G.R. No.

169364               September 18, 2009 to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200
to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs. Instead of submitting their counter-affidavits as directed, respondents
EVANGELINE SITON y SACIL and KRYSTEL KATE SAGARANO y filed separate Motions to Quash3 on the ground that Article 202 (2) is
MEFANIA, Respondents. unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad.

DECISION In an Order 4 dated April 28, 2004, the municipal trial court denied the
motions and directed respondents anew to file their respective counter-
affidavits. The municipal trial court also declared that the law on
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
vagrancy was enacted pursuant to the State’s police power and
justified by the Latin maxim "salus populi est suprem(a) lex," which
If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even calls for the subordination of individual benefit to the interest of the
as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or greater number, thus:
Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the
hosts of Heaven and Earth will pause to say, here lived a great street
Our law on vagrancy was enacted pursuant to the police power of the
sweeper who did his job well.
State. An authority on police power, Professor Freund describes
laconically police power "as the power of promoting public welfare by
– Martin Luther King, Jr. restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property." (Citations
omitted). In fact the person’s acts and acquisitions are hemmed in by
the police power of the state. The justification found in the Latin maxim,
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the July 29, 2005 salus populi est supreme (sic) lex" (the god of the people is the
Order1 of Branch 11, Davao City Regional Trial Court in Special Civil Supreme Law). This calls for the subordination of individual benefit to
Case No. 30-500-2004 granting respondents’ Petition for Certiorari and the interests of the greater number.In the case at bar the affidavit of the
declaring paragraph 2 of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code arresting police officer, SPO1 JAY PLAZA with Annex "A" lucidly
unconstitutional. shows that there was a prior surveillance conducted in view of the
reports that vagrants and prostitutes proliferate in the place where the
Respondents Evangeline Siton and Krystel Kate Sagarano were two accused (among other women) were wandering and in the wee
charged with vagrancy pursuant to Article 202 (2) of the Revised Penal hours of night and soliciting male customer. Thus, on that basis the
Code in two separate Informations dated November 18, 2003, prosecution should be given a leeway to prove its case. Thus, in the
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 115,716-C-2003 and 115,717-C-2003 interest of substantial justice, both prosecution and defense must be
and raffled to Branch 3 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Davao given their day in Court: the prosecution proof of the crime, and the
City. The Informations, read: author thereof; the defense, to show that the acts of the accused in the
indictment can’t be categorized as a crime.5
That on or about November 14, 2003, in the City of Davao, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- The municipal trial court also noted that in the affidavit of the arresting
mentioned accused, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously wandered and police officer, SPO1 Jay Plaza, it was stated that there was a prior
loitered around San Pedro and Legaspi Streets, this City, without any surveillance conducted on the two accused in an area reported to be
visible means to support herself nor lawful and justifiable purpose.2 frequented by vagrants and prostitutes who solicited sexual favors.
Hence, the prosecution should be given the opportunity to prove the
crime, and the defense to rebut the evidence.1avvphi1
Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Respondents thus filed an original petition for certiorari and prohibition

Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; penalty. — The following are with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City,6 directly challenging the
vagrants: constitutionality of the anti-vagrancy law, claiming that the definition of
the crime of vagrancy under Article 202 (2), apart from being vague,
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, results as well in an arbitrary identification of violators, since the
who has the physical ability to work and who neglects to definition of the crime includes in its coverage persons who are
apply himself or herself to some lawful calling; otherwise performing ordinary peaceful acts. They likewise claimed
that Article 202 (2) violated the equal protection clause under the
Constitution because it discriminates against the poor and
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public unemployed, thus permitting an arbitrary and unreasonable
buildings or places or tramping or wandering about the classification.
country or the streets without visible means of support;

The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that
3. Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,7 the
fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate overbreadth and vagueness doctrines apply only to free speech cases
with prostitutes; and not to penal statutes. It also asserted that Article 202 (2) must be
presumed valid and constitutional, since the respondents failed to
4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of overcome this presumption.
other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any
inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without On July 29, 2005, the Regional Trial Court issued the assailed Order
any lawful or justifiable purpose; granting the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:

