did not violate the right of acson et al to e7ual

$rotection' 2o concrete evidence and convincing argument were $resented to warrant a

declaration of an act of the entire Congress and signed into law by the highest officer of the

coe7ual e8ecutive de$artment as unconstitutional' 0very classification made by law is

$resumed reasonable' )hus, the $arty who challenges the law must $resent $roof of

arbitrariness' It is an established $rece$t in constitutional law that the guaranty of the e7ual

$rotection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification' )he

classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when there is concurrence of four elements,

namelyB

%1& it must rest on substantial distinction5

%& it must be germane to the $ur$ose of the law5

%3& must not be limited to e8isting conditions only, and

%4& must a$$ly e7ually to all members of the same class

)he classification between those $ending cases involving the concerned $ublic officials

whose trial has not yet commenced and whose cases could have been affected by the

amendments of the "andiganbayan jurisdiction under ?'-' G49, as against those cases

where trial had already started as of the a$$roval of the law, rests on substantial distinction

that ma!es real differences' In the first instance, evidence against them were not yet

$resented, whereas in the latter the $arties had already submitted their res$ective $roofs,

e8amined witness and $resented documents' "ince it is within the $ower of Congress to

define the jurisdiction of courts subject to the constitutional limitations, it can be reasonably

antici$ated that an alteration of that jurisdiction would necessarily affect $ending cases,

which is why it has to $rovide for a remedy in the form of a transitory $rovision' )hus,

acson et al cannot claim that "ecs 4 and D $laced them under a different category from

those similarly situated as them'

*recisely, $ar - of "ec 4 $rovides that it shall a$$ly to Nall cases involvingO certain $ublic

officials and, under the transitory $rovision in "ec D, to Nall cases $ending in any court'O

Contrary to $etitioner and intervenors arguments, the law is not $articularly directed only to

the Puratong #aleleng cases' )he transitory $rovision does not only cover cases which are

in the "andiganbayan but also in Nany court'O It just ha$$ened that the Puratong #aleleng


29/61

cases are one of those affected by the law' Moreover, those cases where trial had already

begun are not affected by the transitory $rovision under "ec D of the new law %?'-' G49&'


30/61

Humberto Basco vs

Philippine Amusements andGaming #orporation

8 SCR/ 5, Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Equal Protection Clause

#unicipal Corporation Local /utono)" %)periu) in %)perio

In 19DD, the *hili$$ine -musements and @aming Cor$oration %*-@C+?& wascreated by *residential Aecree 1(D-' *A 1(D# meanwhile granted *-@C+? the $ower

Nto establish, o$erate and maintain gambling casinos on land or water within the territorial

jurisdiction of the *hili$$ines'O *-@C+?s o$eration was a success hence in 19DG, *A

1399 was $assed which e8$anded *-@C+?s $ower' In 19G3, *-@C+?s charter wasu$dated through *A 1G(9' *-@C+?s charter $rovides that *-@C+? shall regulate and

centrali:e all games of chance authori:ed by e8isting franchise or $ermitted by law' "ection

1 of *A 1G(9 $rovidesB

Section . !eclaration of Polic". %t is hereb" eclare to be the polic" of the State to

centrali>e an integrate all ga)es of chance not heretofore authori>e b" e*isting

franchises or per)itte b" law.

-tty' umberto #asco and several other lawyers assailed the validity of the law creating

*-@C+?' )hey claim that *A 1G(9 is unconstitutional because a& it violates the e7ual

$rotection clause and b& it violates the local autonomy clause of the constitution'

#asco et al argued that *A 1G(9 violates the e7ual $rotection clause because it legali:es

*-@C+?conducted gambling, while most other forms of gambling are outlawed, together

with $rostitution, drug traffic!ing and other vices'


