Practice question
An ordinance presumes immorality only where women work in entertainment establishments, while treating identical male conduct as harmless. It supplies no constitutionally sufficient justification for the distinction. Which reasoning from Laguio applies?
- The unsupported sex-based discrimination raises an equal-protection defect
- Sex-based distinctions are automatically exempt from review
- Moral regulation can never implicate equality
- Employment of men automatically proves good conduct
- The affected businesses cannot invoke any constitutional limit
Legal references
- City of Manila v. Laguio, GR118127, April12 2005, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_118127_2005.html Equal-protection and statutory regulatory-power holdings.
- RA7160 Local Government Code: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html Section458(a)(4)(iv),(vii).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.