The Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Association (GBTYA), an organization of gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, filed for accreditation with the COMELEC to join the forthcoming party-list elections. The COMELEC denied the application for accreditation on the ground that GBTY A espouses immorality which offends religious dogmas. GBTY A challenges the denial of its application based on moral grounds because it violates its right to equal protection of the law.
(1) What are the three (3) levels of test that are applied in equal protection cases? Explain. (3%)
(2) Which of the three (3) levels of test should be applied to the present case? Explain. (3%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
The three equal protection tests are strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. Strict scrutiny applies to this case. Under jurisprudence, strict scrutiny applies when a law impinges upon fundamental
Unlock the full Political Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Which level of equal protection scrutiny applies when a law or state action impinges upon fundamental constitutional rights?
The strict scrutiny test applies when state action restricts fundamental constitutional rights or targets suspect classifications.
Under the strict scrutiny test, what must the State prove to justify a restriction on a fundamental right?
Strict scrutiny requires the government to establish a compelling state interest achieved through the least restrictive means.
In Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, why was the COMELEC's denial of party-list accreditation to an LGBTQ+ organization declared unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court held that governmental denial based on moral or religious dogmas violates equal protection and fails strict scrutiny.
When is the intermediate scrutiny test typically applied in equal protection cases?
Choices available with full access.
What is the requirement under the rational basis test in equal protection jurisprudence?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Equal Protection Tests
The equal protection clause requires that all persons similarly situated be treated alike. In equal protection jurisprudence, courts apply three levels of scrutiny depending on the nature of the right affected or the classification used. The rational basis test requires that a classification reasonably relate to a legitimate state interest, typically applied to economic or general social legislation. The intermediate scrutiny test requires an important governmental objective achieved through substantially related means, applied to classifications like gender or legitimacy. The strict scrutiny test applies when fundamental constitutional rights are restricted or suspect classifications are involved.
2. Strict Scrutiny Standard
Under the strict scrutiny test, the government carries the heavy burden of proving that a classification or restriction is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and is the least restrictive means to achieve that objective. This highest level of judicial review is triggered when state action impinges upon fundamental constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and electoral participation, or targets suspect classes. Under strict scrutiny, state measures are subjected to close judicial examination, and broad or generalized state assertions, including moral or religious disapproval, fail to satisfy the compelling interest standard.
3. Electoral Disapproval Limits
In Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that moral or religious disapproval by the government or religious groups cannot serve as a valid legal basis to deny political accreditation or participation to marginalized groups like the LGBTQ+ community. Disqualifying a political organization from participating in the party-list system based purely on religious dogmas or subjective moral standards violates the equal protection clause and infringes upon freedom of expression and association. The State cannot restrict political participation without demonstrating a compelling, secular interest that meets the rigorous requirements of strict scrutiny.