[G.R. No. 148560.

November 19, 2001] formulation of fundamental rights and duties more attuned to the
imperatives of contemporary socio-political ideologies. In the process,
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, the web of rights and State impositions became tangled and obscured,
vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and enmeshed in threads of multiple shades and colors, the skein irregular
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. and broken. Antagonism, often outright collision, between the law as
the expression of the will of the State, and the zealous attempts by its
members to preserve their individuality and dignity, inevitably
DECISION followed. It is when individual rights are pitted against State authority
that judicial conscience is put to its severest test.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be
JOHN STUART MILL, in his essay On Liberty, unleashes the full prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime
fury of his pen in defense of the rights of the individual from the vast of Plunder),[1] as amended by RA 7659,[2] wishes to impress upon us that
powers of the State and the inroads of societal pressure. But even as he the assailed law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but
draws a sacrosanct line demarcating the limits on individuality beyond distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionally infirm. He
which the State cannot tread - asserting that "individual spontaneity" therefore makes a stringent call for this Court to subject the Plunder
must be allowed to flourish with very little regard to social interference Law to the crucible of constitutionality mainly because, according to
- he veritably acknowledges that the exercise of rights and liberties is him, (a) it suffers from the vice of vagueness; (b) it dispenses with the
imbued with a civic obligation, which society is justified in enforcing at "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and, (c) it
all cost, against those who would endeavor to withhold abolishes the element ofmens rea in crimes already punishable
fulfillment. Thus he says - under The Revised Penal Code, all of which are purportedly clear
violations of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and to
The sole end for which mankind is warranted, individually or be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of
Specifically, the provisions of the Plunder Law claimed by
their number, is self-protection. The only purpose for which petitioner to have transgressed constitutional boundaries are Secs. 1,
power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a par. (d), 2 and 4 which are reproduced hereunder:
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others. Section 1. x x x x (d) "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset,
property, business, enterprise or material possession of any
Parallel to individual liberty is the natural and illimitable right of
person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired
the State to self-preservation. With the end of maintaining the integrity
and cohesiveness of the body politic, it behooves the State to formulate by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees,
a system of laws that would compel obeisance to its collective wisdom agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any
and inflict punishment for non-observance. combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes:
The movement from Mill's individual liberalism to unsystematic
collectivism wrought changes in the social order, carrying with it a new
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through
malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described
in Section 1 (d) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value
(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, of at least fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of
share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion
benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said
government contract or project or by reason of the office or public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to
position of the public office concerned; the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such
offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating
assets belonging to the National Government or any of its circumstances as provided by the Revised Penal Code shall be
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, or government considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets
including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the
(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State
any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or (underscoring supplied).
participation including the promise of future employment in any
business enterprise or undertaking; Section 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the
crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the
monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
special interests; or reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative
of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy (underscoring
(6) By taking advantage of official position, authority, supplied).
relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself
or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice On 4 April 2001 the Office of the Ombudsman filed before the
of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. Sandiganbayan eight (8) separate Informations, docketed as: (a) Crim.
Case No. 26558, for violation of RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659; (b)
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. - Any Crim. Cases Nos. 26559 to 26562, inclusive, for violation of Secs. 3,
public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of par. (a), 3, par. (a), 3, par. (e) and 3, par. (e), of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business and Corrupt Practices Act), respectively; (c) Crim. Case No. 26563,
associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, for violation of Sec. 7, par. (d), of RA 6713 (The Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees); (d) Crim. Case crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rights of the accused to due
No. 26564, for Perjury (Art. 183 of The Revised Penal Code); and, (e) process; and, (c) Whether Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum
Crim. Case No. 26565, for Illegal Use Of An Alias (CA No. 142, as prohibitum, and if so, whether it is within the power of Congress to so
amended by RA 6085). classify it.
