Rule on Locus Standi; Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Rule on Locus Standi; Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Doctrine.

General rule:

The "as applied" challenge doctrine (prohibition against third-party standing.)

Exception:

The "facial" challenge doctrine.

[G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014]

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI et al. vs. et al.

THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

✍️👨‍⚖️ ABAD, J.

©️📷: Politics. co. uk

Discussion.

When a penal statute encroaches upon the freedom of speech, a "facial challenge" grounded on the void-for-vagueness doctrine is [acceptable]. The inapplicability of the doctrine must be carefully delineated.

As Justice Antonio T. Carpio explained in his dissent in Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, "we must view these statements of the Court on the inapplicability of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines to penal statutes as appropriate only insofar as these doctrines are used to mount ‘facial’ challenges to penal statutes not involving free speech."

The "as applied" challenge doctrine.

In an "as applied" challenge, the petitioner who claims a violation of his constitutional right can raise any constitutional ground – absence of due process, lack of fair notice, lack of ascertainable standards, overbreadth, or vagueness. In such a case, one can challenge the constitutionality of a statute [only if] he asserts a violation of [his own rights]. It prohibits one from assailing the constitutionality of the statute based solely on the violation of the rights of third persons not before the court. This rule is also known as the prohibition against third-party standing. (Emphasis supplied).

But this rule admits of [exceptions]. A petitioner may for instance mount a "facial" challenge to the constitutionality of a statute even if he claims no violation of his own rights under the assailed statute where it involves free speech on grounds of overbreadth or vagueness of the statute. (Emphasis supplied).

The rationale for this exception is to counter the "chilling effect" on protected speech that comes from statutes violating free speech. A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid being charged of a crime. The overbroad or vague law thus chills him into silence.

[G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014]

JOSE JESUS M. DISINI et al. vs. et al.

THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

✍️👨‍⚖️ ABAD, J.