31/61

-nent the issue of local autonomy, #asco et al contend that *'A' 1G(9 forced cities

li!e Manila to waive its right to im$ose ta8es and legal fees as far as *-@C+? is

concerned5 that "ection 13 $ar' %& of *'A' 1G(9 which e8em$ts *-@C+?, as the franchise

holder from $aying any Nta8 of any !ind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees,

charges or levies of whatever nature, whether 2ational or ocalO is violative of the localautonomy $rinci$le'

ISSUE:

1' Jhether or not *A 1G(9 violates the e7ual $rotection clause'

' Jhether or not *A 1G(9 violates the local autonomy clause'

HELD:

1' 2o' .ust how *A 1G(9 in legali:ing gambling conducted by *-@C+? is violative of the

e7ual $rotection is not clearly e8$lained in #ascos $etition' )he mere fact that some

gambling activities li!e coc!fighting %*A 449& horse racing %?- 3( as amended by ?-

9G3&, swee$sta!es, lotteries and races %?- 11(9 as amended by #* 4& are legali:ed under

certain conditions, while others are $rohibited, does not render the a$$licable laws, *A'

1G(9 for one, unconstitutional'

#ascos $osture ignores the wellacce$ted meaning of the clause Ne7ual $rotection of the

laws'O )he clause does not $reclude classification of individuals who may be accorded

different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable or

arbitrary' - law does not have to o$erate in e7ual force on all $ersons or things to be

conformable to -rticle III, "ec 1 of the Constitution' )he Ne7ual $rotection clauseO does not

$rohibit the egislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects u$on which

different rules shall o$erate' )he Constitution does not re7uire situations which are different

in fact or o$inion to be treated in law as though they were the same'

' 2o' "ection E, -rticle 1 of the 19GD Constitution $rovidesB

Each local go(ern)ent unit shall ha(e the power to create its own source of re(enue an tole(" ta*es+ fees+ an other charges sub7ect to such guielines an li)itation as the

congress )a" pro(ie+ consistent with the basic polic" on local autono)". Such ta*es+ fees

an charges shall accrue e*clusi(el" to the local go(ern)ent.


32/61

- close reading of the above $rovision does not violate local autonomy %$articularly on

ta8ing $owers& as it was clearly stated that the ta8ing $ower of @Us are subject to such

guidelines and limitation as Congress may $rovide'

urther, the City of Manila, being a mere Munici$al cor$oration has no inherent right to

im$ose ta8es' )he Charter of the City of Manila is subject to control by Congress' It should

be stressed that Nmunici$al cor$orations are mere creatures of CongressO which has the

$ower to Ncreate and abolish munici$al cor$orationsO due to its Ngeneral legislative $owersO'

Congress, therefore, has the $ower of control over ocal governments' -nd if Congress can

grant the City of Manila the $ower to ta8 certain matters, it can also $rovide for e8em$tions

or even ta!e bac! the $ower'

urther still, local governments have no $ower to ta8 instrumentalities of the 2ational

@overnment' *-@C+? is a government owned or controlled cor$oration with an original

charter, *A 1G(9' -ll of its shares of stoc!s are owned by the 2ational @overnment'

+therwise, its o$eration might be burdened, im$eded or subjected to control by a mere

ocal government'

)his doctrine emanates from the Nsu$remacyO of the 2ational @overnment over local

governments'


33/61

$rancisco %atad et al vs

ecretar! of &nerg!

?Equal Protection@ &il !eregulation Law

Considering that oil is not endemic to this country, history shows that the government has

always been finding ways to alleviate the oil industry' )he government created laws

accommodate these innovations in the oil industry' +ne such law is the Aownstream +il

Aeregulation -ct of 199( or ?- G1G' )his law allows that Nany $erson or entity may im$ort

or $urchase any 7uantity of crude oil and $etroleum $roducts from a foreign or domestic

source, lease or own and o$erate refineries and other downstream oil facilities and mar!et

such crude oil or use the same for his own re7uirement,O subject only to monitoring by the

Ae$artment of 0nergy' )atad assails the constitutionality of the law' e claims, among

others, that the im$osition of different tariff rates on im$orted crude oil and im$orted refined

