Practice question
A law aims to punish deliberate threats of violence but expressly criminalizes every peaceful petition criticizing security policy, even when it neither threatens nor incites violence. Organizations cease publishing such petitions. Government defends the text solely by showing that genuine violent threats can lawfully be punished. Which response best identifies the overbreadth issue?
- A legitimate target does not answer whether the law unnecessarily sweeps protected peaceful advocacy into its prohibition.
- Any valid application necessarily defeats every speech-overbreadth challenge.
- Criticism of security policy is always outside the Constitution.
- Only actual imprisonment can ever chill protected speech.
- The law is immune because national security appears in its title.
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
- Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335 et al., February 11, 2014, main decision, overbreadth and facial review: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_2014.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article III Section 4: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.