Practice question
A statute uses a broad phrase, then narrows it through precise definitions and specified prohibited acts. A defendant charged with one expressly identified act attacks the phrase in isolation. The trial court finds that the text read as a whole gives ordinary persons fair notice and supplies meaningful enforcement standards for that act. Which conclusion best follows the vagueness doctrine?
- Broad wording always defeats all limiting definitions
- The court must invalidate every provision even though the charged act is clear
- The challenge automatically succeeds if counsel offers an unusual dictionary meaning
- The as-applied vagueness challenge fails on these findings; breadth of a phrase alone is insufficient
- The court may authorize punishment of wholly different undefined acts
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.