POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
XII. THE BILL OF RIGHTS
C. Equal Protection
1. Requisites for Valid Classification

Introduction

The principle of equal protection is enshrined in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, 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.”

The Equal Protection Clause is a guarantee that similarly situated individuals or groups should be treated alike under the law. However, this does not prohibit classifications by the government. What it forbids is invidious discrimination—unreasonable or arbitrary classifications that do not have a legitimate state interest.

Requisites for a Valid Classification

For a classification to be constitutionally valid under the Equal Protection Clause, it must meet the following requisites:

It must rest on substantial distinctions.
The classification should be based on real and substantial differences that justify the distinction. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the law may treat persons or groups of persons differently as long as there are substantial differences that relate to the purpose of the law. These distinctions should not be arbitrary, whimsical, or irrelevant.

Example: In People v. Cayat (68 Phil. 12 [1939]), the Supreme Court upheld a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to non-Christians, as there was a substantial distinction between Christian Filipinos and non-Christian Filipinos in terms of culture and societal integration at that time.
It must be germane to the purpose of the law.
The classification must be relevant and appropriate to the goal or objective of the law. The classification should have a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the statute. This ensures that the distinction made by the law serves the policy the legislature seeks to achieve.

Example: In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union (59 SCRA 54 [1974]), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a law that allowed members of religious sects who oppose unions on religious grounds to be exempt from the closed-shop clause of collective bargaining agreements. The classification was deemed germane to the purpose of upholding religious freedom.
It must not be limited to existing conditions only.
The classification must apply to future situations or potential conditions. It should not only cater to existing circumstances but also to those that may arise in the future. The law should be able to adapt to a changing environment without needing constant amendments.

Example: A law that grants benefits only to a specific company or group, with no prospect of extension or applicability to others who may find themselves in similar circumstances, would likely fail this test.
It must apply equally to all members of the same class.
The law should apply uniformly to all persons or things belonging to the same class. Once a classification is established, everyone within that class must be treated equally without favoritism or undue preference.

Example: In Tiu v. CA (301 SCRA 278 [1999]), a statute that granted tax exemptions to a specific religious organization, to the exclusion of others similarly situated, was deemed unconstitutional. The classification was found not to apply equally to all members of the same class.

Rational Basis Test, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Strict Scrutiny

In determining whether a classification is valid, courts may apply different levels of scrutiny depending on the nature of the classification and the rights affected:

Rational Basis Test
This is the most lenient standard of judicial review. It is applied to most classifications involving social and economic legislation, where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications (e.g., race, religion) are involved. The law will be upheld if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Example: A law requiring professional licenses for certain trades is subject to rational basis review. As long as the distinction between licensed and unlicensed individuals is rational, the law will be valid.
Intermediate Scrutiny
Intermediate scrutiny is applied in cases involving quasi-suspect classifications, such as gender or legitimacy, and certain important rights. Under this test, the classification must serve an important government objective, and the means chosen must be substantially related to achieving that objective.

Example: Gender classifications in laws are subjected to intermediate scrutiny. In Gonzales v. COMELEC (137 SCRA 241 [1985]), the Supreme Court held that a gender-based classification in a labor law must be closely related to an important governmental interest to be valid.
Strict Scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review and is applied in cases involving fundamental rights (e.g., right to vote, free speech) or suspect classifications (e.g., race, religion). For a law to pass strict scrutiny, the classification must serve a compelling government interest, and the means chosen must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without being overly broad or underinclusive.

Example: In Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC (618 SCRA 32 [2010]), the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny when reviewing the disqualification of an LGBT party from running for congressional seats, as it involved both a suspect classification (sexual orientation) and a fundamental right (right to participate in elections).

Classifications That Have Been Upheld

Economic Legislation
Laws that classify based on economic considerations are generally upheld if they pass the rational basis test. Courts recognize that economic policies are primarily within the legislature’s discretion, provided there is no irrational classification.
Religious Exemptions
Courts have upheld laws that grant exemptions to religious groups, provided the exemptions do not result in unfair discrimination or violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. In these cases, the religious distinction is considered germane to the purpose of protecting religious freedom.
Public Safety and Health
Classification based on public safety or health concerns, such as laws mandating vaccinations or imposing restrictions on dangerous professions, are generally upheld under rational basis review, as they relate to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting public welfare.

Classifications That Have Been Struck Down

Arbitrary or Unreasonable Classifications
Laws that are arbitrary, whimsical, or not grounded in real differences among individuals have been struck down for violating the equal protection clause. For instance, laws granting privileges to a select few without any substantial distinction between them and others in similar situations are unconstitutional.

Example: In Igot v. COMELEC (307 SCRA 392 [1999]), the Supreme Court struck down a statute that required a higher level of educational attainment only for candidates from certain provinces, finding no substantial justification for the discrimination.
Classifications that Violate Fundamental Rights
If a classification violates fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech, religion, or the right to vote, courts will apply strict scrutiny, and such laws are usually struck down unless the government can prove a compelling interest.

Example: A law that allows only certain groups to vote in certain elections without justifiable grounds would likely fail under strict scrutiny and be struck down for violating the equal protection clause.

Conclusion

The Equal Protection Clause is a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, ensuring that laws do not arbitrarily discriminate between individuals or groups. The four requisites for valid classification guide the judiciary in determining the constitutionality of laws. The level of scrutiny applied depends on the nature of the classification and the rights affected, ranging from the rational basis test to strict scrutiny.