Facial Challenges and overbreadth doctrine

Facial Challenge

Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819

Facts:
The case at hand centers around a challenge to the
constitutionality of specific clauses within the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the
Philippines. Petitioners contend that the legislation infringes upon
several constitutional rights, such as the right to life, freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, and parental rights in child-rearing.
Enacted with the aim of safeguarding and advancing reproductive
health rights, particularly for women, the RH Law seeks to ensure
access to family planning methods and services. Key components
of the law include defining abortifacients, incorporating
contraceptives into the National Drug Formulary, and furnishing
family planning resources in national healthcare facilities.

Issue: Whether the RH Law violates the right to life, freedom of

religion, freedom of speech, and the rights of parents in the
upbringing of their children.

Ruling: The Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the

constitutionality of the RH Law, with certain exceptions. It ruled
that the moment of conception is considered to occur at
fertilization, with the fertilized ovum deemed the start of human
life. Furthermore, the court determined that the provision
concerning abortifacients should be interpreted to permit only
safe, legal, and non-abortifacient contraceptives in the National
Drug Formulary. Additionally, the court declared the requirement
for spousal consent in family planning services as
unconstitutional.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560

Facts: Joseph Ejercito Estrada, former President of the

Philippines, was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan.
The charge stemmed from allegations that Estrada amassed ill-
gotten wealth through a combination or series of criminal acts.
Subsequently, Estrada challenged the constitutionality of the
Plunder Law, arguing that it violated his right to due process.

Issue: Whether the Plunder Law is constitutional, particularly with

regards to its definition of the crime of plunder and the burden of
proof required to establish guilt.

Ruling: The SC held that the Plunder Law was constitutional.

Legislative measures are presumed to be in harmony with the
Constitution, and the burden of proof lies with the party
challenging the validity of the statute. Therefore, the Plunder Law
does not violate the right to due process, as the burden of proof
still lies with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The court emphasized that the constitutionality of laws is
presumed and should not be overturned based on speculation or
conjecture. It highlighted that everyone is duty-bound to adopt a
reasonable interpretation that upholds a statute and carries out its
purpose. Additionally, the court stated that a law cannot be
declared invalid unless there is a clear and unequivocal breach of
the constitution.

As Applied v. Facial Challenge

Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-
Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552

Facts: The case involves six petitions challenging the

constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9372, also known as the
Human Security Act of 2007. The petitioners include various
organizations and individuals who argue that certain provisions of
the law, such as the definition of terrorism, warrantless arrest and
detention, and freezing of assets, are vague and overbroad, and
therefore violate their constitutional rights.

Issue: Whether the R.A. No. 9372 is constitutional

Ruling: The Supreme Court dismisses the petitions on procedural

grounds. The Court finds that the petitioners lack standing, as
they have not shown a direct and personal interest in the outcome
of the case. Additionally, the Court determines that there is no
actual case or controversy, as the petitioners have not presented
any concrete and specific facts to support their claims.
Furthermore, the Court clarifies that the doctrines of void-for-
vagueness and overbreadth, which the petitioners rely on, are not
applicable to penal statutes. These doctrines are only used in free
speech cases and do not apply to criminal laws.
Romualdez vs. Hon. Sandiganbayan

Facts: same with the above case

Overbreadth Doctrine

Adiong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 103956

Facts: The case involves a challenge to the Commission on

Elections' (COMELEC) prohibition on the posting of decals and
stickers on "mobile" places, such as cars and other moving
vehicles. The COMELEC promulgated a resolution on January
13, 1992, which prohibits the posting of decals and stickers on
mobile places, except in designated areas provided by the
COMELEC. The petitioner, Blo Umpar Adiong, a senatorial
candidate, argues that this prohibition violates his right to freedom
of speech and expression. He contends that this restriction
infringes on his ability to display decals and stickers on his
campaign materials, thus impeding his freedom of expression.

Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC's prohibition on the posting

of decals and stickers on mobile places is constitutional.
Ruling: The Supreme Court rules in favor of the petitioner,
declaring the prohibition null and void on constitutional grounds.
The Court argues that the prohibition unduly infringes on the
citizen's fundamental right of free speech and expression. It
asserts that the regulation of election campaign activity has its
limits, and the promotion of a substantial government interest is
not clearly shown in this case. Furthermore, the prohibition is void
for overbreadth, as it encompasses even the citizen's private
property.

Disini vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335

Facts: Several petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality

of certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
The petitioners included individuals, organizations, and
lawmakers, and they brought the case against various
government officials. The petitioners argued that the provisions
were overbroad and vague, and that they had a chilling effect on
protected expression.

Issue: Whether certain provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention

Act violate the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and
expression.

Ruling: The Supreme Court declared certain provisions of the

Cybercrime Prevention Act unconstitutional while upholding
others. Provisions on illegal access, data interference, cyber-
squatting, and child pornography were found to be valid and
necessary to protect against cybercrimes. However, provisions on
libel, unsolicited commercial communications, and aiding or
abetting cybercrimes were struck down as overbroad and vague.
The Court's decision was based on the principle that laws
regulating the use of cyberspace must strike a balance between
protecting individuals from harm and preserving freedom of
speech and expression.

Vagueness Doctrine

Lagman vs. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658

Facts: On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte issued

Proclamation No. 216, declaring martial law in Mindanao for a
period not exceeding 60 days. The proclamation was based on
the existence of rebellion and lawless violence in the region,
particularly in Marawi City, where the Maute Group and other
rebel groups were causing havoc and attempting to establish an
Islamic State. The President cited the need to restore peace and
order and protect the Filipino people from the threat of terrorism.

