Practice question
A city documents sanitation violations at three food stalls. Its council orders all sixty stalls in the public market to cease operating forever, including stalls recently found fully compliant. Inspectors testify that corrective notices, sanitation requirements and penalties against actual violators can effectively address the problem. The ordinance provides no route for compliant stalls to reopen. The city argues that protecting health settles the constitutional issue. Which assessment is best?
- The health objective automatically validates permanent closure of every stall
- The ordinance is valid if the three offending stalls support it
- The city may ignore the availability of effective targeted measures
- The measure is valid because market vendors have no protected property or livelihood interests
- The legitimate health objective does not save unnecessarily sweeping and oppressive means
Legal references
- City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_118127_2005.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.