5. Prostitutes. WHEREFORE, PRESCINDING FROM THE FOREGOING, the instant

Petition is hereby GRANTED. Paragraph 2 of Article 202 of the
For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, Revised Penal Code is hereby declared unconstitutional and the Order
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are of the court a quo, dated April 28, 2004, denying the petitioners’ Motion
deemed to be prostitutes. to Quash is set aside and the said court is ordered to dismiss the
subject criminal cases against the petitioners pending before it.
Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this articles
shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, SO ORDERED.8
and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period
In declaring Article 202 (2) unconstitutional, the trial court opined that The Court finds for petitioner.
the law is vague and it violated the equal protection clause. It held that
the "void for vagueness" doctrine is equally applicable in testing the
The power to define crimes and prescribe their corresponding penalties
validity of penal statutes. Citing Papachristou v. City of
is legislative in nature and inherent in the sovereign power of the state
Jacksonville,9 where an anti vagrancy ordinance was struck down as
to maintain social order as an aspect of police power. The legislature
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, the trial
may even forbid and penalize acts formerly considered innocent and
court ruled:
lawful provided that no constitutional rights have been
abridged.14 However, in exercising its power to declare what acts
The U.S. Supreme Court’s justifications for striking down the constitute a crime, the legislature must inform the citizen with
Jacksonville Vagrancy Ordinance are equally applicable to paragraph 2 reasonable precision what acts it intends to prohibit so that he may
of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code. have a certain understandable rule of conduct and know what acts it is
his duty to avoid.15 This requirement has come to be known as
the void-for-vagueness doctrine which states that "a statute which
Indeed, to authorize a police officer to arrest a person for being "found
either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that
loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places or tramping or
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning
wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of
and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process
support" offers too wide a latitude for arbitrary determinations as to
of law."16
who should be arrested and who should not.

In Spouses Romualdez v. COMELEC,17 the Court recognized the

Loitering about and wandering have become national pastimes
application of the void-for-vagueness doctrine to criminal statutes in
particularly in these times of recession when there are many who are
appropriate cases. The Court therein held:
"without visible means of support" not by reason of choice but by force
of circumstance as borne out by the high unemployment rate in the
entire country. At the outset, we declare that under these terms, the opinions of the
dissent which seek to bring to the fore the purported ambiguities of a
long list of provisions in Republic Act No. 8189 can be deemed as a
To authorize law enforcement authorities to arrest someone for nearly
facial challenge. An appropriate "as applied" challenge in the instant
no other reason than the fact that he cannot find gainful employment
Petition should be limited only to Section 45 (j) in relation to Sections
would indeed be adding insult to injury.10
10 (g) and (j) of Republic Act No. 8189 – the provisions upon which
petitioners are charged. An expanded examination of the law covering
On its pronouncement that Article 202 (2) violated the equal protection provisions which are alien to petitioners’ case would be antagonistic to
clause of the Constitution, the trial court declared: the rudiment that for judicial review to be exercised, there must be an
existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for
determination, and not conjectural or anticipatory.18
The application of the Anti-Vagrancy Law, crafted in the 1930s, to our
situation at present runs afoul of the equal protection clause of the
constitution as it offers no reasonable classification between those The first statute punishing vagrancy – Act No. 519 – was modeled after
covered by the law and those who are not. American vagrancy statutes and passed by the Philippine Commission
in 1902. The Penal Code of Spain of 1870 which was in force in this
country up to December 31, 1931 did not contain a provision on
Class legislation is such legislation which denies rights to one which vagrancy.19 While historically an Anglo-American concept of crime
are accorded to others, or inflicts upon one individual a more severe prevention, the law on vagrancy was included by the Philippine
penalty than is imposed upon another in like case offending. legislature as a permanent feature of the Revised Penal Code in Article
202 thereof which, to repeat, provides:
Applying this to the case at bar, since the definition of Vagrancy under
Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code offers no guidelines or any other ART. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; penalty. – The following are
reasonable indicators to differentiate those who have no visible means vagrants:
of support by force of circumstance and those who choose to loiter
about and bum around, who are the proper subjects of vagrancy
legislation, it cannot pass a judicial scrutiny of its constitutionality.11 1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence,
who has the physical ability to work and who neglects to
apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari raising the sole issue of:

