Page 1 of 4
Equal Protection Clause (Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution)
Commissioner of Customs v. Hypermix Feeds Corporation, G.R. No. 179579, February
1, 2012
FACTS:
November 7 2003, petitioner Commissioner of Customs issued CMO 27-2003
(Customs Memorandum Order). Under the memorandum, for tariff purposes, wheat is
classified according to: 1. Importer or consignee, 2. Country of origin, and 3. Port of discharge.
Depending on these factors wheat would be classified as either as food grade or food feed. The
corresponding tariff for food grade wheat was 3%, for food feed grade 7%. A month after the
issuance of CMO 27-200 respondent filed a petition for declaratory for Relief with the Regional
Trial Court of Las Piñas City.
Respondent contented that CMO 27-2003 was issued without following the mandate of the
Revised Administrative Code on public participation, prior notice, and publication or
registration with University of the Philippines Law Canter. Respondent also alleged that the
regulation summarily adjudged it to be a feed grade supplier without the benefit of prior
assessment and examination, despite having imported food grade wheat, it would be subjected
to the 7% tariff upon the arrival of the shipment, forcing to pay 133%. Respondent also claimed
that the equal protection clause of the Constitution was violated and asserted that the retroactive
application of the regulation was confiscatory in nature.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss. They alleged that: 1. The RTC did not have jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case, 2. an action for declaratory relief (Rule 63, Sec.1 “who may
file petition”) was improper, 3. CMO 27-2003 was internal administrative rule not legislative
in nature, and 4. The claims of respondent were speculative and premature, because the Bureau
of Customs had yet to examine respondent’s products.
RTC held that a petition for declaratory relief was proper remedy, and that respondent was the
proper party to file it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the content of the CMO 27-2003 met the requirement of the equal protection
clause of the Constitution?
RULLING:
No. CMO 27-2003 did not meet these requirements.
For a classification to be reasonable, it must be shown that :
1. it rests on substantial distinctions;
2. it is germane to the purpose of the law;
3. it is not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. it applies equally to all members of the same class.
Petitioners violated respondents right to equal protection of laws when they provided for
unreasonable classification in the application of the regulation. Petitioner Commissioner of
Customs went beyond his powers of delegated authority when the regulation limited the powers
of the customs officer to examine and assess imported articles.
ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, 14 August 2008
FACTS:
Petitioners seeks to prevent respondents from implementing and enforcing Republic
Act (RA) 9335. R.A. 9335 was enacted to optimize the revenue-generation capability and
collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The
law intends to encourage BIR and BOC officials and employees to exceed their revenue targets
by providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a Rewards and
Incentives Fund (Fund) and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board (Board). It covers all
officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC with at least six months of service, regardless
of employment status.
Petitioners, invoking their right as taxpayers filed this petition challenging the constitutionality
of RA 9335, a tax reform legislation. They contend that, by establishing a system of rewards
and incentives, the law “transforms the officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC into
mercenaries and bounty hunters” as they will do their best only in consideration of such
rewards. Thus, the system of rewards and incentives invites corruption and undermines the
constitutionally mandated duty of these officials and employees to serve the people with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.
Petitioners also claim that limiting the scope of the system of rewards and incentives only to
officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of equal

protection. There is no valid basis for classification or distinction as to why such a system
should not apply to officials and employees of all other government agencies.
In addition, petitioners assert that the law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to
the President as it lacks a sufficient standard on that matter. While Section 7(b) and (c) of RA
9335 provides that BIR and BOC officials may be dismissed from the service if their revenue
collections fall short of the target by at least 7.5%, the law does not, however, fix the revenue
targets to be achieved. Instead, the fixing of revenue targets has been delegated to the President
without sufficient standards. It will therefore be easy for the President to fix an unrealistic and
unattainable target in order to dismiss BIR or BOC personnel.
Finally, petitioners assail the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground
that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers. While the legislative function is deemed
accomplished and completed upon the enactment and approval of the law, the creation of the
congressional oversight committee permits legislative participation in the implementation and
enforcement of the law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the scope of the system of rewards and incentives limitation to officials and
employees of the BIR and the BOC violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
RULING:
The Court referred to the ruling of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, which
states that “the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the
application of the laws upon all citizens of the State.
The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification
in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in
speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not
invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that
it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of
constitutionality.
The Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a
reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary. “
Page 2 of 4
Kapatiran v. Tan, 30 June 1988
FACTS:
The four consolidated cases questions the validity of the VAT (Executive Order 273)
for being unconstitutional in that its enactment is not allegedly within the powers of the
President; that the VAT is oppressive, discriminatory, regressive, and violates the due process
and equal protection clauses and other provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
The Solicitor General prays for the dismissal of the petitions on the ground that the
petitioners have failed to show justification for the exercise of its judicial powers. He also
questions the legal standing of the petitioners who, he contends, are merely asking for an
advisory opinion from the Court, there being no justiciable controversy for resolution.
ISSUE:
Whether VAT is unconstitutional due to oppressive, discriminatory, regressive, and
violates the due process and equal protection clauses and other provisions of the 1987
Constitution.
RULING:
EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid tax. It is uniform.
First, the Court held that the President had authority to issue EO 273 as it was provided in the
Provisional constitution that the President shall have legislative powers.
Second, petitioners have failed to show that EO 273 was issued capriciously and whimsically
or in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It appears that
a comprehensive study of the VAT had been extensively discussed by this framers and other
government agencies involved in its implementation, even under the past administration.
Lastly, petitioners also failed to prove that EO 273 is oppressive, discriminatory, unjust and
regressive, in violation of the equal protection clause. Petitioners merely rely upon newspaper
articles which are actually hearsay and have evidentiary value. To justify the nullification of a
law. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and
argumentative implication. As the Court sees it, EO 273 satisfies all the requirements of a valid
tax.

"Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the
same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make
reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation; . . ."
"Taking everything into account, the differentiation against which the plaintiffs complain
conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the
meaning of the Constitution."
To satisfy this requirement then, all that is needed as held in another case decided two years
later is that the statute or ordinance in question "applies equally to all persons, firms and
corporations placed in similar situation."
This Court is on record as accepting the view in a leading American case (that "inequalities
which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no
constitutional limitation."
Tan v. Del Rosario, 3 October 1994
FACTS:
Two consolidated cases assail the validity of RA 7496 or the Simplified Net Income
Taxation Scheme ("SNIT"), which amended certain provisions of the NIRC, as well as the
Rules and Regulations promulgated by public respondents pursuant to said law.
Petitioners posit that RA 7496 is unconstitutional as it allegedly violates the following
provisions of the Constitution:
-Article VI, Section 26(1) — Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
- Article VI, Section 28(1) — The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress
shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
- Article III, Section 1 — No person shall be deprived of . . . property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Petitioners contended that public respondents exceeded their rule-making authority in applying
SNIT to general professional partnerships. Petitioner contends that the title of HB 34314,
Page 3 of 4
progenitor of RA 7496, is deficient for being merely entitled, "Simplified Net Income Taxation
Scheme for the Self-Employed and Professionals Engaged in the Practice of their Profession"
(Petition in G.R. No. 109289) when the full text of the title actually reads,
'An Act Adopting the Simplified Net Income Taxation Scheme For The Self-Employed and
Professionals Engaged In The Practice of Their Profession, Amending Sections 21 and 29 of
the National Internal Revenue Code,' as amended. Petitioners also contend it violated due
process.
The Solicitor General espouses the position taken by public respondents.
The Court has given due course to both petitions.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the tax law is unconstitutional for violating due process
RULING:
NO. The due process clause may correctly be invoked only when there is a clear contravention
of inherent or constitutional limitations in the exercise of the tax power. No such transgression
is so evident in herein case.
1. Uniformity of taxation, like the concept of equal protection, merely requires that all subjects
or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities.
Uniformity does not violate classification as long as: (1) the standards that are used therefor
are substantial and not arbitrary, (2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative
purpose, (3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions, and
(4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class.
2. What is apparent from the amendatory law is the legislative intent to increasingly shift the
income tax system towards the schedular approach in the income taxation of individual
taxpayers and to maintain, by and large, the present global treatment on taxable corporations.
The Court does not view this classification to be arbitrary and inappropriate.
 Page 4 of 4

Abakada Guro Party List (Formerly Aasjas) Officers Samson S. Alcantara And Ed ISSUE:
Vincent S. Albano v. The Honorable Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita; Honorable
Secretary Of The Department Of Finance Cesar Purisima, G.R. No. 168056, September Whether or not there was a violation of the due process and equal protection under Article III
01, 2005 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

FACTS:
Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337
particularly Sections 4, 5 and 6, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). These questioned provisions contain a
uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance,
to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after any of the following conditions
have been satisfied, to wit:
. . . That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective
January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the
following conditions has been satisfied:
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the
previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or
(ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and
one-half percent (1 ½%).
RULING:
The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that “no person or class of
persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or
other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.”
The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons
or things without distinction. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection. What
the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification.
By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in these same particulars.85
Supreme Court held no decision on this matter. The power of the State to make reasonable and
natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been established. Whether it relates
to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be
raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the State’s power is entitled to
presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a
clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.

Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes abandonment by Congress of

its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987
Philippine Constitution. They further argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of
goods and services and cannot be included within the purview of tariffs under the exemption
delegation since this refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the
government and usually imposed on imported/exported goods. They also said that the President
has powers to cause, influence or create the conditions provided by law to bring about the
conditions precedent. Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are made by law as to
how the Secretary of Finance will make the recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that
any recommendation of the Secretary of Finance can easily be brushed aside by the President
since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter, such that, ultimately, it is the President who
decides whether to impose the increased tax rate or not.