Appellants assail the constitutionality of the definition of “Illegal Recruitment” in Section 13 (b) PD 442, the illegal recruitment law alleging it violates due process for being vague and that it violates the right to equal protection of the law. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law.
Due process requires that terms of the penal statute be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. That Section 13 (b) encompasses what appellant apparently considers as customary and harmless acts such as “labor or employment referral” does not render the law overbroad. The interpretation of the section should be given more force to campaign against illegal recruitment and placement. The absence of records to shed light on the meaning of the proviso by applying principles in criminal law and drawing from the language and intent of the law itself. A statute may be said to be overboard where it operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech or religion. The appellant in this case did not specify what constitutionality protected norms are embraced by the definition of recruitment and placement that would render the same constitutionality overbroad.
As to the claim that the section violates equal protection cannot be sustained either. 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 unless there is an element of international or purposeful discrimination. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a clear showing of laws as to some persons should be converted into a defense for others charged with the crime, the enforcement of laws would suffer a complete breakdown.
Due process requires that terms of the penal statute be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. That Section 13 (b) encompasses what appellant apparently considers as customary and harmless acts such as “labor or employment referral” does not render the law overbroad. The interpretation of the section should be given more force to campaign against illegal recruitment and placement. The absence of records to shed light on the meaning of the proviso by applying principles in criminal law and drawing from the language and intent of the law itself. A statute may be said to be overboard where it operates to inhibit the exercise of individual freedoms affirmatively guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the freedom of speech or religion. The appellant in this case did not specify what constitutionality protected norms are embraced by the definition of recruitment and placement that would render the same constitutionality overbroad.
As to the claim that the section violates equal protection cannot be sustained either. 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 unless there is an element of international or purposeful discrimination. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a clear showing of laws as to some persons should be converted into a defense for others charged with the crime, the enforcement of laws would suffer a complete breakdown.
0 comments:
Post a Comment