Issue:
Dans vs. People, G.R. No. 127073

Facts:

JUDICIAL ANALYSIS, PRESUMPTIONS AND LEVELS AND

TYPES OF SCRUTINY
A. Clear and Present Danger Test

Roque vs. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. 214986

Facts: Jeffrey "Jennifer" Laude, a 26-year-old Filipino, was

allegedly killed by US Marine Private Joseph Scott Pemberton on
October 11, 2014, in Olongapo City. Pemberton was brought to a
detention facility in Camp Aguinaldo on October 22, 2014. Lawyer
Harry Roque, representing Laude's family, went to Camp
Aguinaldo to demand to see Pemberton, which led to a
confrontation. The military filed a disbarment complaint against
Roque, alleging his conduct violated legal and ethical standards.
Roque argues the military's actions are contumacious and
damaging to his reputation. The military contends their actions
were justified due to security concerns and public interest in the
case. They claim Roque's status as a public figure allows criticism
of his actions, and they filed the complaint in good faith.

Issue: Whether the respondents may raise public interest as a

defense

Ruling: The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, emphasizing

that confidentiality in disciplinary actions for lawyers is not
absolute and should not restrict speech on matters of public
interest. The fundamental right to information allows public
scrutiny of such matters. While proceedings against attorneys
should be kept private, the mere existence or pendency of
disciplinary actions can be disclosed, especially in cases involving
public figures or issues. Lawyers involved in controversial cases
of public interest must balance the demands of their profession
with freedom of speech. Despite the challenges, Atty. Roque is
deemed capable of defending himself in the administrative
proceedings.

Eastern Broadcasting vs. Dans Jr., G.R. No. L-59329

Facts: The radio station DYRE was closed on the allegation that
their station was used to incite people to rebellion, a crime against
national security. The station claimed that there was no
substantial proof that there was an attempt to incite rebellion, no
hearing to settle the issue, and no prior notice about the charges
against them were sent to the station. Thus they filed a complaint
as they were not given due process, and the closing of the station
violates freedom of expression. The station was sold to a new
owner and the case was moot and academic, but the court
decided on it for future reference and as a means of guidance for
the courts.

Issue: Whether the closing of the station violated the freedom of

expression
Ruling: The court stressed that all forms of media, whether print
or broadcast are entitled to this constitutional right. Although the
government still has the right to be protected against broadcasts
which incite the listeners to violently overthrow it. The test for the
limitation of freedom of expression is the "clear and present
danger" rule. If in the circumstances that the media is used in
such nature as to create this danger that will bring in such evils,
then the law has the right to prevent it. Without proof of any
danger to the government and country, the closing of the station
was a violation of the constitution. The people have a right to be
informed. Radio and television would have a little reason for
existence if broadcasts are limited to bland, obsequious, or
pleasantly entertaining utterances. Since they are the most
convenient and popular means of disseminating varying views on
public issues, they also deserve special protection.

Clear and Present Danger Test: as a limitation on freedom of

expression is justified by the danger or evil of a substantive
character that the state has a right to prevent.

B. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine: the danger must not only be

clear but also present. The term clear seems to point to a
 causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil
arising from the utterance question. Present refers to the
time element. It used to be identified with imminent and
immediate danger. The danger must not only be probable
but very likely inevitable.

Cabansag vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974

Facts:

C. Balancing of Interest Test: refers to the process of weighing

conflicting rights or interests to determine the appropriate
course of action. This often involves reconciling individual
rights with the broader interests of society or the state. For
example, the government may impose restrictions on
freedom of speech to prevent harm or maintain public order,
balancing individual expression with the need for societal
stability.

People vs. Perez, G.R. No. L-21049

Facts:

D. Three Tests of Judicial Scrutiny

Calleja, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 252578

: The Supreme Court affirms the constitutionality of the Anti-

Terrorism Act of 2020, balancing national security concerns
with civil liberties and human rights protection. The Supreme
Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Act
of 2020. The Court held that the law strikes a balance
between national security concerns and the protection of civil
liberties and human rights. The law provides sufficient
safeguards to prevent abuse and ensure due process. The
law provides clear definitions of terrorism and terrorist acts,
ensuring that it is not vague or overbroad.

1. Strict Scrutiny Test

GMA Network vs. COMELEC

: The Supreme Court declares regulations on political

advertisements during the 2013 elections unconstitutional,
as they violate constitutional rights to freedom of
expression, speech, and the press, and exceed
COMELEC's authority. The Court emphasizes the
importance of allowing effective communication between
candidates and the public during elections and the need
for reasonable decision-making processes.

2. Intermediate Scrutiny Test

Osmena vs. COMELEC

: The Supreme Court upholds the validity of Section 11(b)

of Republic Act No. 6646, which prohibits the sale or
donation of print space and air time to political candidates,
stating that it is a permissible restriction on freedom of
speech and expression. The provision is deemed to be
regulatory in nature, aimed at promoting equality of
 opportunity in political advertising. Additionally, the Court
finds that there is a substantial or legitimate governmental
interest justifying the regulation, as print space and airtime
can be controlled or dominated by rich candidates to the
disadvantage of poor candidates."

3. Rational Basis Test

Ang LadLad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC

: The main issue raised in the case is whether the denial

of Ang Ladlad's petition for registration violated their
constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and
assembly, and equal protection of laws. The Supreme
Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, stating
that the denial of their petition for registration violated their
constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and
assembly, and equal protection of laws, as the
Commission on Elections' reliance on religious beliefs and
moral grounds was deemed unconstitutional and
discriminatory.