Practice question
An accused challenges one term in a penal statute as vague. The same statute expressly defines that term, and the definition clearly covers the charged conduct. Counsel asks the court to disregard the definition and consider only the isolated word. What should the court do?
- Invalidate the law solely because the isolated word has several meanings
- Allow police officers to choose any definition they prefer
- Treat definitions as legally irrelevant
- Replace the statute with the prosecutor's preferred wording
- Read the challenged term together with the express definition and statutory context
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.