Practice question
A regulation burdens a fundamental right and is properly reviewed strictly. The Government proves that an objective is compelling, but its own experts identify another available measure that achieves the same protection with substantially less restriction. It supplies no reason the alternative is inadequate. Which is the best analysis?
- The compelling end makes all alternatives irrelevant.
- Official sincerity eliminates the means inquiry.
- A court must always choose the most restrictive option.
- The identified effective alternative undermines the claim that the chosen means meet strict scrutiny.
- An alternative is relevant only in a private contract case.
Legal references
- Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr_225442_2017.html
- Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004, main decision, levels of scrutiny: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/45406
- 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.