Practice question
To promote public morals, a city imposes a sweeping restriction on lawful private activity. It also provides clear notice and a full hearing to every affected person. The record establishes that the means remain unduly oppressive and unjustifiably burden protected liberty. Officials assert that the hearing and their moral objective conclusively settle validity. Which is best?
- A moral objective removes every substantive limit
- A hearing automatically cures oppressive substance
- Only procedure may ever be reviewed under due process
- The legitimate objective and fair procedure do not eliminate the separate substantive inquiry into oppressive means
- Every moral regulation is unconstitutional without further inquiry
Legal references
- White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_122846_2009.html
- 1987 Constitution: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353; Article III, Section 1.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.