$etroleum $roducts violates the e7ual $rotection clause' )atad contends that the 3QDQ

tariff differential unduly favors the three e8isting oil refineries and discriminates against

$ros$ective investors in the downstream oil industry who do not have their own refineries

and will have to source refined $etroleum $roducts from abroad'3Q is to be ta8ed on

unrefined crude $roducts and DQ on refined crude $roducts'

ISSUE: Jhether or not ?- G1G is constitutional'

HELD: )he "C declared the unconstitutionality of ?- G1G because it violated "ec 19 of -rt

1 of the Constitution' It violated that $rovision because it only strengthens oligo$oly which

is contrary to free com$etition' It cannot be denied that our downstream oil industry is

o$erated and controlled by an oligo$oly, a foreign oligo$oly at that' *etron, "hell and Calte8

stand as the only major league $layers in the oil mar!et' -ll other $layers belong to the

lilli$utian league' -s the dominant $layers, *etron, "hell and Calte8 boast of e8istingrefineries of various ca$acities' )he tariff differential of 4Q therefore wor!s to their immense

benefit'


34/61

$roduct cost by 4Q' )hey will be com$eting on an uneven field' )he argument that the 4Q

tariff differential is desirable because it will induce $ros$ective $layers to invest in refineries

$uts the cart before the horse' )he first need is to attract new $layers and they cannot be

attracted by burdening them with heavy disincentives' Jithout new $layers belonging to the

league of *etron, "hell and Calte8, com$etition in our downstream oil industry is an idledream'

?- G1G is unconstitutional on the ground inter alia that it discriminated against the Nnew

$layersO insofar as it $laced them at a com$etitive disadvantage visRvis the established oil

com$anies by re7uiring them to meet certain conditions already being observed by the

latter'


35/61

Ta%"&a' O(ea)#! $!. B#ad #* Tan!(#)a)"#n

G.R. N#. L+-2/. Se()e0'e 1, -32.

actsB

*etitioners who are ta8icab o$erators assail the constitutionality of Memorandum Circular

2o' DD4 issued by the #oard of )rans$ortation %#+)& $roviding for the $hasing out and

re$lacement of old and dila$idated ta8icabs5 as well as Im$lementing Circular 2o' E issued

$ursuant thereto by the #ureau of and )rans$ortation %#)& instructing $ersonnel of the

#) within the 2ational Ca$ital ?egion to im$lement the said #+) Circular, and formulating

a schedule of $haseout of vehicles to be allowed and acce$ted for registration as $ublic

conveyances'

*etitioners allege that the 7uestioned Circulars did not afford them $rocedural and

substantive due $rocess, e7ual $rotection of the law, and $rotection against arbitrary and

unreasonable classification and standard' -mong others, they 7uestion the issuance of the

Circulars without first calling them to a conference or re7uiring them to submit $osition

$a$ers or other documents enforceability thereof only in Metro Manila5 and their being

a$$licable only to ta8icabs and not to other trans$ortation services'

IssuesB

Jhether or not the constitutional guarantee of due $rocess was denied to the ta8icab

o$erators andFor other $ersons affected by the assailed Circular 2o' E'

eldB

)he "u$reme Court held that there was no denial of due $rocess since calling the ta8icab

o$erators or $ersons who may be affected by the 7uestioned Circulars to a conference or

re7uiring them to submit $osition $a$ers or other documents is only one of the o$tions o$en

to the #+) which is given wide discretionary authority under *'A' 2o' 115 and fi8ing a si8

year ceiling for a car to be o$erated as ta8icab is a reasonable standard ado$ted to a$$ly to

all vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly'

)he Court also ruled that neither has the e7ual $rotection clause been violated by initially

enforcing the Circulars only in Metro Manila since it is of common !nowledge that ta8icabs

in this city, com$ared to those of other $laces, are subjected to heavier traffic $ressure and

more constant use, thus ma!ing for a substantial distinction5 nor by nona$$lication of the


