Standards of Judicial Review in the Context of Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause of the Philippine Constitution is found in Section 1, Article III (Bill of Rights). It provides:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

This clause is a fundamental safeguard against arbitrary classifications and discrimination by the state. It ensures that individuals or groups who are similarly situated are treated in a like manner.

In applying the Equal Protection Clause, the Philippine Supreme Court has developed three standards of judicial review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. These standards dictate the level of scrutiny courts apply when determining the constitutionality of government actions or laws that classify individuals or groups differently.

1. Rational Basis Test (Lowest Level of Scrutiny)

The rational basis test is the most lenient standard of review. Under this test, a classification will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The government’s purpose does not need to be compelling, and the means chosen to achieve that purpose only need to be reasonable.

Application: This standard applies when neither a fundamental right nor a suspect class is involved. Economic regulations, tax classifications, and general social or welfare legislation typically fall under this standard.
Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is on the challenger (the party opposing the law) to show that the classification is wholly arbitrary or not reasonably related to any legitimate government objective.

Key Elements of the Rational Basis Test:

Legitimate state interest: The government must have a legitimate reason for enacting the law or regulation.
Reasonable relationship: The means used by the state must have a reasonable connection to the goal it aims to achieve. The classification is constitutional as long as it is not arbitrary or irrational.

Example:

In Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance (1995), the Supreme Court upheld the imposition of value-added tax (VAT) on all sales, reasoning that the taxation system applied to all transactions uniformly and was related to the legitimate goal of generating government revenue.

2. Intermediate Scrutiny (Heightened Scrutiny)

The intermediate scrutiny test is applied in cases where the classification involves quasi-suspect classes or affects important but not fundamental rights. Under this standard, the classification must be substantially related to an important government interest.

Application: Intermediate scrutiny is typically used in cases involving discrimination based on gender, legitimacy (whether a child is born in wedlock or not), or other quasi-suspect classifications. It is also used for cases involving important interests like freedom of expression, though these rights may not be fundamental.
Burden of Proof: The government bears the burden of showing that the classification serves an important government objective and that the means used are substantially related to that objective.

Key Elements of Intermediate Scrutiny:

Important government interest: The government must demonstrate that its objective is significant and legitimate.
Substantial relationship: The classification must have a substantial or close relation to the achievement of the objective. It should not be overly broad or under-inclusive.

Example:

In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2002), the Supreme Court applied intermediate scrutiny when reviewing a law that affected the terms and conditions of employment for employees of the Central Bank. The Court found that the law had a substantial relation to the important government interest in regulating financial institutions.

3. Strict Scrutiny (Highest Level of Scrutiny)

The strict scrutiny test is the highest level of judicial review, reserved for classifications involving fundamental rights or suspect classes (such as race, national origin, and religion). Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that the classification is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

Application: This test applies when the law or action affects a fundamental right (e.g., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to privacy) or involves suspect classifications. Laws that infringe on rights protected under the Bill of Rights or international human rights principles often invoke strict scrutiny.
Burden of Proof: The government bears the burden of proving both that it has a compelling interest in the law or regulation and that the classification is the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

Key Elements of Strict Scrutiny:

Compelling government interest: The state must demonstrate that the law or policy serves a compelling, necessary, and crucial objective.
Narrowly tailored means: The government action must be narrowly drawn to achieve its objective without unnecessarily infringing on the rights of individuals. Overbroad or overly inclusive classifications are likely to be struck down.

Example:

In Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College (2006), a school regulation banning political campaigning within the premises was struck down using the strict scrutiny standard, as it infringed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech.

4. Suspect Classes and Fundamental Rights

When evaluating classifications under the Equal Protection Clause, courts often consider whether the affected group constitutes a suspect class or whether the classification impacts a fundamental right. These factors dictate the level of scrutiny applied:

Suspect Classes: Includes classifications based on race, religion, alienage, and national origin. Laws that differentiate based on these grounds are presumptively unconstitutional and subjected to strict scrutiny.
Fundamental Rights: Rights explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution (e.g., right to vote, right to procreate, freedom of speech). Infringements on these rights trigger strict scrutiny.

Quasi-Suspect Classes:

Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that are considered quasi-suspect, such as gender or illegitimacy. While discrimination based on these classifications is less suspect than race or national origin, they still warrant heightened scrutiny.

5. Philippine Jurisprudence on Equal Protection

Philippine jurisprudence has consistently applied these standards of review in equal protection cases:

In People v. Vera (1937), the Supreme Court invalidated a law that allowed different standards of probation in various provinces, noting that it violated equal protection by creating arbitrary and discriminatory classifications without substantial justification.
In Ichong v. Hernandez (1957), the Court upheld a law prohibiting aliens from owning retail businesses in the Philippines, applying a rational basis test. The Court found that the classification served the legitimate purpose of protecting local entrepreneurs and promoting national economic development.
In Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC (2010), the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to a decision by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) barring an LGBT political party from running in the elections. The Court ruled that the COMELEC’s decision violated the equal protection and freedom of association rights of LGBT individuals, as the government failed to show any compelling interest that would justify the infringement.

Conclusion

The standards of judicial review in the context of the Equal Protection Clause—rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny—provide a structured framework for determining the constitutionality of laws and government actions that classify individuals differently. The choice of standard depends on the nature of the classification and the rights involved. Philippine courts, guided by these standards, have developed a robust jurisprudence aimed at safeguarding the rights and liberties of individuals from unjust and arbitrary government action.