01 Romualdez vs. COMELEC G.R. No.

167011 April 30, 2008 FACTS COMELEC Law Department filed two separate informations before the RTC Barauen, Leyte against spouses Carlos S. Romualdez and Erlinda R. Romualdez for knowingly making false or untruthful statement in their application for voters registration relative to their place of residence and non registration in other areas, which are violations of Sections 10(g) and (j), in relation to Section 45(j) of RA 8189 or the Voters Registration Act, to wit: SEC. 10 Registration of Voters. xxx The application shall contain the following data: x x x (g) Periods of residence in the Philippines and in the place of registration; x x x (j) A statement that the application is not a registered voter of any precinct; SEC. 45. Election Offense. The following shall be considered election offenses under this Act: x x x (j) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act. Pending the above case, the spouses filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari against COMELEC, on the ground, among others, of the unconstitutionality of Section 45(j) for being contrary to the fair notice requirement Section 14(1) and Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, as such penal provision is vague on its face. ISSUE WON Section 45(j) of RA 8189 is unconstitutional for having uncertain election prohibition. RULING No, the Supreme Court held. Using the void for vagueness doctrine, it the law is said to be facially invalid only if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. As structured, Section 45 of RA 8189 makes a recital of election offenses under the same Act. Section 45(j) clearly specifies that a violation of any of the provisions of RA 8189 is an election offense. The language of Section 45(j) is precise. The challenged provision renders itself to no other interpretation and involves no guesswork.