2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public

WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A buildings or places, or tramping or wandering about the
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DECLARING UNCONSTITUTIONAL country or the streets without visible means of support;
ARTICLE 202 (2) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE12

3. Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-

Petitioner argues that every statute is presumed valid and all fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate
reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality; with prostitutes;
that, citing Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan,13 the overbreadth and
vagueness doctrines have special application to free-speech cases
only and are not appropriate for testing the validity of penal statutes; 4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of
that respondents failed to overcome the presumed validity of the other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any
statute, failing to prove that it was vague under the standards set out inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without
by the Courts; and that the State may regulate individual conduct for any lawful or justifiable purpose;
the promotion of public welfare in the exercise of its police power.
5. Prostitutes.
On the other hand, respondents argue against the limited application of
the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. They insist that Article 202
For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit,
(2) on its face violates the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
process and the equal protection of the laws; that the due process
deemed to be prostitutes.
vagueness standard, as distinguished from the free speech vagueness
doctrine, is adequate to declare Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and
void on its face; and that the presumption of constitutionality was Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this article
adequately overthrown. shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 The difficulty is that these activities are historically part of the amenities
to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court. of life as we have known them. They are not mentioned in the
Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. These unwritten amenities have
been, in part, responsible for giving our people the feeling of
In the instant case, the assailed provision is paragraph (2), which
independence and self-confidence, the feeling of creativity. These
defines a vagrant as any person found loitering about public or semi-
amenities have dignified the right of dissent, and have honored the
public buildings or places, or tramping or wandering about the country
right to be nonconformists and the right to defy submissiveness. They
or the streets without visible means of support. This provision was
have encouraged lives of high spirits, rather than hushed, suffocating
based on the second clause of Section 1 of Act No. 519 which defined
silence.
"vagrant" as "every person found loitering about saloons or dramshops
or gambling houses, or tramping or straying through the country
without visible means of support." The second clause was essentially xxxx
retained with the modification that the places under which the offense
might be committed is now expressed in general terms – public or
Where the list of crimes is so all-inclusive and generalized as the one
semi-public places.
in this ordinance, those convicted may be punished for no more than
vindicating affronts to police authority:
The Regional Trial Court, in asserting the unconstitutionality of Article
202 (2), take support mainly from the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in
"The common ground which brings such a motley assortment of
the Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville 20 case, which in essence
human troubles before the magistrates in vagrancy-type proceedings is
declares:
the procedural laxity which permits 'conviction' for almost any kind of
conduct and the existence of the House of Correction as an easy and
Living under a rule of law entails various suppositions, one of which is convenient dumping-ground for problems that appear to have no other
that "[all persons] are entitled to be informed as to what the State immediate solution." Foote, Vagrancy-Type Law and Its Administration,
commands or forbids." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 306 U. 104 U.Pa.L.Rev. 603, 631.
S. 453.
xxxx
Lanzetta is one of a well recognized group of cases insisting that the
law give fair notice of the offending conduct. See Connally v. General
Another aspect of the ordinance's vagueness appears when we focus
Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 269 U. S. 391; Cline v. Frink Dairy
not on the lack of notice given a potential offender, but on the effect of
Co., 274 U. S. 445; United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81.
the unfettered discretion it places in the hands of the Jacksonville
In the field of regulatory statutes governing business activities, where
police. Caleb Foote, an early student of this subject, has called the
the acts limited are in a narrow category, greater leeway is allowed.
vagrancy-type law as offering "punishment by analogy." Such crimes,
Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U. S. 337; United States
though long common in Russia, are not compatible with our
v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29; United States v.
constitutional system.
Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1.

