1) Bautista challenged the constitutionality of a law (LOI 869) that classified vehicles as heavy (H) or extra heavy (EH) and banned them from roads on weekends and holidays to reduce oil consumption.
2) Bautista argued the law discriminated against H and EH vehicle owners and restricted their freedom while not restricting smaller vehicle owners.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding the vehicle classification was not unreasonable and the law treated all people and vehicles equally under similar circumstances to promote general welfare, as required by the equal protection clause.
1) Bautista challenged the constitutionality of a law (LOI 869) that classified vehicles as heavy (H) or extra heavy (EH) and banned them from roads on weekends and holidays to reduce oil consumption.
2) Bautista argued the law discriminated against H and EH vehicle owners and restricted their freedom while not restricting smaller vehicle owners.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding the vehicle classification was not unreasonable and the law treated all people and vehicles equally under similar circumstances to promote general welfare, as required by the equal protection clause.
1) Bautista challenged the constitutionality of a law (LOI 869) that classified vehicles as heavy (H) or extra heavy (EH) and banned them from roads on weekends and holidays to reduce oil consumption.
2) Bautista argued the law discriminated against H and EH vehicle owners and restricted their freedom while not restricting smaller vehicle owners.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding the vehicle classification was not unreasonable and the law treated all people and vehicles equally under similar circumstances to promote general welfare, as required by the equal protection clause.
1) Bautista challenged the constitutionality of a law (LOI 869) that classified vehicles as heavy (H) or extra heavy (EH) and banned them from roads on weekends and holidays to reduce oil consumption.
2) Bautista argued the law discriminated against H and EH vehicle owners and restricted their freedom while not restricting smaller vehicle owners.
3) The Supreme Court upheld the law, finding the vehicle classification was not unreasonable and the law treated all people and vehicles equally under similar circumstances to promote general welfare, as required by the equal protection clause.
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Bautista v.
Juinio, 127 SCRA 329
Equal Protection Distinction Between Heavy and Extra Heavy Cars and Others Bautista is assailing the constitutionality of LOI 869 issued in 1979 which classified vehicles into Heavy and Extra Heavy. The LOI further banned these vehicles during weekends and holidays that is from 5am Saturday until 5am Monday. Purpose of this law is to curb down petroleum consumption as bigger cars consume more oil. Bautista claimed the LOI to be discriminatory as it made an assumption that H and EH cars are heavy on petroleum consumption when in fact there are smaller cars which are also big on oil consumption. Further, the law restricts their freedom to enjoy their car while others who have smaller cars may enjoy theirs. Bautista avers that there is no rational justification for the ban being imposed on vehicles classified as heavy (H) and extraheavy (EH), for precisely those owned by them fall within such category. ISSUE: Whether or not the LOI violates equal protection. HELD: The SC held that Bautista was not able to make merit out of her contention. The classification on cars on its face cannot be characterized as an affront to reason. The ideal situation is for the laws benefits to be available to all, that none be placed outside the sphere of its coverage. Only thus could chance and favor be excluded and the affairs of men governed by that serene and impartial uniformity, which is of the very essence of the idea of law. The actual, given things as they are and likely to continue to be, cannot approximate the ideal. Nor is the law susceptible to the reproach that it does not take into account the realities of the situation. . . . To assure that the general welfare be promoted, which is the end of law, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and property. Those adversely affected may under such circumstances invoke the equal protection clause only if they can show that the governmental act assailed, far from being inspired by the attainment of the common weal was prompted by the spirit of hostility, or at the very least, discrimination that finds no support in reason. It suffices then that the laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. Favoritism and undue preference cannot be allowed. For the principle is that equal protection and security shall be given to every person under circumstances, which if not identical are analogous. If law be looked upon in terms of burden or charges, those that fall within a class should be treated in the same fashion, whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally binding on the rest.
G.R. No. L-37251 August 31, 1981 CITY OF MANILA and CITY TREASURER, Petitioners-Appellants, Manila and ESSO PHILIPPINES, INC.,Respondents-Appellees. Aquino, J.