Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
GR No. 105371, November 11, 1993 (227 SCRA 703)
FACTS:
This is a petition raised by the members of the lower courts who assails the constitutionality of Section 35 of Republic Act No. 7354 implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation through its Circular No. 92-28. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
It is alleged that the said law is discriminatory per se to withdraw the franking privilege of the Judiciary but not on other offices of the government, such as: the President of the Philippines, the Vice President of the Philippines; Senators and Members of the House of Representatives; the Commission on Elections; former Presidents of the Philippines; the National Census and Statistics Office; and the general public in the filing of complaints against public offices and officers.
However, the respondents contend that there is no discrimination since the law is based on the valid classification in accordance of the equal protection clause. In addition, not only the Judiciary department will be affected with it but also other offices like Office of Adult Education, the Institute of National Language; the Telecommunications Office; the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation; the National Historical Commission; etc. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
Read: Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 violates the equal protection clause.
HELD:
The Court held Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 unconstitutional, thus violates the equal protection clause. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
In Ichong vs. Hernandez, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. 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.
Read: Manosca v. Court of Appeals
The Court finds its repealing clause to be a discriminatory provision that denies the Judiciary the equal protection of the laws guaranteed for all persons or things similarly situated. The distinction made by the law is superficial. It is not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences between the Judiciary and the grantees of the franking privilege. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 105371, November 11, 1993 (227 SCRA 703)
FACTS:
This is a petition raised by the members of the lower courts who assails the constitutionality of Section 35 of Republic Act No. 7354 implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation through its Circular No. 92-28. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
It is alleged that the said law is discriminatory per se to withdraw the franking privilege of the Judiciary but not on other offices of the government, such as: the President of the Philippines, the Vice President of the Philippines; Senators and Members of the House of Representatives; the Commission on Elections; former Presidents of the Philippines; the National Census and Statistics Office; and the general public in the filing of complaints against public offices and officers.
However, the respondents contend that there is no discrimination since the law is based on the valid classification in accordance of the equal protection clause. In addition, not only the Judiciary department will be affected with it but also other offices like Office of Adult Education, the Institute of National Language; the Telecommunications Office; the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation; the National Historical Commission; etc. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
Read: Govt. of the United States v. Purganan
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 violates the equal protection clause.
HELD:
The Court held Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 unconstitutional, thus violates the equal protection clause. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
In Ichong vs. Hernandez, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. 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.
Read: Manosca v. Court of Appeals
The Court finds its repealing clause to be a discriminatory provision that denies the Judiciary the equal protection of the laws guaranteed for all persons or things similarly situated. The distinction made by the law is superficial. It is not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences between the Judiciary and the grantees of the franking privilege. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment