SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE ENGAGEMENT NETWORK VS.

ANTI TERRORISM COUNCIL

G.R. No. 178552
October 5, 2010

FACTS:
Six petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of RA 9372, otherwise known as
the Human Security Act of 2007 for being intrinsically vague and impermissibly broad. They
argue that the definition of the crime of terrorism under RA 9372 in that terms like “widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace” and “coerce the government to give in
to an unlawful demand” are nebulous, leaving law enforcement agencies with no standard to
measure the prohibited acts.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the doctrines of void-for-vagueness and overbreadth finds application in
RA9372.

RULING:
No, it does not. A facial invalidation of a statute is allowed only in free speech cases,
wherein certain rules of constitutional litigation are rightly excepted. RA 9372 regulates
conduct, not speech. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very
existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason alone, the State may well be
prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the
law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The overbreadth and vagueness
doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases. They are inapt for testing the
validity of penal statutes.