On 11 April 2001 petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for the Preliminarily, the whole gamut of legal concepts pertaining to the
remand of the case to the Ombudsman for preliminary investigation validity of legislation is predicated on the basic principle that a
with respect to specification "d" of the charges in the Information in legislative measure is presumed to be in harmony with the
Crim. Case No. 26558; and, for reconsideration/reinvestigation of the Constitution.[3] Courts invariably train their sights on this fundamental
offenses under specifications "a," "b," and "c" to give the accused an rule whenever a legislative act is under a constitutional attack, for it is
opportunity to file counter-affidavits and other documents necessary to the postulate of constitutional adjudication. This strong predilection for
prove lack of probable cause. Noticeably, the grounds raised were only constitutionality takes its bearings on the idea that it is forbidden for one
lack of preliminary investigation, reconsideration/reinvestigation of branch of the government to encroach upon the duties and powers of
offenses, and opportunity to prove lack of probable cause. The another. Thus it has been said that the presumption is based on the
purported ambiguity of the charges and the vagueness of the law under deference the judicial branch accords to its coordinate branch - the
which they are charged were never raised in that Omnibus Motion thus legislature.
indicating the explicitness and comprehensibility of the Plunder Law.
If there is any reasonable basis upon which the legislation may
On 25 April 2001 the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, issued a firmly rest, the courts must assume that the legislature is ever conscious
Resolution in Crim. Case No. 26558 finding that "a probable cause for of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and has passed the law
the offense of PLUNDER exists to justify the issuance of warrants for with full knowledge of the facts and for the purpose of promoting what
the arrest of the accused." On 25 June 2001 petitioner's motion for is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence in
reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan. determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the
fundamental law, courts should proceed with judicial restraint and act
On 14 June 2001 petitioner moved to quash the Information in
with caution and forbearance. Every intendment of the law must be
Crim. Case No. 26558 on the ground that the facts alleged therein did
adjudged by the courts in favor of its constitutionality, invalidity being a
not constitute an indictable offense since the law on which it was based
measure of last resort. In construing therefore the provisions of a
was unconstitutional for vagueness, and that the Amended Information
statute, courts must first ascertain whether an interpretation is fairly
for Plunder charged more than one (1) offense. On 21 June 2001 the
possible to sidestep the question of constitutionality.
Government filed its Opposition to the Motion to Quash, and five (5)
days later or on 26 June 2001 petitioner submitted his Reply to the In La Union Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Yaranon[4] we held that as
Opposition. On 9 July 2001 the Sandiganbayan denied long as there is some basis for the decision of the court, the
petitioner's Motion to Quash. constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched and the case
will be decided on other available grounds. Yet the force of the
As concisely delineated by this Court during the oral arguments on
presumption is not sufficient to catapult a fundamentally deficient law
18 September 2001, the issues for resolution in the instant petition for
into the safe environs of constitutionality. Of course, where the law
certiorari are: (a) The Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague;
clearly and palpably transgresses the hallowed domain of the organic
(b) The Plunder Law requires less evidence for proving the predicate
law, it must be struck down on sight lest the positive commands of the belonging to the National Government or any of its
fundamental law be unduly eroded. subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government
Verily, the onerous task of rebutting the presumption weighs owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by
heavily on the party challenging the validity of the statute. He must obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any
demonstrate beyond any tinge of doubt that there is indeed an shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
infringement of the constitution, for absent such a showing, there participation including the promise of future employment in any
can be no finding of unconstitutionality. A doubt, even if well- business enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing
founded, will hardly suffice. As tersely put by Justice Malcolm, "To
agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other
doubt is to sustain."[5] And petitioner has miserably failed in the instant
case to discharge his burden and overcome the presumption of combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders
constitutionality of the Plunder Law. intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (f)
by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship,
As it is written, the Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards
connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves
and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to
determine the nature of his violation. Section 2 is at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino
sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, conduct and people and the Republic of the Philippines; and,
conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the
crime with reasonable certainty and particularity. Thus - 3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten
wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in least P50,000,000.00.
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that
persons; would inform those who are subject to it what conduct would render
them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. It must
sufficiently guide the judge in its application; the counsel, in defending
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth one charged with its violation; and more importantly, the accused, in
through a combination or series of the following overt or identifying the realm of the proscribed conduct. Indeed, it can be
criminal acts: (a) through misappropriation, understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute punishes is
conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids the act of a public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth
on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, of at least P50,000,000.00 through a series or combination of acts
any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other enumerated in Sec. 1, par. (d), of the Plunder Law.
form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in In fact, the amended Information itself closely tracks the language
connection with any government contract or project or by of the law, indicating with reasonable certainty the various elements of
reason of the office or position of the public officer; (c) by the the offense which petitioner is alleged to have committed:
illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets
"The undersigned Ombudsman, Prosecutor and OIC-Director, DAMAGE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE
EPIB, Office of the Ombudsman, hereby accuses REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, through ANY OR
former PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE A combination OR A series of overt OR criminal acts, OR
PHILIPPINES, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, a.k.a. 'ASIONG SIMILAR SCHEMES OR MEANS, described as follows:
SALONGA' and a.k.a. 'JOSE VELARDE,' together with Jose
'Jinggoy' Estrada, Charlie 'Atong' Ang, Edward Serapio, (a) by receiving OR collecting, directly or indirectly,
Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. on SEVERAL INSTANCES, MONEY IN THE
Eleuterio Tan OR Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr. Uy, Jane Doe AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-
a.k.a. Delia Rajas, and John DOES & Jane Does, of the crime FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00), MORE OR
of Plunder, defined and penalized under R.A. No. 7080, as LESS, FROM ILLEGAL GAMBLING IN THE FORM OF
amended by Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 7659, committed as follows: GIFT, SHARE, PERCENTAGE, KICKBACK OR ANY
FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFIT, BY HIMSELF
That during the period from June, 1998 to January 2001, in the AND/OR in connection with co-accused CHARLIE 'ATONG'
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, ANG, Jose 'Jinggoy' Estrada, Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward
accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, THEN A PRESIDENT OF Serapio, AND JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, by consideration OF TOLERATION OR PROTECTION OF
himself AND/OR in CONNIVANCE/CONSPIRACY with his ILLEGAL GAMBLING;
co-accused, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY,
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY, (b) by DIVERTING, RECEIVING, misappropriating,
BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, SUBORDINATES AND/OR converting OR misusing DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
OTHER PERSONS, BY TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE for HIS OR THEIR PERSONAL gain and benefit, public
OF HIS OFFICIAL POSITION, AUTHORITY, funds in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION
RELATIONSHIP, CONNECTION, OR INFLUENCE, did PESOS (P130,000,000.00), more or less, representing a portion
then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, of the TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS
accumulate and acquire BY HIMSELF, (P200,000,000.00) tobacco excise tax share allocated for the
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ill-gotten wealth in the province of Ilocos Sur under R.A. No. 7171, by himself
aggregate amount or TOTAL VALUE of FOUR BILLION and/or in connivance with co-accused Charlie 'Atong' Ang,
NINETY SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FOUR Alma Alfaro, JOHN DOE a.k.a. Eleuterio Ramos Tan or Mr.
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS Uy, Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, AND OTHER JOHN DOES
AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS(P4,097,804,173.17), more & JANE DOES; (italic supplied).
or less, THEREBY UNJUSTLY ENRICHING HIMSELF
OR THEMSELVES AT THE EXPENSE AND TO THE (c) by directing, ordering and compelling, FOR HIS
PERSONAL GAIN AND BENEFIT, the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) TO PURCHASE 351,878,000 the amount of MORE OR LESS THREE BILLION TWO
SHARES OF STOCKS, MORE OR LESS, and the Social HUNDRED THIRTY THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED
Security System (SSS), 329,855,000 SHARES OF STOCK, FOUR THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE
MORE OR LESS, OF THE BELLE CORPORATION IN PESOS AND SEVENTEEN CENTAVOS
THE AMOUNT OF MORE OR LESS ONE BILLION ONE (P3,233,104,173.17) AND DEPOSITING THE SAME
HUNDRED TWO MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY UNDER HIS ACCOUNT NAME 'JOSE VELARDE' AT
FIVE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVEN PESOS AND THE EQUITABLE-PCI BANK."
FIFTY CENTAVOS (P1,102,965,607.50) AND MORE OR
LESS SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY FOUR MILLION SIX We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous - as
HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND AND FOUR there is obviously none - that will confuse petitioner in his
defense. Although subject to proof, these factual assertions clearly
HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P744,612,450.00),
show that the elements of the crime are easily understood and provide
RESPECTIVELY, OR A TOTAL OF MORE OR LESS adequate contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts. Upon
ONE BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN such unequivocal assertions, petitioner is completely informed of the
MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT accusations against him as to enable him to prepare for an intelligent
THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTY defense.
CENTAVOS (P1,847,578,057.50); AND BY Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the
COLLECTING OR RECEIVING, DIRECTLY OR statutory definition of the terms "combination" and "series" in the key
INDIRECTLY, BY HIMSELF AND/OR IN phrase "a combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in Sec.
CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in Sec.
COMMISSIONS OR PERCENTAGES BY REASON OF 4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render the Plunder Law
SAID PURCHASES OF SHARES OF STOCK IN THE unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny
AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION him the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, hence, violative of his fundamental right to due process.
SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P189,700,000.00)
MORE OR LESS, FROM THE BELLE CORPORATION The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A statute is
WHICH BECAME PART OF THE DEPOSIT IN THE not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms are used
EQUITABLE-PCI BANK UNDER THE ACCOUNT therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining
NAME 'JOSE VELARDE;' them;[6] much less do we have to define every word we use. Besides,
there is no positive constitutional or statutory command requiring the
legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. Congress is
(d) by unjustly enriching himself FROM COMMISSIONS, not restricted in the form of expression of its will, and its inability to so
GIFTS, SHARES, PERCENTAGES, KICKBACKS, OR define the words employed in a statute will not necessarily result in the
ANY FORM OF PECUNIARY BENEFITS, IN vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative will is clear,
CONNIVANCE WITH JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, in
or at least, can be gathered from the whole act, which is distinctly example, through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, will
expressed in the Plunder Law. these be included also?
Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of legal hermeneutics that
words of a statute will be interpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary REP. GARCIA: Yeah, because we say a series.
acceptation and signification,[7] unless it is evident that the legislature REP. ISIDRO: Series.
intended a technical or special legal meaning to those words.[8] The
REP. GARCIA: Yeah, we include series.
intention of the lawmakers - who are, ordinarily, untrained philologists
and lexicographers - to use statutory phraseology in such a manner is REP. ISIDRO: But we say we begin with a combination.
always presumed. Thus, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary contains
REP. GARCIA: Yes.
the following commonly accepted definition of the words
"combination" and "series:" REP. ISIDRO: When we say combination, it seems that -
REP. GARCIA: Two.
Combination - the result or product of combining; the act or
REP. ISIDRO: Not only two but we seem to mean that two of the
process of combining. To combine is to bring into such close enumerated means not twice of one enumeration.
relationship as to obscure individual characters.
REP. GARCIA: No, no, not twice.
Series - a number of things or events of the same class coming REP. ISIDRO: Not twice?
one after another in spatial and temporal succession. REP. GARCIA: Yes. Combination is not twice - but combination, two acts.

That Congress intended the words "combination" and "series" to REP. ISIDRO: So in other words, thats it. When we say combination, we
be understood in their popular meanings is pristinely evident from the mean, two different acts. It cannot be a repetition of the same act.
legislative deliberations on the bill which eventually became RA 7080 REP. GARCIA: That be referred to series, yeah.
or the Plunder Law:
REP. ISIDRO: No, no. Supposing one act is repeated, so there are two.