36/61

Circulars to other trans$ortation services because the said Circulars satisfy the criteria

re7uired under the e7ual $rotection clause, which is the uniform o$eration by legal means

so that all $ersons under identical or similar circumstances would be accorded the same

treatment both in $rivilege conferred and the liabilities im$osed'

It is clear from the $rovision of "ection of *'A' 11 afore7uoted, that the leeway accorded

the #oard gives it a wide range of choice in gathering necessary information or data in the

formulation of any $olicy, $lan or $rogram' It is not mandatory that it should first call a

conference or re7uire the submission of $osition $a$ers or other documents from o$erators

or $ersons who maybe affected, this being only one of the o$tions o$en to the #oard, which

is given wide discretionary authority' *etitioners cannot justifiably claim, therefore, that they

were de$rived of $rocedural due $rocess' 2either can they state with certainty that $ublic

res$ondents had not availed of other sources of in7uiry $rior to issuing the challenged

Circulars' +$erators of $ublic conveyances are not the only $rimary sources of the data and

information that may be desired by the #+)'


37/61

Mar! #oncepcion Bautista

et al vs Alfredo Juinio et al

?Equal Protection@ !istinction Between =ea(" an E*tra =ea(" Cars an &thers

#autista is assailing the constitutionality of +I G(9 issued in 19D9 which classified vehicles

into eavy and 08tra eavy' )he +I further banned these vehicles during wee!ends and

holidays that is from Eam "aturday until Eam Monday' *ur$ose of this law is to curb down

$etroleum consum$tion as bigger cars consume more oil' #autista claimed the +I to be

discriminatory as it made an assum$tion that and 0 cars are heavy on $etroleum

consum$tion when in fact there are smaller cars which are also big on oil consum$tion'

urther, the law restricts their freedom to enjoy their car while others who have smaller cars

may enjoy theirs' #autista avers that there is no rational justification for the ban being

im$osed on vehicles classified as heavy %& and e8traheavy %0&, for $recisely those

owned by them fall within such category'

ISSUE: Jhether or not the +I violates e7ual $rotection'

HELD: )he "C held that #autista was not able to ma!e merit out of her contention' )he

classification on cars on its face cannot be characteri:ed as an affront to reason' )he ideal

situation is for the laws benefits to be available to all, that none be $laced outside the

s$here of its coverage' +nly thus could chance and favor be e8cluded and the affairs of

men governed by that serene and im$artial uniformity, which is of the very essence of the

idea of law' )he actual, given things as they are and li!ely to continue to be, cannot

a$$ro8imate the ideal' 2or is the law susce$tible to the re$roach that it does not ta!e into

account the realities of the situation' ' ' ' )o assure that the general welfare be $romoted,which is the end of law, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and $ro$erty'

)hose adversely affected may under such circumstances invo!e the e7ual $rotection clause

only if they can show that the governmental act assailed, far from being ins$ired by the

attainment of the common weal was $rom$ted by the s$irit of hostility, or at the very least,

discrimination that finds no su$$ort in reason' It suffices then that the laws o$erate e7ually

and uniformly on all $ersons under similar circumstances or that all $ersons must be treated


38/61

in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the $rivileges conferred and

the liabilities im$osed' avoritism and undue $reference cannot be allowed' or the

$rinci$le is that e7ual $rotection and security shall be given to every $erson under

circumstances, which if not identical are analogous' If law be loo!ed u$on in terms of

burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion,whatever restrictions cast on some in the grou$ e7ually binding on the rest'


39/61

Patricio Dumlao vs

#ommission on &lections

85 SCR/ -8, Political Law Constitutional Law ?Equal Protection@ Eligibilit" to &ffice

after Being 65

;uicial Re(iewA Requisites thereof

Patricio Aumlao was the former governor of 2ueva /i:caya' e has already retired fromhis office and he has been receiving retirement benefits therefrom'

