Practice question
An entrepreneur challenges a city restriction on her lawful business. She received clear notice and a meaningful hearing, but claims the restriction has no rational connection to its stated public-welfare purpose and is unduly oppressive. The city answers that the hearing defeats every due process claim. Assume no separate procedural defect. Which analysis follows?
- A hearing makes the restriction substantively valid.
- The substantive challenge remains for judicial examination despite procedural compliance.
- The entrepreneur necessarily wins because regulation affects profits.
- The city has no power to regulate any lawful business.
- The court must disregard all public-welfare objectives.
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, section 1, https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
- White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, Part III(B), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_122846_2009.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.