Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
- Joys application was accepted. Joy was later - On July 29, 1998, the Labor Arbiter dismissed
asked to sign a oneyear employment contract for Joys complaint. Acting Executive Labor Arbiter
a monthly salary of NT$15,360.00. She alleged Pedro C.Ramos ruled that her complaint was
that Sameer Overseas Agency required her to based on mere allegations.
pay a placement fee of P70,000.00 when she - Joy appealed to the National Labor Relations
signed the employment contract. Commission.
- Joy was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal, - In a resolution dated March 31, 2004, the
Co. Ltd. (Wacoal) on June 26, 1997. She alleged National Labor Relations Commission declared
that in her employment contract, she agreed to that Joy was illegally dismissed. It found that
work as quality control for one year. In Taiwan, Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to
she was asked to work as a cutter. prove that there were just causes for termination.
- Sameer Overseas Placement Agency claims Furthermore, procedural dueprocess was not
that on July 14, 1997, a certain Mr. Huwang observed in terminating respondent.
from Wacoal informed Joy, without prior notice, - NLRC refused to entertain the issue of the
that she was terminated and that "she should alleged transfer of obligations to Pacific. It did
immediately report to their office to get her not acquire jurisdiction over that issue because
salary and passport." She was asked to "prepare Sameer Overseas Placement Agency failed to
for immediate repatriation."
appeal the Labor Arbiters decision not to rule the unexpired term, whichever is less was
on the matter. reinstated in Republic Act No. 8042 upon
promulgation of Republic Act No. 10022 in
- The National Labor Relations Commission
2010.
awarded respondent only three (3) months worth
of salary in the amount of NT$46,080, the RULING ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL
reimbursement of the NT$3,000 withheld from ISSUE
her, and attorneys fees of NT$300.46
In the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution is
- Aggrieved by the ruling, Sameer Overseas supreme. No branch or office of the government
Placement Agency caused the filing of a petition may exercise its powers in any manner
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of
the National Labor Relations Commissions the existence of any law that supports such
resolutions exercise. The Constitution cannot be trumped by
any other law. All laws must be read in light of
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the Constitution. Any law that is inconsistent
the National Labor Relations Commission with
with it is a nullity.
respect to the finding of illegal dismissal, Joys
entitlement to the equivalent of three months Thus, when a law or a provision of law is null
worth of salary, reimbursement of withheld because it is inconsistent with the Constitution,
repatriation expense, and attorneys fees. the nullity cannot be cured by reincorporation or
reenactment of the same or a similar law or
- Dissatisfied, Sameer Overseas Placement
provision. A law or provision of law that was
Agency filed this petition.
already declared unconstitutional remains as
ISSUE: Whether or not Cabiles was entitled to such unless circumstances have so changed as to
the unexpired portion of her salary due to illegal warrant a reverse conclusion.
dismissal.
The Court observed that the reinstated clause,
RULING: (CASE DIGEST) this time as provided in Republic Act. No.
10022, violates the constitutional rights to equal
YES. The Court held that the award of the three- protection and due process.96 Petitioner as well
month equivalent of respondents salary should as the Solicitor General have failed to show any
be increased to the amount equivalent to the compelling change in the circumstances that
unexpired term of the employment contract. would warrant us to revisit the precedent.
In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. The Court declared, once again, the clause, or
and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc., this court for three (3) months for every year of the
ruled that the clause or for three (3) months for unexpired term, whichever is less in Section 7
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is of Republic Act No. 10022 amending Section 10
less is unconstitutional for violating the equal of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared
protection clause and substantive due process. unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
A statute or provision which was declared
unconstitutional is not a law. It confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no RULING: (ABT EQUAL PROTECTION
protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative CLAUSE) (FULL TEXT)
as if it has not been passed at all.
- The Office of the Solicitor General also argued
The Court said that they are aware that the that the clause was valid and constitutional.
clause or for three (3) months for every year of However, since the parties never raised the issue
of the constitutionality of the clause as reinstated In Serrano, we identified the classifications
in Republic Act No. 10022, its contention is that made by the reinstated clause. It distinguished
it is beyond judicial review. between fixed-period overseas workers and
fixed period local workers.
