Practice question
A penal ordinance punishes any act an inspector personally considers unacceptable. It provides no definition, examples, objective criterion or limiting context. A shopkeeper is charged for conduct that ordinary persons could not identify as forbidden from the ordinance, and no settled construction clarifies the prohibition. In the shopkeeper's as-applied challenge, what is the strongest constitutional objection?
- The ordinance fails to provide fair notice and leaves enforcement to unguided personal judgment
- Only the ordinance's title matters
- The inspector's personal certainty cures every defect
- The shopkeeper must prove that the ordinance is unpopular
- An arrest itself supplies the missing legislative standard
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.