CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES

I. Defenses based on a Violation of the Due Process Clause

A. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

1. Due Process requires that the terms of a penal statute must be

sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it, what conduct
on their part will render them liable to its penalties.

2. The Doctrine that a penal statute is unconstitutional if it does not

reasonably a person on notice as to what the person may not do, or
what the person is required to do. As a rule a statue maybe said to be
vague 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 aspects: (a) it
violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the
parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid and (b) it
leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
and become an arbitrary flexing of the government muscle.

3. However, an act will be declared void and inoperative on the ground of

vagueness and uncertainty, only upon a showing that the defect is
such that the courts are unable to determine, within any reasonable
degree of certainty, what the legislature intended.

i.e.: An ordinance of the City of Cincinnati that made it illegal for: “three
or more persons to assemble on any sidewalk and there conduct
themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by”

B. VOID FOR OVERBREADTH (Overbroad) DOCTRINE

1. A penal statute is unconstitutional if its language is so broad that it

unnecessary interferes with the exercise of constitutional rights, even
though the purpose is to prohibit activities that the government may
constitutionally prohibit.

2. A statute is overbroad where it operates to inhibit the exercise of

individual freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, such as the
freedom of religion or speech. When it includes within its coverage not
only unprotected activity but also activity protected by the constitution.

3. This principle applies more to felonies or offenses which in conflict with

the freedom of expression and association such as prosecution for
libel, inciting to rebellion or sedition, and violation of the Election Code.

i.e.: In Adiong s. COMELEC (207 SCRA 712) the court declared as

void that portion of the Election Code prohibiting the posting of election
propaganda in any place (including private vehicles) other than in the
designated common poster area.