7/26/2019 Villanueva vs Jbc Digest

1/1

VILLANUEVA VS. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015

ISSUE: Whether or not the policy of JBC requiring ve years of service as judges of rstlevel

courts !efore they can qualify as applicant to secondlevel courts violates the equal

protection clause"

#U$I%&: %o" 'he equal protection clause of the Constitution does not require the universalapplication of the la(s to all persons or things (ithout distinction) (hat it requires is si*ply

equality a*ong equals as deter*ined according to a valid classication" Consideration of

e+perience !y JBC as one factor in choosing reco**ended appointees does not constitute a

violation of the equal protection clause" 'he JBC does not discri*inate (hen it e*ploys

nu*!er of years of service to screen and di,erentiate applicants fro* the co*petition" 'he

nu*!er of years of service provides a relevant !asis to deter*ine proven co*petence (hich

*ay !e *easured !y e+perience- a*ong other factors"

'he classication created !y the challenged policy satises the rational !asis test"

Su!stantial distinctions do e+ist !et(een lo(er court judges (ith ve year e+perience and

those (ith less than ve years of e+perience- li.e the petitioner- and the classication

enshrined in the assailed policy is reasona!le and relevant to its legiti*ate purpose" 'heCourt- thus- rules that the questioned policy does not infringe on the equal protection clause

as it is !ased on reasona!le classication intended to gauge the proven co*petence of the

applicants" 'herefore- the said policy is valid and constitutional"