The peoples' right to equal protection

The Filipinos have proven that they can withstand poverty. But for sure, they cannot tolerate injustice. History tells us that all revolutions were triggered by injustice and not by poverty, although poverty is often the consequence of injustice. The people can survive destitution, calamities, pestilence, famine, disasters, even wars and catastrophes. But the people cannot tolerate injustice, oppression, exploitation and discrimination. All heroes have been enemies of injustice.

Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and even Jesus Christ. All people demand equal protection. The Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution, aside from guaranteeing that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, also assures the Filipino people that none of them should be denied equal protection of the law. Well, we have to forewarn all that what is being assured is not absolute equality but only equality before the law and before the courts in the administration of justice. This is what I emphasize in my Law Class in Constitutional Law. The hoi polloi can never be equal with Ayala, Gokongwei, Sy, Aboitiz, Gaisano, not with Marcos, Duterte or Romualdez. Equal protection is only a legal theory and a judicial fiction. There is no equality in social and economic status.

In a democracy and free enterprise system, the government cannot promise absolute equality between the rich and the poor because economic and social equality is not being assured. For instance, if you are an ordinary casual worker, minimum wage earner, unschooled, marginalized and without any power, influence or wealth you cannot claim equality with your employer who might be a business magnate, an industrial tycoon, a corporate taipan, a shipping mogul or a sugar baron. Your equal protection is limited to theoretical equality before the law. The symbol of justice is a blindfolded lady supposedly to assure you that the judge will not decide the case on the basis of wealth or influence but solely on the basis of the truth borne by evidence, as to who is right and who is wrong. But this is easier said than done, and this dictum is often more honored in breach than in compliance.

The equal protection clause means that no undue discrimination should be allowed by the State nor tolerated by the government, much less implemented by the executive and adjudged by the courts when the unequal treatment is based on gender, religion, race and now, even age, and no discrimination is allowed on the basis of disability. On gender, it is a criminal offense to discriminate against women in matters of hiring, promotion, wages, benefits, training opportunities. The Supreme Court declared as illegal the policy of foreign airlines in forcing flight attendants to consider them resigned when they get married and/or get pregnant. On religion, the highest court of the land declared as illegal the decision of DepEd officials in Cebu in expelling Jehovah’s Witness children for refusing to salute the Philippine flag and to participate in the flag ceremony.

On race or nationality, the Supreme Court also declared as illegal the policy and decision of an international school for giving much higher wages and benefits to foreign teachers and foreign hires as compared to Filipinos. Our workers are already subjected to too much discrimination abroad. We do not have much control over those circumstances. But we should never, never tolerate such discrimination to happen right here in our country. One of the top managers of that international school was very close to the president of the country at that time. The secretary of labor who was appointed by that president favored the international school and decided against the Filipino teachers. The Supreme Court rebuffed the DOLE secretary and bewailed his decision in tolerating a very obvious case of discrimination. Justice Kapunan who penned the decision gave a lecture to the secretary and reminded him of all international conventions against all acts of discrimination.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court cancelled the work permit of Tim Cone when the Filipino coaches filed a formal protest with DOLE. Under Article 40, Book One of the Labor Code, no non-resident alien could be granted an alien employment permit to work in our country if and when there is a Filipino who would come forward and prove that he is competent to do the particular job being applied for by an alien, and that he is available and willing to do the job. On the basis of the protest, the Secretary of Labor, Ruben Torres, cancelled Tim Cone's alien employment permit. Tim Cone's employer, the General Milling Company which owned the Alaska Team, asked the Supreme Court to nullify the DOLE secretary's decision. No, the High Court affirmed Secretary Torres.

Preferential treatment in favor of Filipinos does not violate the equal protection clause. The aliens cannot demand equality with the Filipinos. They do not belong to the same class. There is a valid classification which is germane to the purpose of the law. Thus foreigners cannot engage in the business of retail, cannot own and operate a recruitment company or an educational institution. These do not violate the equal protection clause. Aliens do not have the right to be treated as equals in the Philippines. But in all other matters, they cannot be deprived of the equal protection of the law.