Practice question
A penal ordinance clearly forbids operating a specified commercial machine without the defined annual permit. An accused knowingly operates that machine without any permit. His vagueness argument identifies no uncertainty about his conduct and relies solely on the word commercial having possible borderline applications to other activities. Which answer is best for this as-applied claim?
- Every imaginable borderline question invalidates the charge
- The ordinance is automatically void because it uses a general word
- The asserted marginal uncertainty does not show lack of notice or standards as applied to his clearly covered conduct
- The court must ignore all definitions
- The prosecution may invent a different prohibition at trial
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 1, due process: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- People v. Nazario, G.R. No. L-44143, August 31, 1988, main decision, comprehensible standards and fair construction: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l-44143_1988.html
- Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, main decision, vagueness and statutory context: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.