PEOPLE VS. CAYAT
Facts:
“Law prohibits any member of a non-Christian tribe to buy, receive, have
in his possession, or drink, any intoxicating liquors of any kind.” The law,
Act No. 1639, exempts only the so-called native wines or liquors which the
members of such tribes have been accustomed to take.
Issue: Whether or Not the law denies equal protection to one prosecuted and
sentenced for violation of said law.
Held:
No. It satisfies the requirements of a valid classification, one of which
is that the classification under the law must rest on real or substantial
distinctions. The distinction is reasonable. The classification between the
members of the non- Christian and the members of the Christian tribes is not
based upon accident of birth or parentage but upon the degree of civilization
and culture. The term ‘non-Christian tribes’ refers to a geographical area and
more directly to natives of the Philippines of a low grade civilization usually
living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities. The distinction
is reasonable for the Act was intended to meet the peculiar conditions existing
in the non- Christian tribes” The prohibition is germane to the purposes of the
law. It is designed to insure peace and order in and among the non- Christian
tribes has often resulted in lawlessness and crime thereby hampering the
efforts of the government to raise their standards of life and civilization.
This law is not limited in its application to conditions existing at the time
of the enactment. It is intended to apply for all times as long as those
conditions exist. The Act applies equally to all members of the class. That it
may be unfair in its operation against a certain number of non- Christians by reason
of their degree of culture is not an argument against the equality of its
operation nor affect the reasonableness of the classification thus established.