1.

a. Yes. Section 4 of RA 11479 is vague and overbroad. In this case,

the definition of terrorism in Section 4 is so vague and broad that
it violates the freedom of association, speech, expression and the
freedom of the press.

Furthermore, the void-for-vagueness doctrine forbids or requires

the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to
its application, ultimately repressing due process of law.

b. Yes. In Estrada v Sandiganbayan the court discussed that a facial

challenge to a violative statute should be challenged in all
applications.

A facial challenge is made to a statute to render it` vague and and

overboard such as the Anti terrorism Act of 2020.

Thus a perceived violation of constitutional provisions should be

strictly construed or otherwise be given the presumption of its
constitutionality.

2.

(a)

i.

Yes. In Cadajas v People 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that photos
obtained by a private individual from a Facebook messenger
account are admissible as evidence.

In this case, X discovered/hacked the group chat of the fraternity

contemplating the concealment of the crime. This not subject to
the right of privacy consistent with the jurisprudence at bar.
 Therefore, the messages via FB chat are admissible in
evidence and in disbarment.

ii.

No. In People v Marti the court explained that the right to unlawful
search and seizure is not to be brought upon private individuals
but that of the government and its agencies.

The right to privacy as protected right, is to be construed to have the

same privilege when being alleged. It is only upon the abuse of this
power that this right can be upheld.

Thus, there is no violation of the right to privacy.

(b)

In people v Marti, the proscription of unlawful search and seizure applies as a

restraint directed to the government and its agencies, this can be invoked only when it
is the state who abused this power.

In Zulueta v CA, the law ensures the absolute freedom of communication between
spouses, making it privileged that neither can testify against another without consent
of the afflicted while the marriage subsists.

3.
 4.

a.

In disciplinary proceedings, notice and hearing are essential as part of due

process. As long as the is given the right to be heard and the opportunity to
advocate ones cause. There is no denial of due process as discussed in Cudia v
PMA.

b.

5.

No. The right to travel has not been violated.

In the case of Yap v CA. the court held that this right is not absolute.

The Consititution explicitly states that this right may be impaired upon
lawful order or as may be provided by law.

Here, The DOJ circular suffices as a lawful order by the court and the
issuance there of does not infringe with this not absolute right.

Thus, this Constitutional challenge is displaced and will not prosper.