In 19G, he filed for reelection to the same office' Meanwhile, #atas *ambansa #lg' E was

enacted' )his law $rovides, among others, that retirees from $ublic office li!e Aumlao are

dis7ualified to run for office' Aumlao assailed the law averring that it is class legislation

hence unconstitutional' In general, Aumlao invo!ed e7ual $rotection in the eye of the law'

is $etition was joined by -tty' ?omeo Igot and -lfredo "ala$antan, .r' )hese two however

have different issues' )he suits of Igot and "ala$antan are more of a ta8$ayers suit

assailing the other $rovisions of #* E regarding the term of office of the elected officials,

the length of the cam$aign, and the $rovision which bars $ersons charged for crimes from

running for $ublic office as well as the $rovision that $rovides that the mere filing of

com$laints against them after $reliminary investigation would already dis7ualify them from

office'

ISSUE: Jhether or not Aumlao, Igot, and "ala$antan have a cause of action'

HELD: 2o' )he "C $ointed out the $rocedural la$ses of this case for this case should

have never been merged' Aumlaos issue is different from Igots' )hey have se$arate

issues' urther, this case does not meet all the re7uisites so that itd be eligible for judicial

review' )here are standards that have to be followed in the e8ercise of the function of

judicial review, namelyB %1& the e8istence of an a$$ro$riate case5 %& an interest $ersonal

and substantial by the $arty raising the constitutional 7uestion5 %3& the $lea that the function


40/61

be e8ercised at the earliest o$$ortunity5 and %4& the necessity that the constitutional

7uestion be $assed u$on in order to decide the case'

In this case, only the 3 rdre7uisite was met'

)he "C ruled however that the $rovision barring $ersons charged for crimes may not run for

$ublic office and that the filing of com$laints against them and after $reliminary investigation

would already dis7ualify them from office as null and void'

)he assertion that #* E is contrary to the safeguard of e7ual $rotection is neither well

ta!en' )he constitutional guarantee of e7ual $rotection of the laws is subject to rational

classification' If the grou$ings are based on reasonable and real differentiations, one class

can be treated and regulated differently from another class' or $ur$oses of $ublic service,

em$loyees (E years of age, have been validly classified differently from younger

em$loyees' 0m$loyees attaining that age are subject to com$ulsory retirement, while thoseof younger ages are not so com$ulsorily retirable'

In res$ect of election to $rovincial, city, or munici$al $ositions, to re7uire that candidates

should not be more than (E years of age at the time they assume office, if a$$licable to

everyone, might or might not be a reasonable classification although, as the "olicitor

@eneral has intimated, a good $olicy of the law should be to $romote the emergence of

younger blood in our $olitical elective echelons' +n the other hand, it might be that $ersons

more than (E years old may also be good elective local officials'

?etirement from government service may or may not be a reasonable dis7ualification for

elective local officials' or one thing, there can also be retirees from government service at

ages, say below (E' It may neither be reasonable to dis7ualify retirees, aged (E, for a (E

year old retiree could be a good local official just li!e one, aged (E, who is not a retiree'

#ut, in the case of a (Eyear old elective local official %Aumalo&, who has retired from a

$rovincial, city or munici$al office, there is reason to dis7ualify him from running for the

same office from which he had retired, as $rovided for in the challenged $rovision'


41/61

V"44e5a! $ H"6 C7"#n5 T!a" Pa# H# GR N# L+2-8/8, N#$e0'e 1, -93

-C)"B)he Munici$al #oard of Manila enacted +rdinance (E3D re7uiring aliens %e8ce$t

those em$loyed in the di$lomatic and consular missions of foreign countries, in technicalassistance $rograms of the government and another country, and members of religious

orders or congregations& to $rocure the re7uisite mayors $ermit so as to be em$loyed or

engage in trade in the City of Manila' )hus, a case was filed with CIManila to sto$

enforcement of the ordinance' CIManila declared the ordinance void' )hus, the $resent