xxxx
The poor among us, the minorities, the average householder, are not in
business and not alerted to the regulatory schemes of vagrancy laws;
and we assume they would have no understanding of their meaning A presumption that people who might walk or loaf or loiter or stroll or
and impact if they read them. Nor are they protected from being caught frequent houses where liquor is sold, or who are supported by their
in the vagrancy net by the necessity of having a specific intent to wives or who look suspicious to the police are to become future
commit an unlawful act. See Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91; criminals is too precarious for a rule of law. The implicit presumption in
Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, supra. these generalized vagrancy standards -- that crime is being nipped in
the bud -- is too extravagant to deserve extended treatment. Of course,
vagrancy statutes are useful to the police. Of course, they are nets
The Jacksonville ordinance makes criminal activities which, by modern
making easy the roundup of so-called undesirables. But the rule of law
standards, are normally innocent. "Nightwalking" is one. Florida
implies equality and justice in its application. Vagrancy laws of the
construes the ordinance not to make criminal one night's wandering,
Jacksonville type teach that the scales of justice are so tipped that
Johnson v. State, 202 So.2d at 855, only the "habitual" wanderer or, as
even-handed administration of the law is not possible. The rule of law,
the ordinance describes it, "common night walkers." We know,
evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, to the poor as well as
however, from experience that sleepless people often walk at night,
the rich, is the great mucilage that holds society together.21
perhaps hopeful that sleep-inducing relaxation will result.

The underlying principles in Papachristou are that: 1) the assailed

Luis Munoz-Marin, former Governor of Puerto Rico, commented once
Jacksonville ordinance "fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence
that "loafing" was a national virtue in his Commonwealth, and that it
fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute;"
should be encouraged. It is, however, a crime in Jacksonville.
and 2) it encourages or promotes opportunities for the application of
discriminatory law enforcement.
xxxx
The said underlying principle in Papachristou that the Jacksonville
Persons "wandering or strolling" from place to place have been ordinance, or Article 202 (2) in this case, fails to give fair notice of what
extolled by Walt Whitman and Vachel Lindsay. The qualification constitutes forbidden conduct, finds no application here because under
"without any lawful purpose or object" may be a trap for innocent acts. our legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from
Persons "neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their compliance therewith.22 This principle is of Spanish origin, and we
time by frequenting . . . places where alcoholic beverages are sold or adopted it to govern and limit legal conduct in this jurisdiction. Under
served" would literally embrace many members of golf clubs and city American law, ignorance of the law is merely a traditional rule that
clubs. admits of exceptions.23