On the other hand, respondent argued that the
clause was unconstitutional because it infringed It also distinguished between overseas workers
on workers right to contract. with employment contracts of less than one year
and overseas workers with employment
We observe that the reinstated clause, this time
contracts of at least one year.
as provided in Republic Act. No. 10022, violates
the constitutional rights to equal protection and The Congress classification may be subjected to
due process. judicial review. In Serrano, there is a "legislative
classification which impermissibly interferes
We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant
with the exercise of a fundamental right or
Maritime that limiting wages that should be
operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a
recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas
suspect class."
worker to three months is both a violation of due
process and the equal protection clauses of the Under the Constitution, labor is afforded
Constitution. special protection. Thus, this court in
Serrano, "[i]mbued with the same sense of
Equal protection of the law is a guarantee that
obligation to afford protection to labor, . . .
persons under like circumstances and falling
employ[ed] the standard of strict judicial
within the same class are treated alike, in terms
scrutiny, for it perceive[d] in the subject
of "privileges conferred and liabilities enforced."
clause a suspect classification prejudicial to
It is a guarantee against "undue favor and
OFWs."
individual or class privilege, as well as hostile
discrimination or the oppression of inequality." We also noted in Serrano that before the passage
of Republic Act No. 8042, the money claims of
The equal protection clause does not infringe on
illegally terminated overseas and local workers
this legislative power. A law is void on this
with fixed-term employment were computed in
basis, only if classifications are made arbitrarily.
the same manner.
There is no violation of the equal protection
clause if the law applies equally to persons Their money claims were computed based on
within the same class and if there are reasonable the "unexpired portions of their contracts." The
grounds for distinguishing between those falling adoption of the reinstated clause in Republic Act
within the class and those who do not fall within No. 8042 subjected the money claims of
the class. A law that does not violate the equal illegally dismissed overseas workers with an
protection clause prescribes a reasonable unexpired term of at least a year to a cap of three
classification. months worth of their salary.
A reasonable classification "(1) must rest on There was no such limitation on the money
substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to claims of illegally terminated local workers with
the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited fixed-term employment.
to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply
We observed that illegally dismissed overseas
equally to all members of the same class."
workers whose employment contracts had a term
The reinstated clause does not satisfy the of less than one year were granted the amount
requirement of reasonable classification. equivalent to the unexpired portion of their
employment contracts.
Meanwhile, illegally dismissed overseas differentiated treatment in terms of the
workers with employment terms of at least a computation of money claims.
year were granted a cap equivalent to three
We also find that the classifications are not
months of their salary for the unexpired portions
relevant to the purpose of the law, which is to
of their contracts.
"establish a higher standard of protection
Observing the terminologies used in the clause, and promotion of the welfare of migrant
we also found that "the subject clause creates a workers, their families and overseas Filipinos
sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs whose in distress, and for other purposes."
contract periods are for more than one year:
Putting a cap on the money claims of certain
those who are illegally dismissed with less than
overseas workers does not increase the standard
one year left in their contracts shall be entitled to
of protection afforded to them.
their salaries for the entire unexpired portion
thereof, while those who are illegally dismissed Meanwhile, these overseas workers who are
with one year or more remaining in their impressed with an expectation of a stable job
contracts shall be covered by the reinstated overseas for the longer contract period disregard
clause, and their monetary benefits limited to other opportunities only to be terminated earlier.
their salaries for three months only. They are left with claims that are less than what
others in the same situation would receive. The
Overseas workers regardless of their
reinstated clause, therefore, creates a situation
classifications are entitled to security of tenure,
where the law meant to protect them makes
at least for the period agreed upon in their
violation of rights easier and simply benign to
contracts. This means that they cannot be
the violator.
dismissed before the end of their contract terms
without due process. If they were illegally WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The
dismissed, the workers right to security of decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED
tenure is violated. with modification. Petitioner Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency is ORDERED to pay
The rights violated when, say, a fixed-period
respondent Joy C. Cabiles the amount equivalent
local worker is illegally terminated are neither
to her salary for the unexpired portion of her
greater than nor less than the rights violated
employment contract at an interest of 6% per
when a fixed-period overseas worker is illegally
annum from the finality of this judgment.
terminated.
Petitioner is also ORDERED to reimburse
It is state policy to protect the rights of workers respondent the withheld NT$3,000.00 salary and
without qualification as to the place of pay respondent attorney's fees of NT$300.00 at
employment. In both cases, the workers are an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of
deprived of their expected salary, which they this judgment.
could have earned had they not been illegally
The clause, "or for three (3) months for every
dismissed.