$etition for certiorari'

I""U0"B

%1& Is the ordinance violative of the cardinal rule of uniformity of ta8ation;

%& Aoes it violate the $rinci$le against undue designation of legislative $ower;

%3& Aoes it violate the due $rocess and e7ual $rotection clauses of the Constitution;

?UI2@B

%1&


42/61

'amon #eni"a et al vs#ommission on &lections(#)A * +ational %reasurer

?Equal Protection@ 2err")anering

SSO@errymanderingO is a Nterm em$loyed to describe an a$$ortionment of re$resentative

districts so contrived as to give an unfair advantage to the $arty in $ower'O SS

*ursuant to #atas #lg E1 %enacted Aec 19D9&, C+M00C ado$ted ?esolution 2o' 141

which effectively bars voters in chartered cities %unless otherwise $rovided by their charter&,

highly urbani:ed %those earning above *4 M& cities, and com$onent cities %whose charters

$rohibit them& from voting in $rovincial elections' )he City of Mandaue, on the other hand, is

a com$onent city 2+) a chartered one or a highly urbani:ed one' "o when C+M00C

added Mandaue to the list of cities that cannot vote in $rovincial elections, Ceni:a, in

behalf of the other members of A+0?" %Aemocracy or 08tinctionB ?esolved to "ucceed&

7uestioned the constitutionality of ## E1 and the C+M00C resolution' )hey said that the

regulationFrestriction of voting being im$osed is a curtailment of the right to suffrage'urther, $etitioners claim that $olitical and gerrymandering motives were behind the

$assage of #atas #lg' E1 and "ection 9( of the Charter of Mandaue City' )hey contend that

the *rovince of Cebu is $olitically and historically !nown as an o$$osition bailiwic! and of

the total 9E,D1( registered voters in the $rovince, close to onethird %1F3& of the entire

$rovince of Cebu would be barred from voting for the $rovincial officials of the $rovince of

Cebu' Ceni:a also said that the constituents of Mandaue never ratified their charter' Ceni:a

li!ewise aver that "ec 3 of ## GGE insofar as it classifies cities including Cebu City as

highly urbani:ed as the only basis for not allowing its electorate to vote for the $rovincial

officials is inherently and $al$ably unconstitutional in that such classification is not based on

substantial distinctions germane to the $ur$ose of the law which in effect $rovides for and

regulates the e8ercise of the right of suffrage, and therefore such unreasonable

classification amounts to a denial of e7ual $rotection'

ISSUE: Jhether or not there is a violation of e7ual $rotection'


43/61

HELD: )he thrust of the 19D3 Constitution is towards the fullest autonomy of local

government units' In the Aeclaration of *rinci$les and "tate *olicies, it is stated that N)he

"tate shall guarantee and $romote the autonomy of local government units to ensure their

fullest develo$ment as selfreliant communities' )he $etitioners allegation of

gerrymandering is of no merit, it has no factual or legal basis' )he Constitutionalre7uirement that the creation, division, merger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary of a

$rovince, city, munici$ality, or barrio should be subject to the a$$roval by the majority of the

votes cast in a $lebiscite in the governmental unit or units affected is a new re7uirement that

came into being only with the 19D3 Constitution' It is $ros$ective in character and therefore

cannot affect the creation of the City of Mandaue which came into e8istence on 1 .une

19(9'

)he classification of cities into highly urbani:ed cities and com$onent cities on the basis of

their regular annual income is based u$on substantial distinction' )he revenue of a city

would show whether or not it is ca$able of e8istence and develo$ment as a relatively

inde$endent social, economic, and $olitical unit' It would also show whether the city has

sufficient economic or industrial activity as to warrant its inde$endence from the $rovince

where it is geogra$hically situated' Cities with smaller income need the continued su$$ort of

the $rovincial government thus justifying the continued $artici$ation of the voters in the

election of $rovincial officials in some instances'

