5/19/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of the equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. It has been embodied in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.[26] It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness.[27] In Gutierrez v. Department of Budget and Management,[28] it was ruled that the fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently from another. The classification must also be germane to the purpose of the law and must apply to all those belonging to the same class.[29] To be valid and reasonable, the classification must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all members of the same class.[30] Substantial distinction The Court finds that Sec. 9-B of R.A. No. 11199 does not violate the equal protection of laws because there is a substantial distinction between sea-based OFWs and landbased OFWs. As properly argued by respondents, seafarers constitute a unique classification of OFWs. Their essential difference against land-based OFWs is that all seafarers have only one (1) standard contract, which provides the rights and obligations of the foreign ship owner, the seafarer and the manning agencies. The 2016 POEA Rules define the POEA-SEC as follows: Employment Contract/Standard Employment Contract — refers to the POEAprescribed contract containing the minimum terms and conditions of employment, which shall commence upon actual departure of the seafarer from the Philippine airport or seaport in the point of hire. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66432 9/28