Equal Protection, Article III, Section 1
B. Requisites for valid classification
1. The Equal Protection Clause does not require the universal application of the law to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to valid classification. The test developed by jurisprudence here and yonder is that of reasonableness, which has four requisites:
1. The classification rests on substantial distinctions.
2. It is germane to the purposes of the law:
3. it is not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. It applies equally to all members of the same class.
C. Judicial standards of review
1. Rational basis test – the challenged classification needs only be shown to be rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.
2. Intermediate scrutiny test – The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest, and that the classification is, at least, substantially related to serving that interest; and
3. Strict scrutiny test – a legislative classification which impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a subject class is presumed unconstitutional, and the burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest.
1. PASEI v Drilon – GR 81958 30 Jun 1988
2. People v Hernandez – GR L-6025, 30 May 1964
3. Nunez v Sandiganbayan – GR L-50581-50617 30 Jan 1982
4. Abubakar v People – GR 202408; 202409, 27 Jun 2018
5. Gallardo v People – GR 142030, 21 Apr 2005
6. Tiu v CA – GR 127410, 20 Jan 1999
7. ISAE v Quisumbing – GR 128845, 1 Jun 2000
8. Telebap and GMA v Comelec, GR 132922, 21 Apr 1998
9. Serrano v Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., GR 167614, 24 Mar 2009
10. Garcia v Drilon, GR 179267, 25 Jun 2013