Practice question
A public-benefit rule uses a classification that the parties and court agree requires intermediate scrutiny. The government presents evidence of an important program objective and a substantial relationship between the distinction and that objective. A challenger insists that the rule must still fail solely because it is not the absolutely least restrictive imaginable measure, a requirement she imports from strict scrutiny. Which assessment is sound?
- The court should assess the proof under intermediate scrutiny rather than automatically replace it with strict scrutiny's test.
- All evidence is irrelevant once a classification exists.
- Intermediate scrutiny always requires the government's defeat.
- Rational-basis review must replace both standards.
- The challenger may conclusively choose strict scrutiny by requesting it.
Legal references
- Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017, Part II(C), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr_225442_2017.html
- White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, Part III(C), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jan2009/gr_122846_2009.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.