This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In De Guzman, Jr. v. Commission on Elections,[20] the Court, speaking of the Constitutional guarantee of security of tenure to all workers, ruled: x x x It only means that an employee cannot be dismissed (or transferred) from the service for causes other than those provided by law and after due process is accorded the employee. What it seeks to prevent is capricious exercise of the power to dismiss. x x x (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2011-02-15 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As this Court has ruled, the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution permits a valid classification, provided that it: (1) rests on substantial distinctions; (2) is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to all members of the same class.[12] | |||||
|
2010-03-18 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| To be valid and reasonable, the classification must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.[33] | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Sad to state, this conclusion conveniently ignores the long-standing rule that to remedy an injustice, the Legislature need not address every manifestation of the evil at once; it may proceed "one step at a time."[39] In addressing a societal concern, it must invariably draw lines and make choices, thereby creating some inequity as to those included or excluded.[40] Nevertheless, as long as "the bounds of reasonable choice" are not exceeded, the courts must defer to the legislative judgment.[41] We may not strike down a law merely because the legislative aim would have been more fully achieved by expanding the class.[42] Stated differently, the fact that a legislative classification, by itself, is underinclusive will not render it unconstitutionally arbitrary or invidious.[43] There is no constitutional requirement that regulation must reach each and every class to which it might be applied;[44] that the Legislature must be held rigidly to the choice of regulating all or none. | |||||
|
2009-12-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| This reasoning, however, fails to appreciate the well-settled rule that, by itself, the fact that a legislative classification is underinclusive will not render it unconstitutionally arbitrary or invidious.[117] The Legislature is free to choose to remedy only part of a problem, as it may "select one phase of a field and apply a remedy there, neglecting the others."[118] Stated differently, there is no constitutional requirement that regulation must reach each and every class to which it might be applied;[119] that the Legislature must be held rigidly to the choice of regulating all or none.[120] The state is free to regulate one step at a time, recognizing degrees of harm and addressing itself to phases of a problem which presently seem most acute to the legislative mind.[121] For when the Legislature creates a statute, it is not required to solve all the evils of a particular wrong in one fell swoop.[122] New Jersey State League of Municipalities, et al. v. State of New Jersey[123] succinctly states the principle thus: It is axiomatic that in attempting to remedy an injustice, the Legislature need not address every manifestation of the evil at once; it may proceed "one step at a time."[124] Thus, "remedial legislation need not be `all-or-nothing,'[;] ... the Legislature can decide that to start somewhere is better than to start nowhere."[125] Therefore, it is not necessarily fatal that a law is underinclusive by failing to include some who share characteristics of the included class, so long as there is a rational justification for excluding part of the affected class.[126] | |||||
|
2008-08-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Clearly, RA 9335 in no way violates the security of tenure of officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC. The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an employee cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other than those provided by law and only after due process is accorded the employee.[31] In the case of RA 9335, it lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal (when the revenue collection falls short of the target by at least 7.5%) with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of collection. This standard is analogous to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, a ground for disciplinary action under civil service laws.[32] The action for removal is also subject to civil service laws, rules and regulations and compliance with substantive and procedural due process. | |||||
|
2004-10-01 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Certainly, the legislature is not required by the Constitution to adhere to a policy of "all or none."[21] Underinclusiveness is not per se an argument against a valid classification.[22] If the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied.[23] Nevertheless, equal protection should extend to every person under circumstances, which, if not identical, are analogous.[24] By excluding positions equivalent in rank to the CTA "Presiding Judge" and a MeTC judge, the classification drawn by R.A. No. 9227 does not include all those identically or analogously situated. | |||||