c. Strict Scrutiny Test

Strict Scrutiny Test

Applies to legislative classifications which impermissibly interfere with the exercise of a fundamental right, or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class. Such classifications are presumed unconstitutional, and the government has the burden to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest [Serrano v. Gallant Maritime, supra].

This test is usually applied to cases involving classifications based on race, national origin, religion, alienage, denial of the right to vote, migration, access to courts, and other rights recognized as fundamental.

Examples:

In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BSP, supra, the challenged proviso operates on the basis of the salary grade or officer-employee status. It is akin to a distinction based on economic class and status, with the higher grades as recipients of a benefit specifically withheld from the lower grades. Officers of the BSP now receive higher compensation packages that are competitive with the industry, while the poorer, low-salaried employees are limited to the rates prescribed by the SSL.

Considering that majority, if not all, the rank-and-file employees consist of people whose status and rank in life are less and limited, especially in terms of job marketability, it is they—and not the officers—who have the real economic and financial need for the adjustment [Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP, supra].

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an ordinance which imposed a curfew upon minors in Quezon City. In evaluating the ordinance, the Court resorted to the strict scrutiny test and ruled that under our legal system’s own recognition of a minor’s inherent lack of full rational capacity, and balancing the same against the State’s compelling interest to promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile crime, it finds that the curfew imposed is reasonably justified with its narrowly drawn exceptions and hence, not constitutionally infirm [SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442 (2017)].