offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand

what
conduct is prohibited by the statute. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application. The statute 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 what conduct to avoid;
(2) It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
becomes
an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. [Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism
Council (2010)J
On the question of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law: "[This doctrine] can only be
invoked against that species of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which
cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The test in determining
whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a
sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however,
that
the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to
be
upheld — not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude." [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,
369 SCRA 394 (2001)J
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by
means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms." [Southern Hemisphere, supra]
General Rule: Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are inapplicable to penal
statutes. By their very nature penal statutes have a general in terrorem effect which are
intended to discourage citizens from committing the prohibited acts.
Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal statutes when
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
(2) The statute involves free speech. (Rationale: Statute may be facially challenged in
order
to counter the "chilling effect" of the same.) [Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014), on the
constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law]
III. CITIZENSHIP
A. People
Different meanings of words "people":
"People" as inhabitants, Art. XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to
exclude
aliens in its territory. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion to deport
aliens
who are considered "undesirable."
"People" as citizens, Preamble, Article II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
"People" as source of sovereignty, Article VII, Sec. 4
B. Citizenship under Art. IV and Right of Suffrage under Article V
Review Article IV, Citizenship, Constitution
Article V, Suffrage, Constitution
Right of Suffrage, Article V
R. A. No. 9189 — Overseas Voting Law
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC, 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote under
the R.A. No. 9189 need not have one year actual physical residence in the Philippines
to exercise their right of suffrage.
7IPage