Practice question
A regulatory penalty becomes payable three years after a recorded approval date. That date is undisputed. An accused identifies no ambiguity in the rule but argues calculating the anniversary is inconvenient. Which reasoning most closely follows Nazario’s timing discussion?
- All date calculations are unconstitutional
- Inconvenience automatically removes liability
- The mere need to compute an ascertainable date does not establish void-for-vagueness
- Only an inspector’s mood may determine the anniversary
- The court must refuse to read the recorded approval
Legal references
- People v. Nazario, G.R. No. L-44143, August 31, 1988, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/aug1988/gr_l-44143_1988.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.