You are on page 1of 1

Southern Hemisphere vs Anti-Terrorism Council

The case consists of 6 petitions challenging the constitutionality of RA 9372, An Act
to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism, aka Human Security Act
of 2007. Petitioner-organizations assert locus standi on the basis of being suspected
communist fronts by the government, whereas individual petitioners invoke the
transcendental importance doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers.
Petitioners claim that RA 9372 is vague and broad, in that terms like widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace and coerce the government
to give in to an unlawful demand are nebulous, leaving law enforcement agencies
with no standard to measure the prohibited acts.
Whether or not a penal statute may be assailed for being vague as applied to
No. A limited vagueness analysis of the definition of terrorism in RA 9372 is legally
impossible absent an actual or imminent charge against them.
A statute or acts suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lack comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ as to its application.
A facial challenge is likewise different from an as applied challenge. Facial
challenge is an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not
only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or
prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain
from constitutionally protected speech or activities. Under no case may ordinary
penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge. If facial challenge to a penal
statute is permitted, the prosecution of crimes may be hampered. No prosecution
would be possible.