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less" in
For both workers, this deprivation translates to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10022 amending
economic insecurity and disparity. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042 is declared
unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.
For this reason, we cannot subscribe to the
argument that "[overseas workers] are
contractual employees who can never acquire
12) ALMARIO VS. EXECUTIVE
regular employment status, unlike local
SECRETARY
workers" because it already justifies
Art has traditionally been viewed as the groups which contribute significantly to the
expression of everything that is true, good and Filipinos cultural legacy."
beautiful. As such, it is perceived to evoke and
In connection with this mandate, the NCCA is
produce a spirit of harmony. Art is also
vested with the power to "advise the President
considered as a civilizing force, a catalyst of
on matters pertaining to culture and the arts,
nation-building. The notion of art and artists as
including the creation of a special decoration or
privileged expressions of national culture helped
award, for persons who have significantly
shape the grand narratives of the nation and
contributed to the development and promotion
shared symbols of the people. The artist does not
of Philippine culture and arts."
simply express his/her own individual
inspiration but articulates the deeper aspirations CCP Board of Trustees and the NCCA have been
of history and the soul of the people. mandated by law to promote, develop and
protect the Philippine national culture and the
The law recognizes this role and views art as
arts, and authorized to give awards to deserving
something that "reflects and shapes values,
Filipino artists, the two bodies decided to team
beliefs, aspirations, thereby defining a peoples
up and jointly administer the National Artists
national identity." If unduly politicized,
Award.9 Thereafter, they reviewed the
however, art and artists could stir controversy
guidelines for the nomination, selection and
and may even cause discord, as what happened
administration of the National Artists Award.
in this case.
On September 19, 2003, Executive Order No.
FACTS:
236, s. 2003, entitled Establishing the Honors
History of the Order of National Artists Code of the Philippines to Create an Order of
Precedence of Honors Conferred and for Other
On April 27, 1972, former President Ferdinand
Purposes, was issued.
E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 10014 and,
upon recommendation of the Board of Trustees The National Artists Award was renamed the
of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), Order of National Artists and raised to the level
created the category of Award and Decoration of of a Cultural Order, fourth in precedence among
National Artist to be awarded to Filipinos who the orders and decorations that comprise the
have made distinct contributions to arts and Honors of the Philippines. Executive Order No.
letters. In the same issuance, Fernando 236, s. 2003, recognizes the vital role of the
Amorsolo was declared as the first National NCCA and the CCP in identifying Filipinos who
Artist. have made distinct contributions to arts and
letters and states that the National Artist
On April 3, 1992, Republic Act No. 7356,
recognition is conferred "upon the
otherwise known as the Law Creating the
recommendation of the Cultural Center of the
National Commission for Culture and the Arts,
Philippines and the National Commission for
was signed into law. It established the National
Culture and the Arts." Executive Order No. 236,
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA)
s. 2003, further created a Committee on Honors
and gave it an extensive mandate over the
to "assist the President in evaluating
development, promotion and preservation of the
nominations for recipients of Honors," including
Filipino national culture and arts and the
the Order of National Artists, and presidential
Filipino cultural heritage.
awards.
Among the specific mandates of the NCCA
The Committee on Honors has been allowed to
under Republic Act No. 7356 is to "extend
"authorize relevant department or government
recognition of artistic achievement through
agencies to maintain Honors and/or Awards
awards, grants and services to artists and cultural
Committees to process nominations for Honors was held to discuss, among others, the
and/or Presidential Awards."14 In this evaluation of the 2009 Order of National Artists
connection, Section 2.4(A) of the Implementing and the convening of the National Artist Award
Rules and Regulations 15 of Executive Order Secretariat. The nomination period was set for
No. 236, s. 2003, states: September 2007 to December 31, 2007, which
was later extended to February 28, 2008. The
All nominations from the various awards
pre-screening of nominations was held from
committees must be submitted to the Committee
January to March 2008.
on Honors via the Chancellery of Philippine
Orders and State Decorations. The Chancellery On April 3, 2009, the First Deliberation Panel
shall process nominations for the consideration met.17 A total of 87 nominees18 were
of the Committee on Honors. The Committee on considered during the deliberation and a
Honors shall screen and recommend these preliminary shortlist 19 of 32 names was
nominations to the President. compiled.
