G.R. No. 113811
October 7, 1994.
Facts
Petitioner is a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP). He was charged with murder and attempted murder. The trial court issued an order suspending petitioner from his office until the termination of his case. The Order was based on Section 47, R.A. No. 6975.
“Sec. 47. Preventive Suspension Pending Criminal Case. — Upon the filing of a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance against a member of the PNP for grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law is six (6) years and one (1) day or more, the court shall immediately suspend the accused from office until the case is terminated . Such case shall be subject to continuous trial and shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from arraignment of the accused.”
Petitioner prayed that the Order of the trial court be set aside. He claimed that an imposition of preventive suspension of over 90 days is contrary to the Civil Service Law and is a violation of his constitutional right to the equal protection of laws.
Issue
Whether or not imposing preventive suspension to police officers upon being charged with a crime is a violation of the equal protection clause?
Held
No. The equal protection clause exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men, the equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality. It merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.
Thus, the equal protection clause does not absolutely forbid classifications. If the classification is based on real and substantial differences, is germane to the purpose of the law, applies to all members of the same class, and applies to current as well as future conditions; the classification may not be impugned as violating the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.
In this case, there exists substantial differences or distinction based on real and reasonable considerations. The reason why members of the PNP are treated differently from the other classes of persons charged criminally or administratively insofar as the application of the rule on preventive suspension is concerned is that policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them.
Moreover, it is germane to the purpose of the law since the legislative intent is to place on preventive suspension a member of the PNP charged with grave felonies where the penalty imposed by law exceeds six years of imprisonment and which suspension continues until the case against him is terminated.
Hence, the order of the trial court cannot be set aside. Section 47, R.A. No. 6975 which imposed preventive suspension to police officers upon being charged with a crime is not a violation of the equal protection clause.