Walkers and strollers and wanderers may be going to or coming from a Moreover, the Jacksonville ordinance was declared unconstitutional on
burglary. Loafers or loiterers may be "casing" a place for a holdup. account of specific provisions thereof, which are not found in Article
Letting one's wife support him is an intra-family matter, and normally of 202 (2). The ordinance (Jacksonville Ordinance Code § 257) provided,
no concern to the police. Yet it may, of course, be the setting for as follows:
numerous crimes.
Rogues and vagabonds, or dissolute persons who go about begging;
common gamblers, persons who use juggling or unlawful games or
plays, common drunkards, common night walkers, thieves, pilferers or Since the Revised Penal Code took effect in 1932, no challenge has
pickpockets, traders in stolen property, lewd, wanton and lascivious ever been made upon the constitutionality of Article 202 except now.
persons, keepers of gambling places, common railers and brawlers, Instead, throughout the years, we have witnessed the streets and
persons wandering or strolling around from place to place without any parks become dangerous and unsafe, a haven for beggars, harassing
lawful purpose or object, habitual loafers, disorderly persons, persons "watch-your-car" boys, petty thieves and robbers, pickpockets,
neglecting all lawful business and habitually spending their time by swindlers, gangs, prostitutes, and individuals performing acts that go
frequenting houses of ill fame, gaming houses, or places where beyond decency and morality, if not basic humanity. The streets and
alcoholic beverages are sold or served, persons able to work but parks have become the training ground for petty offenders who
habitually living upon the earnings of their wives or minor children shall graduate into hardened and battle-scarred criminals. Everyday, the
be deemed vagrants and, upon conviction in the Municipal Court shall news is rife with reports of innocent and hardworking people being
be punished as provided for Class D offenses. robbed, swindled, harassed or mauled – if not killed – by the scourge
of the streets. Blue collar workers are robbed straight from withdrawing
hard-earned money from the ATMs (automated teller machines);
Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court in Jacksonville declared the ordinance
students are held up for having to use and thus exhibit publicly their
unconstitutional, because such activities or habits as nightwalking,
mobile phones; frail and helpless men are mauled by thrill-seeking
wandering or strolling around without any lawful purpose or object,
gangs; innocent passers-by are stabbed to death by rowdy drunken
habitual loafing, habitual spending of time at places where alcoholic
men walking the streets; fair-looking or pretty women are stalked and
beverages are sold or served, and living upon the earnings of wives or
harassed, if not abducted, raped and then killed; robbers, thieves,
minor children, which are otherwise common and normal, were
pickpockets and snatchers case streets and parks for possible victims;
declared illegal. But these are specific acts or activities not found
the old are swindled of their life savings by conniving streetsmart
in Article 202 (2). The closest to Article 202 (2) – "any person found
bilkers and con artists on the prowl; beggars endlessly pester and
loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places, or tramping or
panhandle pedestrians and commuters, posing a health threat and
wandering about the country or the streets without visible means of
putting law-abiding drivers and citizens at risk of running them over. All
support" – from the Jacksonville ordinance, would be "persons
these happen on the streets and in public places, day or night.
wandering or strolling around from place to place without any lawful
purpose or object." But these two acts are still not the same: Article
202 (2) is qualified by "without visible means of support" while the The streets must be protected. Our people should never dread having
Jacksonville ordinance prohibits wandering or strolling "without any to ply them each day, or else we can never say that we have
lawful purpose or object," which was held by the U.S. Supreme Court performed our task to our brothers and sisters. We must rid the streets
to constitute a "trap for innocent acts." of the scourge of humanity, and restore order, peace, civility, decency
and morality in them.
Under the Constitution, the people are guaranteed the right to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against This is exactly why we have public order laws, to which Article 202
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any (2) belongs. These laws were crafted to maintain minimum
purpose, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except standards of decency, morality and civility in human society.
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after These laws may be traced all the way back to ancient times, and
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the today, they have also come to be associated with the struggle to
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be improve the citizens’ quality of life, which is guaranteed by our
searched and the persons or things to be seized. 24 Thus, as with any Constitution.28 Civilly, they are covered by the "abuse of rights" doctrine
other act or offense, the requirement of probable cause provides an embodied in the preliminary articles of the Civil Code concerning
acceptable limit on police or executive authority that may otherwise be Human Relations, to the end, in part, that any person who willfully
abused in relation to the search or arrest of persons found to be causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
violating Article 202 (2). The fear exhibited by the respondents, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
echoing Jacksonville, that unfettered discretion is placed in the hands damage.29 This provision is, together with the succeeding articles on
of the police to make an arrest or search, is therefore assuaged by the human relations, intended to embody certain basic principles "that are
constitutional requirement of probable cause, which is one less than to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and
certainty or proof, but more than suspicion or possibility.25 for the stability of the social order."30