The Committee on Honors shall, as a general On April 23, 2009, the Second Deliberation
rule, serve as a screening committee to ensure Panel shortlisted 13 out of the 32 names in the
that nominations received from the various preliminary shortlist.On May 6, 2009, the final
awards committees meet two tests: that there has deliberation was conducted by the 30-member
not been an abuse of discretion in making the Final Deliberation Panel comprised of the CCP
nomination, and that the nominee is in good Board of Trustees and the NCCA Board of
standing. Should a nomination meet these Commissioners and the living National
criteria, a recommendation to the President for Artists.From the 13 names in the second
conferment shall be made. shortlist, a final list of four names was agreed
upon namely: Manuel Conde, Ramon Santos,
The President of the Philippines takes the
Lazaro Francisco and Federico Aguilar-Alcuaz.
recommendations of the Committee on Honors
in the highest consideration when making the CCP and NCCA submitted this recommendation
final decision on the conferment of awards. to the President. According to respondents, the
(Emphasis supplied.) aforementioned letter was referred by the Office
of the President to the Committee on Honors.
Executive Order No. 435, s. 2005, entitled
Meanwhile, the Office of the President allegedly
Amending Section 5(IV) of Executive Order No.
received nominations from various sectors,
236 Entitled "Establishing the Honors Code of
cultural groups and individuals strongly
the Philippines to Create an Order of Precedence
endorsing private respondents Cecile Guidote-
of Honors Conferred and for Other Purposes"
Alvarez, Carlo Magno Jose Caparas, Francisco
was subsequently issued on June 8, 2005. It
Masa and Jose Moreno. The Committee on
amended the wording of Executive Order No.
Honors purportedly processed these nominations
236, s. 2003, on the Order of National Artists
and invited resource persons to validate the
and clarified that the NCCA and the CCP "shall
qualifications and credentials of the nominees.
advise the President on the conferment of the
Order of National Artists." Acting on this recommendation, Proclamation
No. 1823 declaring Manuel Conde a National
Controversy Surrounding the 2009
Artist was issued on June 30, 2009.
Order of National Artists Subsequently, on July 6, 2009, Proclamation
Nos. 1824 to 1829 were issued declaring Lazaro
Petitioners alleged that on January 30, 2007, a Francisco, Federico AguilarAlcuaz and private
joint meeting of the NCCA Board of respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa
Commissioners and the CCP Board of Trustees and Moreno, respectively, as National Artists.
This was subsequently announced to the public adversely affect their right to live a meaningful
by then Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita on life as it detracts not only from their right to
July 29, 2009. enjoy their honor as a fruit of their lifelong labor
but also from the respect of their peers.
Convinced that, by law, it is the exclusive
province of the NCCA Board of Commissioners The cultural workers, academics and CAP claim
and the CCP Board of Trustees to select those to be Filipinos who are deeply concerned with
who will be conferred the Order of National the preservation of the countrys rich cultural
Artists and to set the standard for entry into that and artistic heritage. As taxpayers, they are
select group, petitioners instituted this petition concerned about the use of public monies for
for prohibition, certiorari and injunction (with illegal appointments or spurious acts of
prayer for restraining order) praying that the discretion.
Order of National Artists be conferred on Dr.
All of the petitioners claim that former President
Santos and that the conferment of the Order of
Macapagal-Arroyo gravely abused her discretion
National Artists on respondents Guidote-
in disregarding the results of the rigorous
Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and Moreno be enjoined
screening and selection process for the Order of
and declared to have been rendered in grave
National Artists and in substituting her own
abuse of discretion.
choice for those of the Deliberation Panels.
All of the petitioners claim that former President
According to petitioners, the Presidents
Macapagal-Arroyo gravely abused her discretion
discretion to name National Artists is not
in disregarding the results of the rigorous
absolute but limited. In particular, her discretion
screening and selection process for the Order of
on the matter cannot be exercised in the absence
National Artists and in substituting her own
of or against the recommendation of the NCCA
choice for those of the Deliberation Panels.
and the CCP.