)he $etitioners also contend that the voters in Mandaue City are denied e7ual $rotection of

the law since the voters in other com$onent cities are allowed to vote for $rovincial officials'

)he contention is without merit' )he $ractice of allowing voters in one com$onent city tovote for $rovincial officials and denying the same $rivilege to voters in another com$onent

city is a matter of legislative discretion which violates neither the Constitution nor the voters

right of suffrage'


44/61

,nited Democratic

)pposition vs #ommissionon &lections

Equal Protection@ /ccess to #eia

In 19G1, the #* $ro$osed amendments to the 19D3 Constitution' )he amendments were to

be $laced to a $lebiscite for the $eo$les a$$roval' )he


45/61


46/61

'uno +u-e" vs

andiganba!an * thePeople of the Philippines

Equal Protection@ Creation of the Saniganba"an

2ue: assails the validity of the *A 14G( creating the "andiganbayan as amended by *A

1((' e was accused before the "andiganbayan of estafa through falsification of $ublicand commercial documents committed in connivance with his other coaccused, all $ublic

officials, in several cases' It is the claim of 2ue: that *A14G(, as amended, is violative of

the due $rocess, e7ual $rotection, and e8 $ost facto clauses of the Constitution' e claims

that the "andiganbayan $roceedings violates 2ue:s right to e7ual $rotection, because 6

a$$eal as a matter of right became minimi:ed into a mere matter of discretion5 6 a$$eal

li!ewise was shrun! and limited only to 7uestions of law, e8cluding a review of the facts and

trial evidence5 and there is only one chance to a$$eal conviction, by certiorari to the "C,

instead of the traditional two chances5 while all other estafa indictees are entitled to a$$eal

as a matter of right covering both law and facts and to two a$$ellate courts, i'e', first to theC- and thereafter to the "C'

ISSUE: Jhether or not the creation of "andiganbayan violates e7ual $rotection insofar as

a$$eals would be concerned'

HELD: )he "C ruled against 2ue:' )he 19D3 Constitution had $rovided for the creation of

a s$ecial court that shall have original jurisdiction over cases involving $ublic officials

charged with graft and corru$tion' )he constitution s$ecifically ma!es mention of the

creation of a s$ecial court, the "andiganbayan, $recisely in res$onse to a $roblem, the

urgency of which cannot be denied, namely, dishonesty in the $ublic service' It follows that

those who may thereafter be tried by such court ought to have been aware as far bac! as

.anuary 1D, 19D3, when the $resent Constitution came into force, that a different $rocedure

for the accused therein, whether a $rivate citi:en as $etitioner is or a $ublic official, is not

necessarily offensive to the e7ual $rotection clause of the Constitution' urther, the

classification therein set forth met the standard re7uiring that it Nmust be based on


47/61

substantial distinctions which ma!e real differences5 it must be germane to the $ur$oses of

the law5 it must not be limited to e8isting conditions only, and must a$$ly e7ually to each

member of the class'O urther still, decisions in the "andiganbayan are reached by a

unanimous decision from 3 justices 6 a showing that decisions therein are more

conceivably carefully reached than other trial courts'

J6!)"&e Maa!"a ;n&6"n5 < d"!!en)"n5=

*ersons who are charged with estafa or malversation of funds not belonging to the

government or any of its instrumentalities or agencies are guaranteed the right to a$$eal to

two a$$ellate courts 6 first, to the C-, and thereafter to the "C' 0stafa and malversation of

$rivate funds are on the same category as graft and corru$tion committed by $ublic officers,

who, under the decree creating the "andiganbayan, are only allowed one a$$eal 6 to the"C ;(a. , Se&. 9, P.D. N#. 818=.)he fact that the "andiganbayan is a collegiate trial

court does not generate any substantial distinction to validate this invidious discrimination'

