Escaped prisoner or detainee when the person to be

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: : What is the Overbreadth Doctrine? A: The overbreadth doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. 5. Judicial Standards of Review Q: Given the fact that not all rights and freedoms or liberties under the Bill of Rights and other values of society are of similar weight and importance, governmental regulations that affect them would have to be evaluated based on different yardsticks, or standards of review. What are these standards of review? A: 1. Deferential review – laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest, without courts seriously inquiring into the substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative means by which the objectives could be achieved 2. Intermediate review – the substantiality of the governmental interest is seriously looked into and the availability of less restrictive alternatives are considered. 3. Strict scrutiny – the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest (Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, Feb. 26, 2002) 6. Void‐for‐Vagueness Doctrine Q: Explain the void for vagueness doctrine? A: It holds that a law is vague when it lacks comprehensive standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution because: It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions (People v. de la Piedra, G.R. No. 128777, Jan. 24, 2001) Note: It is an analytical tool developed for testing on their face statutes in free speech cases. Claims of facial over breadth are entertained in case...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/12/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online