According to petitioners, the Presidents
discretion to name National Artists is not In adding the names of respondents Caparas,
absolute but limited. In particular, her discretion Guidote-Alvarez, Maosa and Moreno while
on the matter cannot be exercised in the absence dropping Dr. Santos from the list of conferees,
of or against the recommendation of the NCCA the Presidents own choices constituted the
and the CCP. majority of the awardees in utter disregard of the
choices of the NCCA and the CCP and the arts
Contention of the Parties
and culture community which were arrived at
A perusal of the pleadings submitted by the after a long and rigorous process of screening
petitioners reveals that they are an aggrupation and deliberation. Moreover, the name of Dr.
of at least three groups, the National Artists, Santos as National Artist for Music was deleted
cultural workers and academics, and the from the final list submitted by the NCCA and
Concerned Artists of the Philippines (CAP). the CCP Boards without clearly indicating the
basis thereof.
The National Artists assert an "actual as well as
legal interest in maintaining the reputation of the For petitioners, the Presidents discretion to
Order of National Artists." name National Artists cannot be exercised to
defeat the recommendations made by the CCP
In particular, they invoke their right to due
and NCCA Boards after a long and rigorous
process not to have the honor they have been
screening process and with the benefit of
conferred with diminished by the irregular and
expertise and experience. The addition of four
questionable conferment of the award on
names to the final list submitted by the Boards
respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa
of the CCP and the NCCA and the deletion of
and Moreno. For petitioners, this would
one name from the said list constituted a On the merits, respondent Caparas contends that
substitution of judgment by the President and a no grave abuse of discretion attended his
unilateral reconsideration without clear proclamation as National Artist. The former
justification of the decision of the First, Second President considered the respective
and Final Deliberation Panels composed of recommendations of the NCCA and the CCP
experts. Boards and of the Committee on Honors in
eventually declaring him (Caparas) as National
Petitioners further argue that the choice of
Artist.
respondent Guidote Alvarez was illegal and
unethical because, as the then Executive The function of the NCCA and the CCP Boards
Director of the NCCA and presidential adviser is simply to advise the President. The award of
on culture and arts, she was disqualified from the Order of National Artists is the exclusive
even being nominated. Moreover, such action on prerogative of the President who is not bound in
the part of the former President constituted any way by the recommendation of the NCCA
grave abuse of discretion as it gave preferential and the CCP Boards. The implementing rules
treatment to respondent Guidote-Alvarez by and regulations or guidelines of the NCCA
naming the latter a National Artist despite her cannot restrict or limit the exclusive power of
not having been nominated and, thus, not the President to select the recipients of the Order
subjected to the screening process provided by of National Artists.
the rules for selection to the Order of National
The original position of the Office of the
Artists. Her inclusion in the list by the President
Solicitor General (OSG) was similar to that of
represented a clear and manifest favor given by
respondent Caparas.
the President in that she was exempted from the
process that all other artists have to undergo. The OSG argued that, while the President
exercises control over the NCCA and the CCP,
According to petitioners, it may be said that the
the President has the duty to faithfully execute
President used a different procedure to qualify
the laws, including the NCCA-CCP guidelines
respondent Guidote-Alvarez. This was clearly
for selection of National Artists and the
grave abuse of discretion for being manifest and
implementing rules of Executive Order No. 236,
undue bias violative of the equal protection
s. 2003.
clause.
Moreover, the laws recognize the expertise of
Respondent Caparas refutes the contention of
the NCCA and the CCP in the arts and tasked
the petitioning National Artists and insists that
them to screen and select the artists to be
there could be no prejudice to the latter. They
conferred the Order of National Artists. Their
remain to be National Artists and continue to
mandate is clear and exclusive as no other
receive the emoluments, benefits and other
agency possesses such expertise.