)hree judges sitting on the same case does not ensure a 7uality of justice better than that

meted out by a trial court $resided by one judge' )he ultimate decisive factors are the

intellectual com$etence, industry and integrity of the trial judge' #ut a review by two

a$$ellate tribunals of the same case certainly ensures better justice to the accused and to

the $eo$le'

)hen again, $ar 3 of "ec D of *A 1((, by $roviding that the decisions of the"andiganbayan can only be reviewed by the "C through certiorari, li!ewise limits the

reviewing $ower of the "C only to 7uestion of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and

not 7uestions of fact nor findings or conclusions of the trial court' In other criminal cases

involving offenses not as serious as graft and corru$tion, all 7uestions of fact and of law are

reviewed, first by the C-, and then by the "C' )o re$eat, there is greater guarantee of

justice in criminal cases when the trial courts judgment is subject to review by two a$$ellate

tribunals, which can a$$raise the evidence and the law with greater objectivity, detachment

and im$artiality unaffected as they are by views and $rejudices that may be engendered

during the trial'

imiting the $ower of review by the "C of convictions by the "andiganbayan only to issues

of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, li!ewise violates the constitutional $resum$tion

of innocence of the accused, which $resum$tion can only be overcome by $roof beyond

reasonable doubt %"ec' 19, -rt' I/, 19D3 Constitution&'


48/61


49/61

Antero ison Jr. vs Acting

BI' #ommissioner 'ubenAncheta et al

Equal Protection@

"ison assails the validity of #* 13E wFc further amended "ec 1 of the 2ational Internal

?evenue Code of 19DD' )he law $rovides that thered be a higher ta8 im$ost againstincome derived from $rofessional income as o$$osed to regular income earners' "ison, as

a $rofessional businessman, and as ta8$ayer alleges that by virtue thereof, Nhe would be

unduly discriminated against by the im$osition of higher rates of ta8 u$on his income arising

from the e8ercise of his $rofession visavis those which are im$osed u$on fi8ed income or

salaried individual ta8$ayers'O e characteri:es the above section as arbitrary amounting to

class legislation, o$$ressive and ca$ricious in character' )here is a transgression of both

the e7ual $rotection and due $rocess clauses of the Constitution as well as of the rule

re7uiring uniformity in ta8ation'

ISSUE: Jhether the im$osition of a higher ta8 rate on ta8able net income derived from

business or $rofession than on com$ensation is constitutionally infirm'

HELD: )he "C ruled against "ison' )he $ower to ta8, an inherent $rerogative, has to be

availed of to assure the $erformance of vital state functions' It is the source of the bul! of

$ublic funds' )a8es, being the lifeblood of the government, their $rom$t and certain

availability is of the essence' -ccording to the ConstitutionB N)he rule of ta8ation shall be

uniform and e7uitable'O owever, the rule of uniformity does not call for $erfect uniformity or

$erfect e7uality, because this is hardly attainable' 07uality and uniformity in ta8ation means

that all ta8able articles or !inds of $ro$erty of the same class shall be ta8ed at the same

rate' )he ta8ing $ower has the authority to ma!e reasonable and natural classifications for

$ur$oses of ta8ation' Jhere Nthe differentiationO com$lained of Nconforms to the $ractical

dictates of justice and e7uityO it Nis not discriminatory within the meaning of this clause and

is therefore uniform'O )here is 7uite a similarity then to the standard of e7ual $rotection for


50/61

all that is re7uired is that the ta8 Na$$lies e7ually to all $ersons, firms and cor$orations

$laced in similar situation'

Jhat misled "ison is his failure to ta!e into consideration the distinction between a ta8 rate

and a ta8 base' )here is no legal objection to a broader ta8 base or ta8able income by

eliminating all deductible items and at the same time reducing the a$$licable ta8 rate'

)a8$ayers may be classified into different categories' In the case of the gross income

ta8ation embodied in #* 13E, the discernible basis of classificat

Vera to Flores Case Digest (Equal Protection Clause)

Documents

Transcript of Vera to Flores Case Digest (Equal Protection Clause)