Romuladez vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 167011, Dec.

11, 2008
SPOUSES CARLOS S. ROMUALDEZ and ERLINDA R. ROMUALDEZ,
petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and DENNIS GARAY,
respondents.
FACTS: For resolution is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Spouses
Carlos Romualdez and Erlinda Romualdez from the Decision of this Court
dated 30 April 2008. This is where Dennis Garay filed a case alleging that
petitioners made false and untruthful representations in their Voter’s
Registration Record by indicating therein that they are residents of 935 San
Jose Street, Burauen, Leyte, when in truth and in fact, they were and still
are residents of 113 Mariposa Loop, Mariposa Street, Bagong Lipunan ng
Crame, Quezon City in violation of Section 10(g) and (j) in relation to
Section 45 (j) of Republic Act Nos. 8189 – Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.
Spouses Romualdez knowing fully well said truth, intentionally and
willfully, did not fill the blank spaces corresponding to the length of time
for residence.
Spouses Romualdez has not raised substantially new grounds to justify the
reconsideration sought. Instead, petitioner presents averments that are
mere rehashes of arguments already considered by the Court. There is,
thus, no cogent reason to warrant a reconsideration of this Court’s
Decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the motion for reconsideration of Spouses
Romuladez should be granted
Whether or not Section 45(j) of the Voter’s Registration Act is vague as it does
not refer to a definite provision of the law, the violation of which would constitute
an election offense in contrary to Section 14 of the Bill of Rights (Section 45(j) -
SEC. 45. Election Offense. – The following shall be considered election offenses
under this Act: (j) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act.)
HELD: No. The "on-its-face" invalidation of penal statutes, as is sought to
be done by petitioners in this case, may not be allowed. The void-for-
vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application. However, this Court has imposed certain limitations by which a
criminal statute, as in the challenged law at bar, may be scrutinized. This
Court has declared that facial invalidation or an "on-its-face" invalidation of
criminal statutes is not appropriate.
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are
analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free
speech cases. The Court reiterated that the doctrine embodied in Romualdez
and Estrada remains good law. The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only
statutes on free speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be
facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a
facial challenge. If a facial challenge to a penal statute is permitted, the
prosecution of crimes maybe hampered. No prosecution would be possible. A
strong criticism against employing a facial challenge in the case of penal
statutes, if the same is allowed, would effectively go against the grain of the
doctrinal requirement of an existing and concrete controversy before judicial
power may be appropriately exercised.
If warranted, there would be nothing that can hinder an accused from
defeating the State’s power to prosecute on a mere showing that, as
applied to third parties, the penal statute is vague or overbroad,
notwithstanding that the law is clear as applied to him.
the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.