Evidently, the requirement of probable cause cannot be done away In civil law, for example, the summary remedy of ejectment is intended
with arbitrarily without pain of punishment, for, absent this requirement, to prevent criminal disorder and breaches of the peace and to
the authorities are necessarily guilty of abuse. The grounds of discourage those who, believing themselves entitled to the possession
suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the of the property, resort to force rather than to some appropriate action in
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is court to assert their claims.31 Any private person may abate a public
probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without
the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury.32
suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with
good faith of the peace officers making the arrest.26
Criminally, public order laws encompass a whole range of acts – from
public indecencies and immoralities, to public nuisances, to disorderly
The State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its conduct. The acts punished are made illegal by their offensiveness to
citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects. The society’s basic sensibilities and their adverse effect on the quality of life
constitutional provision sheathes the private individual with an of the people of society. For example, the issuance or making of a
impenetrable armor against unreasonable searches and seizures. It bouncing check is deemed a public nuisance, a crime against public
protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful order that must be abated.33 As a matter of public policy, the failure to
arrests and other forms of restraint, and prevents him from being turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods covered by a trust
irreversibly cut off from that domestic security which renders the lives receipt or to return said goods, if not sold, is a public nuisance to be
of the most unhappy in some measure agreeable.27 abated by the imposition of penal sanctions. 34 Thus, public nuisances
must be abated because they have the effect of interfering with the
comfortable enjoyment of life or property by members of a community.
As applied to the instant case, it appears that the police authorities
have been conducting previous surveillance operations on respondents
prior to their arrest. On the surface, this satisfies the probable cause Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause; neither
requirement under our Constitution. For this reason, we are not moved does it discriminate against the poor and the unemployed. Offenders of
by respondents’ trepidation that Article 202 (2) could have been a public order laws are punished not for their status, as for being poor or
source of police abuse in their case. unemployed, but for conducting themselves under such circumstances
as to endanger the public peace or cause alarm and apprehension in
the community. Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a
justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct.

Vagrancy must not be so lightly treated as to be considered

constitutionally offensive. It is a public order crime which punishes
persons for conducting themselves, at a certain place and time which
orderly society finds unusual, under such conditions that are repugnant
and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society, as would engender a
justifiable concern for the safety and well-being of members of the
community.

Instead of taking an active position declaring public order laws

unconstitutional, the State should train its eye on their effective
implementation, because it is in this area that the Court perceives
difficulties. Red light districts abound, gangs work the streets in the
wee hours of the morning, dangerous robbers and thieves ply their
trade in the trains stations, drunken men terrorize law-abiding citizens
late at night and urinate on otherwise decent corners of our streets.
Rugby-sniffing individuals crowd our national parks and busy
intersections. Prostitutes wait for customers by the roadside all around
the metropolis, some even venture in bars and restaurants. Drug-
crazed men loiter around dark avenues waiting to pounce on helpless
citizens. Dangerous groups wander around, casing homes and
establishments for their next hit. The streets must be made safe once
more. Though a man’s house is his castle, 35 outside on the streets, the
king is fair game.

The dangerous streets must surrender to orderly society.

Finally, we agree with the position of the State that first and foremost,
Article 202 (2) should be presumed valid and constitutional. When
confronted with a constitutional question, it is elementary that every
court must approach it with grave care and considerable caution
bearing in mind that every statute is presumed valid and every
reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of its
constitutionality.36 The policy of our courts is to avoid ruling on
constitutional questions and to presume that the acts of the political
departments are valid in the absence of a clear and unmistakable
showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain, this presumption is
based on the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon each
department a becoming respect for the acts of the other departments.
The theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the President of the
Philippines, a law has been carefully studied, crafted and determined
to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally
enacted.37

It must not be forgotten that police power is an inherent attribute of

sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the
Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner
of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either
with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they
shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and
for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast
and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health,
public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. 38 As an obvious
police power measure, Article 202 (2) must therefore be viewed in a
constitutional light.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of Branch 11

of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City in Special Civil Case No. 30-
500-2004 declaring Article 202, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code UNCONSTITUTIONAL is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Let the proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 115,716-C-2003 and

115,717-C-2003 thus continue.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.