Practice question
An ordinary financial-reporting law distinguishes recipients of public subsidies from businesses receiving no public funds. The record establishes material accountability differences related to the law’s purpose, present and future recipients are covered and all in the class are treated alike. No heightened-scrutiny issue or other defect exists. A challenge relies only on different treatment. Which is best?
- Any difference is automatically unconstitutional
- The stated relevant, purpose-related and equally applied classification is not invalid merely because treatment differs
- Only a classification covering no one is valid
- Subsidy status can never be legally relevant
- Present-and-future coverage alone cures every possible defect
Legal references
- Albano v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 257610 and UDK No. 17230, January 24, 2023, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jan2023/gr_257610_2023.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.