G.R. No.

178552 

SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK, INC., on behalf of the South-South

Network (SSN) for Non-State Armed Group Engagement, and ATTY. SOLIMAN M. SANTOS,
JR., Petitioners,
vs.
ANTI-TERRORISM COUNCIL, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,
THE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE,
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES, AND THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondents.

FACTS: Before the Court are six petitions challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372
(RA 9372), "An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism," otherwise known as
the Human Security Act of 2007, signed into law on March 6, 2007.

ISSUE: 1. WHETHER OR NOT A PENAL STATUTE MAY BE ASSAILED FOR BEING VAGUE AS
APPLIED TO PETITIONERS?

2. Whether or not RA 9372 is vague and broad in defining the crime of terrorism?

RULING: 1. No, 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.

2. NO, A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one, which is overbroad
because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech. This rationale does not apply to penal
statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect. If facial challenge is allowed, the State
may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. Overbreadth and
vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases. They are inapt for
testing the validity of penal statutes.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EANNA O’COCHLAIN
GR NO. 229071

FACTS: In the final security checkpoint inside the Laoag City International Airport,
the Security Screening Officer conducted a pat down search on Eanna
O’Cochlain, a 53-year old Irish national married to a Filipina. Two rolled sticks of
what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves were seized from his possession.
Eanna was charged with and convicted of illegal possession of marijuana under
Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. He contends, among others, that the two sticks of rolled paper allegedly
containing marijuana were not marked, inventoried and photographed
immediately upon confiscation. He argues that non-compliance with the chain of
custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 renders the evidence inadmissible and
should have automatically destroyed the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defect in the chain of custody will raise the possibility
of tampering or misidentification is insufficient to render evidence inadmissible?
RULING: No, The Court reiterates that while the procedure on the chain of
custody should be perfect, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain. The chain of custody need not be perfect for the evidence to be
admissible. A complete chain of custody need not always be proved. Thus, failure
to strictly comply with Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render
an accused person's anest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible or render void and invalid such seizure. The most important factor is
the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.