3. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

Specificity of Regulation and Vagueness Doctrine

The vagueness doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and also to one which is overbroad because of possible "'chilling effect' on protected speech that comes from statutes violating free speech. A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid being charged of a crime. The overbroad or vague law thus chills him into silence. (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658)

It is best to stress that the vagueness doctrine has a special application only to free-speech cases. Facial vagueness challenges are generally confined to laws affecting protected expression, but a penal statute may be challenged as vague as applied to the accused. (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658)

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. The theory is that when statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity. This rationale does not apply to penal statutes.

In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing 'on their faces' statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. Facial overbreadth and vagueness challenges ordinarily do not extend to penal statutes outside the free-speech context, but a defendant may challenge a criminal statute as unconstitutionally vague as applied. With respect to such statute, the established rule is that one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional. As has been pointed out, vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated only 'as applied' to a particular defendant.

Concept

A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application.

The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice. It must be stressed, however, that the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld - not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.

An act will not be held invalid merely because it might have been more explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions, especially where, because of the nature of the act, it would be impossible to provide all the details in advance as in all other statutes. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001)

In determining whether the words used in a statute are vague, words must not only be taken in accordance with their plain meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It is a rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, that is, every part of it must be construed together with the other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)

Purpose

A vague statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects:

• It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and
• It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001)

VOID FOR VAGUENESS V. OVERBREADTH

• Vagueness and overbreadth are distinct from each other; a vague law must lack clarity and precision, while an overbroad law need not.
• It is submitted that while the defect of overbreadth as an analytical tool is applicable only to cases involving speech, this is not so about vagueness.

Void for Vagueness v. Overbreadth

JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application.

A facial vagueness challenge requires legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction; a criminal statute may also be challenged for vagueness as applied to the accused. The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however, that the vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld – not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 (2001)].

Facial invalidity test

Test for vagueness of a criminal statute

Whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra].

Applicability to Penal Statutes

General Rule: Facial void-for-vagueness and overbreadth challenges are generally unavailable against penal statutes outside the free-speech context; an accused may nonetheless raise an as-applied void-for-vagueness objection to a criminal prohibition that fails to give fair notice.

Rationale: Statutes have a general in terrorem effect, which is to discourage citizens from committing the prohibited acts.