Practice question
In Estrada’s main decision, does omission of a separate statutory definition for every ordinary word necessarily make a penal statute void for vagueness?
- Yes, every dictionary word needs its own legislative definition
- Yes, judicial interpretation is constitutionally forbidden
- Yes, any argument by counsel proves vagueness
- Yes, only technical jargon may be used
- No, ordinary meanings and statutory context can provide adequate clarity
Legal references
- Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html; main opinion’s vagueness discussion.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.