Lacson VS. The Executive Secretary G.R. No. 128096

[G.R. No. 128096. January 20, 1999]

PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:

Eleven (11) persons believed to be members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, which had been involve in a spate of bank robberies in Metro Manila, were slain along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG).

SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes exposed that what actually transpired was a summary execution (or a rub out) and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG. The Ombudsman formed a panel of and this panel later absolve from any criminal liability all the PNP officers and personnel allegedly involved in the incident, with a finding that the said incident was a legitimate police operation.

However, a review board modified the Blancaflor panels finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against twenty-six (26) respondents, including herein petitioner and intervenors. This recommendation was approved by the Ombudsman, except for the withdrawal of the charges against Chief Supt. Ricardo de Leon. 

Petitioner questions the constitutionality of Section 4 of R.A. 8249, including Section 7 which provides that the said law shall apply to all cases pending in any court over which trial has not begun as of the approval hereof.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 violate the petitioners’ right to due process and the equal protection clause of the Constitution 

RULING:

It is an established precept in constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. The classification is reasonable and not arbitrary when there is concurrence of four elements, namely:

(1) it must rest on substantial distinction;

(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;

(3) must not be limited to existing conditions only, and

(4) must apply equally to all members of the same class,

all of which are present in this case. The challengers of Sections 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 failed to rebut the presumption of constitutionality and reasonableness of the questioned provisions.

FULL TEXT:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/jan99/128096.htm