Equal protection of laws
By: Atty. Rey Christian M. Guintibano on July 30, 2026
IN the recent case Tayam v. Recto, the Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act 12079, a law providing value-added tax (VAT) refund to foreign tourists, does not violate the constitutional right to equal protection of laws. In the case, Tayam assailed the constitutionality of the law, alleging that it violates the constitutional mandate of equal protection since Filipino citizens and residents are excluded from the VAT refund.
The right to equal protection is enshrined in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which says that no person shall be denied equal protection of laws. The Supreme Court, in numerous cases, has explained that the equal protection clause is a specific guarantee against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government.
However, equal protection does not mean that laws must apply identically to every person or thing without distinction. Rather, it requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike.
Thus, the Equal Protection Clause permits reasonable classification and does not prohibit differential treatment of persons or things that are, in fact, different. To be valid, a classification must: (1) be based on substantial distinctions; (2) be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) apply equally to each member of the same class. Thus, a statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because it treats one class differently from another, provided that the classification satisfies these requisites.
Levels of scrutiny
How does the Supreme Court determine if a classification is valid? It explained that, generally, courts apply one of the three levels of scrutiny: (1) strict scrutiny; (2) intermediate scrutiny; and (3) rational scrutiny.
Strict scrutiny applies when a classification interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, or when it burdens suspect classes. Under this test, the government has the burden to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
Intermediate scrutiny applies to classifications that, while not involving fundamental rights or suspect classes, still warrant heightened scrutiny, such as those based on gender or legitimacy. To withstand this test, the classification must further an important governmental interest, be substantially related to that interest, and the justification for such classification must be genuine and not depend on broad generalizations.
The rational scrutiny or rational basis test applies to all other classifications not covered by the first two tests. It is often applied to classifications involving economics, social welfare, or any other case not involving a suspect class. Under this standard, the classification must reasonably relate to the legislative purpose.
The Supreme Court applied these principles in Imbong v. Ochoa (2014), where the constitutionality of several provisions of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (“RH Law”) was challenged on equal protection grounds. In the case, the petitioners claimed that the RH Law violated the equal protection clause by prioritizing the poor in the government’s reproductive health program and exempting private educational institutions from the mandatory reproductive health education required by the law.
The Court sustained these classifications. It held that the RH Law’s prioritization of the poor is not violative of the equal protection clause and is consistent with the Constitution’s recognition of the State’s duty to protect and promote the health of the underprivileged sectors of society.
The Court likewise held that there is a substantial distinction between public and private educational institutions in view of the need to recognize the academic freedom of private educational institutions, particularly with respect to religious instruction and their sensitivity to the teaching of reproductive health education.
In the Tayam case, the State maintained that the classification between foreign tourists and local consumers rests on substantial distinctions meant to boost tourism competitiveness and foreign exchange. The Supreme Court en banc ruled that the law does not violate constitutional equality and uniformity clauses, affirming that the tourism-driven distinction is valid.
The Equal Protection Clause does not require that every law apply identically to every person. It only requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike, allowing the Legislature to make reasonable classifications that are based on substantial distinctions and are related to legitimate governmental objectives. Ultimately, the constitutional guarantee is directed not against classification itself, but against arbitrary discrimination.
Rey Christian M. Guintibano is an Associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com
The article was published at the More to Follow Column at The Manila Times on July 30, 2026. Please see this link.
https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/07/30/business/top-business/equal-protection-of-laws/2394298