According to Miriam Defensor-Santiagos The New Equal Protection, there are at least three standards of judicial

review over equal protection cases.

FIRST, old equal protection doctrine which applies the rational relationship test.
o Under this test, the Court will uphold a classification, if it bears a rational relationship to an end of
government which is not prohibited by the Constitution.
SECOND, new equal protection doctrine which applies the strict scrutiny test.
o The Court will require the government to show that it is pursuing a compelling or overriding end, of
which the Court reserves for itself the right to make an independent determination of whether the
classification is necessary to promote that compelling interest.
o two categories of civil liberties cases:
(a) when the governmental act classifies people in terms of their ability to exercise a fundamental

right; and
(b) when the government classification distinguishes between persons, in terms of any right,

upon some suspect basis, such as race, national origin, or alienage.

THIRD, newer equal protection doctrine called two-tiered level of review, and applies the intensified means
test.
o The first tier consists of the rational relationship test, and the second tier consists of the strict scrutiny
test.

Strict judicial scrutiny is applied when legislation impinges on fundamental rights, or implicates
suspect classes, and legislation is upheld only if it is precisely tailored to further a compelling

governmental interest.
Hence, it becomes important to determine whether a given right is fundamental and whether a

given class is suspect.

Fundamental rights include rights to marriage and procreation, voting, fair administration and justice, and other

constitutional rights.
On the other hand, suspect classes include race or national origin, religion and alienage.

Moreover, the Philippine Court has applied the rational relationship test to equal protection cases, more notably
to cases involving alienage which is apparently considered a relevant status because of constitutional
differences in the treatment of aliens and citizens.

In the Philippines, the equal protection clause, phrased as it is after the American model, may pose problems of
legislative and administrative classifications, of linkages between legal and socio economic opportunity, of
equal rewards, and, most fundamentally, of the extent of the compatibility of political liberty and economic
equality.

In the resolution of these problems, the "new" equal protection could prove to be a useful and equitable
technique of judicial analysis, in the hands of a Supreme Court sentient to the continuing need to prevent
invidious discrimination against disadvantaged victims of legislative classification or in the exercise of certain
fundamental rights by the Filipino people, as a justice constituency.