Scribd
Upload
100 views1 page

Vagrancy Law and Equal Protection Ruling

The document summarizes a court case regarding the constitutionality of an anti-vagrancy law in the Philippines. Respondents were charged with vagrancy for wandering around without means of support or lawful purpose. They argued the law was unconstitutional. The lower court upheld the law based on police powers to promote public welfare. On appeal, the RTC found the law unconstitutional. However, the ruling court determined that the law did not violate equal protection nor discriminate against the poor or unemployed, as it punishes conduct, not status. The anti-vagrancy law was upheld.

Uploaded by

Suzuki Raider
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100 views1 page

Vagrancy Law and Equal Protection Ruling

The document summarizes a court case regarding the constitutionality of an anti-vagrancy law in the Philippines. Respondents were charged with vagrancy for wandering around without means of support or lawful purpose. They argued the law was unconstitutional. The lower court upheld the law based on police powers to promote public welfare. On appeal, the RTC found the law unconstitutional. However, the ruling court determined that the law did not violate equal protection nor discriminate against the poor or unemployed, as it punishes conduct, not status. The anti-vagrancy law was upheld.

Uploaded by

Suzuki Raider
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

People vs.

Siton

If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or
Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all
the hosts of Heaven and Earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job
well.

– Martin Luther King, Jr.

Facts: Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano were charged with vagrancy pursuant to
Art. 202 (2) of the RPC in two separate Informations. Accused were found wandering and loitering
around San Pedro and Legaspi Streets of Davao City, without any visible means to support herself nor
lawful and justifiable purpose. Respondents filed separate Motions to Quash on the ground that Art. 202
(2) is unconstitutional for being vague and overboard. The municipal trial court denied the motions,
directed respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits, and declared that the law on vagrancy
was enacted pursuant to the State’s police power (or the power of promoting public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property) and justified by the Latin maxim “salus populi
est suprema lex” (which calls for the subordination of individual benefit to the interest of the greater
number). Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC challenging the
constitutionality of the anti-vagrancy law and claiming that Art 202 (2) violated the equal protection
clause. The RTC granted the petition of the herein respondents and declared Art. 202 (2)
unconstitutional.

Issue: Does Article 202 (2), RPC on vagrancy violate the equal protection clause?

Ruling: No. Article 202 (2) of the RPC does not violate the equal protection clause; neither does it
discriminate against the poor and the unemployed. Offenders of public order laws are punished not for
their status, as for being poor or unemployed, but for conducting themselves under such circumstances
as to endanger the public peace or cause alarm and apprehension in the community. Being poor or
unemployed is not a license or a justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct.

You might also like