Practice question
A claimant raises two objections to the same statute: one identifies language deterring peaceful speech by absent third parties; the other alleges a separation-of-powers defect without a concrete application. The claimant insists that acceptance of the first facial speech claim automatically permits unrestricted facial adjudication of the second. Under Calleja's majority approach, which is correct?
- Both objections must automatically succeed.
- Neither can be examined because the statute has penalties.
- Every constitutional issue becomes facially justiciable once speech is mentioned.
- The speech-related facial inquiry has defined limits and does not automatically authorize facial review of a distinct separation-of-powers claim.
- Separation of powers is never enforceable in any actual case.
Legal references
- Calleja v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 252578 et al., December 7, 2021, main decision, facial challenges and speech-related scope: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/dec2021/gr_252578_2021.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.