b. Intermediate Scrutiny Test

Subject to Intermediate Approach

When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation, only a substantial governmental interest is required for its validity. Because regulations of this type are not designed to suppress any particular message, they are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an intermediate approach—somewhere between the mere rationality that is required of any other law and the compelling interest standard applied to content-based restrictions. The test is called intermediate because the Court will not merely rubber stamp the validity of a law but also require that the restrictions be narrowly-tailored to promote an important or significant governmental interest that is unrelated to the suppression of expression. (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, Feb. 15, 2008)

Intermediate Approach: O’Brien Test for a Valid Content-Neutral Regulation

Under the intermediate scrutiny test, a government regulation is sufficiently justified when:

• It falls within the constitutional power of the government;
• It advances an important or substantial governmental interest;
• That interest is unrelated to suppressing free expression; and
• Its incidental restriction on freedom of speech and expression is no greater than necessary to advance that interest. (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, 15 February 2008)

Intermediate Scrutiny Test

Under the Intermediate Scrutiny Test, the government must show that the challenged classification serves “important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives” [Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. BSP, G.R. No. 148208 (2004)].

This is applicable to certain sensitive but not suspect classes (e.g. sex, illegitimacy); certain important but not fundamental interests.