Practice question
A statute creates a gender-based eligibility distinction. In litigation, the court determines that intermediate scrutiny applies and that no independent fundamental-right issue requires a different standard. Officials invoke administrative convenience but provide no substantial explanation linking the categorical distinction to the program's objective. They argue that the classification is valid merely because gender is not treated as a suspect class in the framework they cite. What is the best analysis?
- The absence of a suspect classification eliminates equal protection review.
- Gender distinctions always receive ordinary rational-basis review.
- The court must uphold any classification described as convenient.
- The court must find a constitutional violation without considering any justification.
- The absence of a strict-scrutiny trigger does not eliminate the applicable intermediate inquiry into an important interest and substantial fit.
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.