privileges pertaining to them by virtue of that
honor. On the other hand, all the other The OSG also assailed the former Presidents
petitioners failed to show any material and choice of respondent Guidote-Alvarez for being
personal injury or harm caused to them by the contrary to Republic Act No. 7356.54 Section 11
conferment of the Order of National Artists on of the said law provides:
respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa
and Moreno. The rule on standing may not be Sec. 11. Membership Restrictions. During
relaxed in favor of the petitioners as no question his/her term as member of the Commission, a
of constitutionality has been raised and no issue Commissioner shall not be eligible for any grant,
of transcendental importance is involved. or such other financial aid from the Commission
as an individual: Provided, however, That he/she
may compete for grants and awards on the same
level as other artists one (1) year after his/her While the Court invalidates today the
term shall have expired. proclamation of respondents Guidote-Alvarez,
Caparas, Maosa and Moreno as National
The omission of the word "award" in the first
Artists, such action should not be taken as a
portion of the above provision appears to be
pronouncement on whether they are worthy to
unintentional as shown by the proviso which
be conferred that honor. Only the President,
states that a member may compete for grants and
upon the advise of the NCCA and the CCP
awards only one year after his or her term shall
Boards, may determine that. The Court simply
have expired. As such, respondent Guidote-
declares that, as the former President committed
Alvarez is restricted and disqualified from being
grave abuse of discretion in issuing
conferred the 2009 Order of National Artists
Proclamation Nos. 1826 to 1829 dated July 6,
ISSUE: Whether or not there was grave abuse 2009, the said proclamations are invalid.
of discretion committed by former President However, nothing in this Decision should be
Arroyo read as a disqualification on the part of
respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa
RULING: YES. and Moreno to be considered for the honor of
The conferment of the Order of National Artists National Artist in the future, subject to
on respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, compliance with the laws, rules and regulations
Maosa and Moreno was an entirely different governing said award.
matter. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
There is grave abuse of discretion when an act is GRANTED in PART. Proclamation Nos. 1826 to
(1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or 1829 dated July 6, 2009 proclaiming
jurisprudence or (2) executed whimsically, respondents Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, Carlo
capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will Magno Jose Caparas, Francisco Maosa, and
or personal bias.86 Jose Moreno, respectively, as National Artists
are declared INVALID and
There was a violation of the equal protection
clause of the Constitution when the former SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave
President gave preferential treatment to abuse of discretion.
respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa FOOTNOTE: (EQUAL PROTECTION)
and Moreno.1wphi1 The former Presidents
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws The rational basis scrutiny is one of three tests
and observe the rules, guidelines and policies of used by the Court to test compliance with the
the NCCA and the CCP as to the selection of the equal protection clause. It is the minimal level of
nominees for conferment of the Order of scrutiny which requires that the challenged
National Artists proscribed her from having a classification is rationally related to serving a
free and uninhibited hand in the conferment of legitimate State interest. It is used when the
the said award. The manifest disregard of the government action is a type of discrimination
rules, guidelines and processes of the NCCA and that does not warrant the intermediate and strict
the CCP was an arbitrary act that unduly favored levels of scrutiny. The intermediate or middle-
respondents Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Maosa tier test requires the government to show that (1)
and Moreno. The conferment of the Order of the challenged classification serves an important
National Artists on said respondents was State interest, and (2) the classification is at least
therefore made with grave abuse of discretion substantially related to serving that interest. It is
and should be set aside. applied to suspect classifications like gender or
illegitimacy.
The most demanding is the strict scrutiny test
which requires the government to show that (1)
the challenged classification serves a compelling
State interest, and (2) the classification is
necessary to serve that interest. It is used in
classifications based on race, national origin,
religion alienage, denial of the right to vote,
access to courts and other rights recognized as
fundamental. (Bernas, Joaquin S.J., THE 1987
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY [2009
edition], pp. 139-140).
RULING: (CASE DIGEST)
Political Law- equal protection
It should be recalled too that respondent
Guidote-Alvarez was disqualified to be
nominated for being the Executive Director of
the NCCA at that time while respondents Masa
and Caparas did not make it to the preliminary
shortlist and respondent Moreno was not
included in the second shortlist. Yet, the four of
them were treated differently and considered
favorably when they were exempted from the
rigorous screening process of the NCCA and the
CCP and conferred the Order of National Artists.
The special treatment accorded to respondents
Guidote-Alvarez, Caparas, Masa and Moreno
fails to pass rational scrutiny.No real and
substantial distinction between respondents and
petitioner Abad has been shown that would
justify deviating from the laws, guidelines and
established procedures, and placing respondents
in an exceptional position. The undue
classification was not germane to the purpose of
the law. Instead, it contradicted the law and
well-established guidelines, rules and
regulations meant to carry the law into effect.
While petitioner Abad cannot claim entitlement
to the Order of National Artists, he is entitled to
be given an equal opportunity to vie for that
honor. In view of the foregoing, there was a
violation of petitioner Abads right to equal
protection, an interest that is substantial enough
to confer him standing in this case.