*A facial challenge is likewise different from an as-applied c

Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which considers o

affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an examinatio

pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on the basis of its
to the parties, but also on the assumption or prediction that

may cause others not before the court to refrain from constit
protected speech or activities.

*A litigant cannot thus successfully mount a facial challenge

statute on either vagueness or overbreadth grounds.
*The allowance of a facial challenge in free speech cases is j

to avert the chilling effect on protected speech, the exercise

not at all times be abridged. As reflected earlier, this rationa
plain penal statutes that generally bear an in terrorem effec

socially harmful conduct. In fact, the legislature may even

acts formerly considered innocent and lawful, so long as it refrains fr

diminishing or dissuading the exercise of constitutionally pro

The Court reiterated that there are critical limitations by whi
may be challenged and underscored that an on-its-face invali

statutes may not be allowed.

*
The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only statutes on free speec
freedom, and other fundamental rights may be facially chall

may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challeng

obvious. If a facial challenge to a penal statute is permitted,

crimes may be hampered. No prosecution would be possible. A

against employing a facial challenge in the case of penal stat
allowed, would effectively go against the grain of the doctri

existing and concrete controversy before judicial power may

exercised. A facial challenge against a penal statute is, at
speculative. It would, essentially, force the court to consider
are not before it. As I have said in my opposition to the allow

challenge to attack penal statutes, such a test will impair the

deal with crime. If warranted, there would be nothing that c
accused from defeating the States power to prosecute on a

as applied to third parties, the penal statute is vague or ov

notwithstanding that the law is clear as applied to him.

* It is settled, on the other hand, that the application of th

is limited to a facial kind of challenge and, owing to the given
challenge, applicable only to free speech cases.

* By its nature, the overbreadth doctrine has to necessarily a

of invalidation in order to plot areas of protected speech, in
under situations not before the court, that are impermissibl

substantially overbroad regulation. Otherwise stated, a stat

analyzed for being substantially overbroad if the court confine

as applied to the litigants.