PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSO. VS. PRADO
Facts:
The Philippine Postal Corporation issued circular No. 92-28 to implement
Section 35 of RA 7354 withdrawing the franking privilege from the SC, CA, RTCs,
MeTCs, MTCs and Land Registration Commission and with certain other government
offices. It is alleged that RA 7354 is discriminatory because while withdrawing
the franking privilege from judiciary, it retains the same for the President
& Vice-President of the Philippines, Senator & members of the House of Representatives,
COMELEC, National Census & Statistics Office and the general public. The respondents
counter that there is no discrimination because the law is based on a valid classification
in accordance with the equal protection clause.
Issue: Whether or Not Section 35 of RA 7354 is constitutional.
Held:
The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due
process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and
fair play. It has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in Article III
Section 1 of the Constitution to provide for amore specific guarantee against
any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in
general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular
act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper
weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause. Equal protection simply
requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. What the clause
requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification.
Section 35 of RA 7354 is declared unconstitutional. Circular No. 92-28 is set
aside insofar
