Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
October 5, 2010.*
October 5, 2010.*
1/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
*EN BANC.
147
147
October 5, 2010.*
BAGONG
ALYANSANG
MAKABAYAN
(BAYAN),
GENERAL ALLIANCE BINDING WOMEN FOR
REFORMS, INTEGRITY, EQUALITY, LEADERSHIP
AND ACTION (GABRIELA), KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID
NG PILIPINAS (KMP), MOVEMENT OF CONCERNED
CITIZENS
FOR
CIVIL
LIBERTIES
(MCCCL),
CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND
ADVANCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
(COURAGE),
KALIPUNAN
NG
DAMAYANG
MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY), SOLIDARITY OF CAVITE
WORKERS, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS),
ANAKBAYAN, PAMBANSANG LAKAS NG KILUSANG
MAMAMALAKAYA (PAMALAKAYA), ALLIANCE OF
CONCERNED TEACHERS (ACT), MIGRANTE, HEALTH
ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY (HEAD), AGHAM, TEO
FISTO GUINGONA, JR., DR. BIENVENIDO LUMBERA,
RENATO CONSTANTINO, JR., SISTER MARY JOHN
MANANSAN OSB, DEAN CONSUELO PAZ, ATTY.
JOSEFINA LICHAUCO, COL. GERRY CUNANAN (ret.),
CARLITOS
SIGUIONREYNA,
DR.
CAROLINA
PAGADUANARAULLO, RENATO REYES, DANILO
RAMOS, EMERENCIANA DE LESUS, RITA BAUA, REY
CLARO
CASAMBRE,
petitioners,
vs.
GLORIA
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
148
October 5, 2010.*
3/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
149
TIVE
SECRETARTY
EDUARDO
ERMITA,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL
GONZALEZ, DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO, DEPARTMENT OF
NATIONAL
DEFENSE
ACTING
SECRETARY
NORBERTO GONZALES, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY RONALDO
PUNO, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETARY
MARGARITO TEVES, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
NORBERTO
GONZALES,
THE
NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE COORDINATING AGENCY (NICA),
THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI),
THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, THE OFFICE OF
CIVIL DEFENSE, THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE OF
THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ISAFP),
THE ANTIMONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC),
THE PHILIPPINE CENTER ON TRANSNATIONAL
CRIME, THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE GEN. OSCAR CALDERON, THE PNP, including
its intelligence and investigative elements, AFP CHIEF
GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, respondents.
G.R. No. 179157.
October 5, 2010.*
October 5, 2010.*
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
BAGONG
ALYANSANG
MAKABAYANSOUTHERN
TAGALOG (BAYANST), GABRIELAST, KATIPUNAN
NG
MGA
SAMAHYANG
MAGSASAKATIMOG
KATAGALUGAN (KASAMATK), MOVEMENT OF
CONCERNED CITIZENS
150
150
5/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
151
6/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
only that the law or any governmental act is invalid, but also that
it sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct
injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that it suffers
thereby in some indefinite way.Locus standi or legal standing
requires a personal stake
152
152
7/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
153
8/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
154
9/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
155
10/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
156
11/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
157
12/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
158
13/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
159
existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or activities A litigant cannot
successfully mount a facial challenge against a criminal statute on
either vagueness or overbreadth grounds.A facial challenge is
likewise different from an asapplied challenge. Distinguished
from an asapplied challenge which considers only extant facts
affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an examination of
the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the
basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the
assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause others
not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected
speech or activities. Justice Mendoza accurately phrased the
subtitle in his concurring opinion that the vagueness and
overbreadth doctrines, as grounds for a facial challenge, are not
applicable to penal laws. A litigant cannot thus successfully
mount a facial challenge against a criminal statute on
either vagueness or overbreadth grounds.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
160
15/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
161
16/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
162
17/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
163
18/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
164
19/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
165
20/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
166
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
21/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
167
22/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
168
23/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
169
24/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
170
25/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
<http://eur
ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_314/l_31420051130en00410045.pdf>
and
its
recent
update
<http://eur
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2009:023:0037:01:EN:HTM> on the Council Common Position
(last visited August 13, 2010).
171
171
to resume
26/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
172
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
27/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
<http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?
articleId=607149&publicationSubCategoryId=63>
(last
visited:
September 1, 2010).
173
173
28/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
174
29/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
175
30/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
176
31/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
177
32/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
_______________
35Allied Broadcasting Center v. Republic, G.R. No. 91500, October 18,
1990, 190 SCRA 782.
36314 Phil. 131 244 SCRA 272 (1995).
37G.R. No. 89651, November 10, 1989, 179 SCRA 287.
38De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, March 17,
2010, 615 SCRA 666, citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 113118 (1976)
and Regional Rail Reoganization Act Cases, 419 U.S. 102, 138148 (1974).
39 561 U.S. [unpaginated] (2010). Volume 561 is still pending
completion.
178
178
Unlawful
conduct.Whoever
knowingly
provides
material
33/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be
imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a
person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated
terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the
organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in
section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the
organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section
140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988
and 1989).
42Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188189 (1973).
179
179
34/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
180
Codifying
the
Laws
on
Illegal
and
Unlawful
Possession,
35/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
181
181
36/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
182
182
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
37/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
183
183
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
38/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
184
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
39/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
_______________
56Id., at pp. 353356.
185
185
40/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
186
41/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
187
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
42/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
_______________
64Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, supra at p. 643.
65Id., at pp. 645646.
188
188
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
43/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
189
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
44/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
190
45/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
191
46/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
192
47/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
193
194
48/49
12/18/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME632
Petitions dismissed.
Notes.Related to the overbreadth doctrine is the
void for vagueness doctrine which holds that a law is
facially invalid if men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application, and like overbreadth, it is said that a litigant
may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all
its possible applications. (David vs. MacapagalArroyo, 489
SCRA 160 [2006])
The Court can tolerate to a certain degree the deliberate
vagueness sometimes employed in legislation, yet
constitutional due process demands a higher degree of
clarity when infringements on life or liberty are intended.
(People vs. Bon, 506 SCRA 168 [2006])
An act will not be held invalid merely because it might
have been more explicit in its wordings or detailed in its
provisions, especially where, because of the nature of the
act, it would be impossible to provide all the details in
advance as in all other statutes. (Romualdez vs.
Commission on Elections, 553 SCRA 370 [2008])
The time has come to reconsider the statement in
Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 435 SCRA 371 (2004), that
the overbreadth and the vagueness doctrines have special
application only to freespeech cases and that they are not
appropriate for testing the validity of penal statutes
rooted in unyielding formalism and deprived of guidance
from basic constitutional tenets, that dicta disenchants the
rights of free people, diminishing as it does, the basic right
to due process. (Tinga, J., dissenting in Romualdez vs.
Commission on Elections, 553 SCRA 370 [2008])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015908b5a04ab5aee6fa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
49/49