G.R. No. 167614 [71] [72] http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/march2009/167614.htm Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pea, 515 US 230 (1995). Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 (2003); Bernal v. Fainter, 467 US 216 (1984). [73] The concept of suspect classification first emerged in the famous footnote in the opinion of Justice Harlan Stone in U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), the full text of which footnote is reproduced below: There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369-370; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452. It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation. On restrictions upon the right to vote, see Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U.S. 536; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U.S. 73; on restraints upon the dissemination of information, see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 713-714, 718-720, 722; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233; Lovell v. Griffin, supra; on interferences with political organizations, see Stromberg v. California, supra, 369; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380; Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373-378; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, and see Holmes, J., in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673; as to prohibition of peaceable assembly, see De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365. Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, or national, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390; Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, or racial minorities, Nixon v. Herndon, supra; Nixon v. Condon, supra: whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry. Compare McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 428; South Carolina v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 184, n 2, and cases cited. [74] Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944); Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). [75] Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973); U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). [76] San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). [77] G.R. No. 148208, December 15, 2004, 446 SCRA 299. [78] Rollo, pp. 727 and 735. [79] 371 Phil. 827 (1999). [80] Id. at 840-841. [81] G.R. No. 131656, October 20, 1998, 297 SCRA 727. [82] Id. [83] Supra note 17. [84] G.R. No. 166363, August 15, 2006, 498 SCRA 639. [85] G.R. No. 162195, April 8, 2008, 550 SCRA 600. [86] G.R. No. 180719, August 22, 2008. [87] G.R. No. 172031, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 279. [88] G.R. No. 157534, June 18, 2003 (Resolution). [89] G.R. No. 153750, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 100. [90] G.R. No. 148418, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 314. [91] G.R. No. 148407, November 12, 2003, 415 SCRA 720. [92] G.R. No. 156381, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 120. [93] G.R. No. 157373, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 342. [94] G.R. No. 144786, April 15, 2004, 427 SCRA 732. [95] G.R. No. 177948, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 712. [96] G.R. No. 151303, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 313. [97] [98] [99] 31 of 33 Asian Center v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 81. G.R. No. 143949, August 9, 2001, 362 SCRA 571. G.R. No. 123354, November 19, 1996, 264 SCRA 418. 1/26/2016 3:06 PM