Anti-Terrorism Bill

Q: Once the anti-terror law is signed and takes effect, will the void-for-vagueness doctrine
apply? Can a petition be filed to declare it unconstitutional for being vague?
Can a penal law be declared void for being vague in the Philippines?
Atty Calica: My answer would be yes if it is an as applied challenge. Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan case and Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-
Terrorism Council held that facial invalidation of a criminal statute is not allowed, but an
as applied challenge is allowed. Facial invalidation is however allowed in free speech cases.
But where the law as the one in question is void on its face for its patent ambiguity in that
it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ as to its application; the Court cannot breathe life to it through
the guise of construction. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan]
That people guess at the meaning of the law is the effect only of lack of ascertainable
standards in the law. So the proper answer is that a law is vague if it lacks ascertainable
standards.
What Justice Carpio(refer to CNN article below) is saying is that void-for-vagueness applies
if law affects free speech and inciting to terrorism involves free speech
Q: Can section 9 (which involves free speech) of the Anti-Terrorism bill be facially
challenged for being void-for-vagueness, despite being part of a penal statute?
Atty Calica: That is the opinion of Justice Carpio. I agree.
Good Reads:
https://www.onenews.ph/lawyers-other-groups-terrified-by-anti-terror-bill-here-s-why
https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/6/4/anti-terror-bill-constitutionality-
sc.html
https://www.facebook.com/Callejalawfirm/photos/pcb.1971780262946445/1971773
109613827/?type=3&theater
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lfnA9vXt4bURajOrHgl-70rtf0KsNfbD/view
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aeWWCNnHGF-iUA61S-bL7PsCqRdpah3j