CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES

I. Defenses Based on a Violation of the Due Process Clause

A. The Statute is Void for Vagueness

1. Due Process requires that the terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit
to inform those who are subject to it, what conduct on their part will render them
liable to its penalties.

2. The Doctrine that a penal statute is unconstitutional if it does not reasonably inform
a person on notice as to what the person may not do, or what the person is required
to do. As a rule, a statue may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the constitution in two aspects:

(a) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid

(b) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
and become an arbitrary flexing of the government muscle.

3. However, an act will be declared void and inoperative on the ground of
vagueness and uncertainty, only upon a showing that the defect is such that the
courts are unable to determine, within any reasonable degree of certainty, what the
legislature intended.

Example: An ordinance of the City of Cincinnati that made it illegal for: three or
more persons to assemble on any sidewalk and there conduct themselves in a
manner annoying to persons passing by

B. The Statute is Void for Overbreadth (Overbroad)

1. A penal statue is unconstitutional if its language is so broad that it unnecessary
interferes with the exercise of constitutional rights, even though the purpose is to
prohibit activities that the government may constitutionally prohibit.

2. A statute is overbroad where it operates to inhibit the exercise of individual
freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, such as the freedom of religion or speech.
When it includes within its coverage not only unprotected activity but also activity
protected by the constitution.

3. This principle applies more to felonies or offenses which conflict with the freedom
of expression and association such as prosecution for libel, inciting to rebellion or
sedition, and violation of the Election Code.

Example: In Adiong s. COMELEC ( 207 SCRA 712) the court declared as void that
portion of the Election Code prohibiting the posting of election propaganda in any
place-including private vehicles- other than in the designated common poster area.

C. The Statute is Void for Lack of Publicity

The Penal Statue was not publicized in the manner provided for by the Constitution,
such as publication in a newspaper of general circulation or in the Official Gazette.
Hence there is no constructive note to the public and the principle that Ignorantia
legis nemenem excusat will not apply.
CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES
II. Defenses Based on the Equal Protection Clause

Discriminatory and Selective Application

1. A Penal Law must apply to all persons who are in the same or similar situation

2. A statute nondiscriminatory on its face may be grossly discriminatory in its
operation. Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet,
if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal
hand, so as to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar
circumstances, material to their rights, there is denial of equal justice and is
prohibited.

3. However, the prosecution of one guilty person while others equally guilty are not
prosecuted, is not, by itself, a denial of the equal protection of the laws. There must
be present an element of clear and intentional or purposeful discrimination on the
part of the prosecuting officials.