Practice question
Assume a challenged classification properly falls under intermediate scrutiny. The government identifies an important objective but supplies no explanation showing a substantial connection between that objective and the classification. Has identifying the objective alone completed the required justification?
- Yes; the means never matter.
- Yes; the law's title supplies all missing justification.
- Yes; heightened scrutiny excludes examination of fit.
- No; the government must also justify the substantial relationship of the means to the objective.
- No; intermediate scrutiny always requires invalidation regardless of proof.
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.