Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network Inc
3. Whether RA 9372 is vague and broad in defining the crime of As citizens and taxpayers
terrorism – No
A taxpayer suit is proper only when there is an exercise of the
RULING: spending or taxing power of Congress, whereas citizen standing
must rest on direct and personal interest in the proceeding.
1. NO. Certiorari does not lie against respondents who do not
exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 1, Rule 65 of Some petitioners attempt, in vain though, to show the imminence of
the Rules of Court is clear: “When any tribunal, board or officer a prosecution under RA 9372 by alluding to past rebellion charges
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in against them.
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction…” The dismissed rebellion charges, however, do not save the day for
petitioners. For one, those charges were filed in 2006, prior to the
2. NO. Petitioners do not have locus standi; they cannot invoke enactment of RA 9372, and dismissed by this Court. For another,
transcendental importance, conferred such as citizens or taxpayers, rebellion is defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code.
no actual controversy. Prosecution for rebellion is not made more imminent by the
enactment of RA 9372, nor does the enactment thereof make it
Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and
easier to charge a person with rebellion, its elements not having
substantial interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will
been altered.
sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
No Actual Controversy A “facial” challenge is likewise different from an “as-applied”
challenge.
An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy
that is appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which considers only
anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to an extant facts affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an
advisory opinion. 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 Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the the assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause
occurrence of a perceived threat to any constitutional interest others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally
suffices to provide a basis for mounting a constitutional challenge. protected speech or activities.
This, however, is qualified by the requirement that there must be
sufficient facts to enable the Court to intelligently adjudicate the The Court reiterated that there are “critical limitations by which a
issues. criminal statute may be challenged” and “underscored that an ‘on-
its-face’ invalidation of penal statutes may not be allowed.”
Petitioners have failed to show that the challenged provisions of RA
9372 forbid constitutionally protected conduct or activity that they Since a penal statute may only be assailed for being vague as applied
seek to do. No demonstrable threat has been established, much less to petitioners, a limited vagueness analysis of the definition of
a real and existing one. “terrorism” in RA 9372 is legally impermissible absent an actual or
imminent charge against them.
Petitioners’ obscure allegations of sporadic “surveillance” and
supposedly being tagged as “communist fronts” in no way The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free
approximate a credible threat of prosecution. From these speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be
allegations, the Court is being lured to render an advisory opinion, facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be
which is not its function. subjected to a facial challenge. The rationale is obvious. If a facial
challenge to a penal statute is permitted, the prosecution of crimes
The possibility of abuse in the implementation of RA 9372 does not may be hampered. No prosecution would be possible. A strong
avail to take the present petitions out of the realm of the surreal and criticism against employing a facial challenge in the case of penal
merely imagined. Such possibility is not peculiar to RA 9372 since statutes, if the same is allowed, would effectively go against the
the exercise of any power granted by law may be abused. grain of the doctrinal requirement of an existing and concrete
Allegations of abuse must be anchored on real events before courts controversy before judicial power may be appropriately exercised. A
may step in to settle actual controversies involving rights which are facial challenge against a penal statute is, at best, amorphous and
legally demandable and enforceable. speculative. It would, essentially, force the court to consider third
parties who are not before it. As I have said in my opposition to the
3. NO, A facial invalidation of a statute is allowed only in free speech
allowance of a facial challenge to attack penal statutes, such a test
cases, wherein certain rules of constitutional litigation are rightly
will impair the State’s ability to deal with crime. If warranted,
excepted. The doctrines of void-for-vagueness and overbreadth
there would be nothing that can hinder an accused from defeating
find no application in the present case since these doctrines apply
the State’s power to prosecute on a mere showing that, as applied
only to free speech cases; and that RA 9372 regulates conduct, not
to third parties, the penal statute is vague or overbroad,
speech.
notwithstanding that the law is clear as applied to him.
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due
process for failure to accord persons; especially the parties targeted
by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. The
overbreadth doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a governmental
purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to
state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms