Gallego vs Sandiganbayan

An information was filed against Gallego and three others for violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act:

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any ​unwarranted ​benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative
or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.

The petitioners argue that the lack of clarity of the term "unwarranted" suffices for the courts to
declare said section unconstitutional.

Doctrine:

Courts are loathed to declare a statute void for uncertainty unless the law itself is so imperfect
and deficient in its details, and is susceptible of no reasonable construction that will support and
give it effect."

The Court found that there was nothing vague or ambiguous in the use of the term "unwarranted"
in Sec. 3, par. (e) which was understood in its primary and general acceptation."

Social Security System v. Favila

A case that concerns a spouse who claims entitlement to death benefits as a primary beneficiary
under the Social Security Law. To support the respondent’s non-entitlement to the benefits, SSS
cited the provisions of Sections 8(k) and 13 where the contentious point was the meaning of the
term "dependent spouse".

Doctrine:

Under the principles of statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity,
it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.

Verba legis non est recedendum​, or, from the words of a statute there should be no departure."

>​Republic v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-35376, September 11, 1980, 99 SCRA 656 (1980)
The petitioners question the lower court’s jurisdiction over the proceedings for reopening of a
cadastral case through their interpretation of a provision of Rep. Act 931 vis-a-vis an alleged
extension provided for by RA 6236.

The court ruled that if Rep. Act 6236 had intended that the extension it provided for applies also
to reopening of cadastral cases, it would have so provided in the same way that it provided the
extension of time to file applications for free patent and for judicial confirmation of imperfect or
incomplete title.

Doctrine:

The maxim ​expressio unius est exclusio alterius ​provides that generally, the express mention of a
thing in law intends the exclusion of others not expressly mentioned therein.

People v. Nazario
The petitioner was charged with violation of certain municipal ordinances of the municipal
council of Pagbilao, in Quezon province. His refusal and failure to pay the municipal taxes of his
fishpond operation was attributed to the uncertainty of whether he was covered by the ordinances
which he claims to be null and void for being ambiguous and uncertain.

Doctrine:

A statute or act 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."

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
Concerns Estrada’s charge of plunder which the respondent Court contends to be necessarily
prosecuted under RA 7080 or “AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF
PLUNDER”. The petitioner questions the constitutionality of the law on three grounds, one
which is vagueness, particularly in the use of the terms “combination”, “series” and
“unwarranted”.

The court ruled that the petitioner's reliance on the "void-for-vagueness" doctrine is manifestly
misplaced as the doctrine does not apply as against legislations that are merely couched in
imprecise language but which nonetheless specify a standard.

Doctrine:
A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used therein, or
because of the employment of terms without defining them.

Separate Opinion of Mr. Justice Panganiban​ in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan:

the void-for- vagueness concept has yet to find direct application in our jurisdiction. It has only
been mentioned in passing in some cases and to date, the Court has not declared any penal law
unconstitutional on the ground of ambiguity.

Questions for the Respondent (On Constitutionality)

Meaning of overbreadth

How does the prohibition of denial contribute to social justice? How does these two relate?

What does Victim’s Reparation Act state or purport to forward and how is it important to VDA?

What are the prohibited acts in VDA? Which paragraph in the facts is it found?

Why is the state so adamant in the reparation of human rights violations in Martial law?

Can we see in the Consti that we need to recognize Marial law violations? Look more into the
drafting of 1987 Consti

What kinds of speech are an exception to the right of freedom of speech?

Why is it important to penalize acts in Sec. 3?

Why is the denial dangerous in our context? MALICIOUS DENIAL OF FACTS IS ESP
DANGEROUS IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE OF FAKE NEWS

Is a false statement incapable of contributing to the free market of ideas?

How do you determine intent in relation to the penalized acts? MALICIOUS INTENT TO
FORWARD A VERSION REALITY CONTRARY TO TRUTH AND DAMAGING TO
HUMAN DIGNITY

Isn’t she only echoing the thoughts of Tatay Dingdong? YES

Is the law vague? NO

Is intent material in your reading of Section 4? YES

Definition of “publicly”. Is there a threshold? PUBLICLY IS WHEN IT IS ACCESSIBLE TO

ANYONE

When you speak of violations, do you speak of all three?

How come the “speech” does not contribute to the free market of ideas? IT IS FALSE AND
MALICIOUS

Can you give an example of legitimate historical criticism?

Who determines these standards (on the point concerning the veracity of historical facts)?

Only professors and members of the academe can post statements regarding Martial law (based
on the respondent’s emphasis on “historical facts”)?

Do you have any particular case saying that the void-for-vagueness doctrine applies here?
If there is none, then what’s the basis for applying it?

What exactly did you penalize? To what particular act did you put them (public denial,
trivialization, or justification?)

In your construction of the law, if the statement publicly denies and also trivializes, how many
offenses does that constitute?

Basis of state duty to promote social justice?