DELIBERATIONS OF THE BICAMERAL COMMITTEE REP. GARCIA: A series.
ON JUSTICE, 7 May 1991 REP. ISIDRO: Thats not series. Its a combination. Because when we say
combination or series, we seem to say that two or more, di ba?
REP. ISIDRO: I am just intrigued again by our definition of REP. GARCIA: Yes, this distinguishes it really from ordinary crimes. That
plunder. We say THROUGH A COMBINATION OR SERIES is why, I said, that is a very good suggestion because if it is only one
OF OVERT OR CRIMINAL ACTS AS MENTIONED IN act, it may fall under ordinary crime but we have here a combination
SECTION ONE HEREOF. Now when we say combination, we or series of overt or criminal acts. So x x x x
actually mean to say, if there are two or more means, we mean REP. GARCIA: Series. One after the other eh di....
to say that number one and two or number one and something SEN. TANADA: So that would fall under the term series?
else are included, how about a series of the same act? For
REP. GARCIA: Series, oo. SENATOR ROMULO: In other words, that is already covered by existing
laws, Mr. President.
REP. ISIDRO: Now, if it is a combination, ano, two misappropriations....
Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is
REP. GARCIA: Its not... Two misappropriations will not be combination.
Series. referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of
enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public
REP. ISIDRO: So, it is not a combination? treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of
REP. GARCIA: Yes. assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d),
subpar. (3).
REP. ISIDRO: When you say combination, two different?
On the other hand, to constitute a series" there must be two (2) or
REP. GARCIA: Yes. more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of
SEN. TANADA: Two different. enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation,
malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall
REP. ISIDRO: Two different acts.
under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a
REP. GARCIA: For example, ha... technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it
REP. ISIDRO: Now a series, meaning, repetition... would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the
law.
DELIBERATIONS ON SENATE BILL NO. 733, 6 June 1989
As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the
SENATOR MACEDA: In line with our interpellations that sometimes Sandiganbayan[9] that this term is sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in
one or maybe even two acts may already result in such relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 -
a big amount, on line 25, would the Sponsor consider deleting
the words a series of overt or, to read, therefore: or conspiracy
COMMITTED by criminal acts such as. Remove the idea of x x x x under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at
necessitating a series. Anyway, the criminal acts are in the plural. least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts
SENATOR TANADA: That would mean a combination of two or more of enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). Secondly,
the acts mentioned in this. pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal
THE PRESIDENT: Probably two or more would be....
acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to
enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
SENATOR MACEDA: Yes, because a series implies several or many; gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall
two or more.
unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common
SENATOR TANADA: Accepted, Mr. President x x x x goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful
THE PRESIDENT: If there is only one, then he has to be prosecuted under scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the
the particular crime. But when we say acts of plunder there should principal accused and public officer and others conniving with
be, at least, two or more. him follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the
alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the
schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or for the statute to be upheld - not absolute precision or mathematical
criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a exactitude, as petitioner seems to suggest. Flexibility, rather than
common goal. meticulous specificity, is permissible as long as the metes and bounds of
the statute are clearly delineated. An act will not be held invalid merely
Hence, it cannot plausibly be contended that the law does not give a because it might have been more explicit in its wordings or detailed in
fair warning and sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize. Under its provisions, especially where, because of the nature of the act, it
the circumstances, petitioner's reliance on the "void-for-vagueness" would be impossible to provide all the details in advance as in all other
doctrine is manifestly misplaced. The doctrine has been formulated in statutes.
various ways, but is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute Moreover, we agree with, hence we adopt, the observations of Mr.
establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient Justice Vicente V. Mendoza during the deliberations of the Court that
definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what the allegations that the Plunder Law is vague and overbroad do not
conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that justify a facial review of its validity -
specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which
cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that "a statute which
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first
repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects - it violates due process essential of due process of law."[13] The overbreadth doctrine, on
for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair the other hand, decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be
notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby
discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary invade the area of protected freedoms."[14]
flexing of the Government muscle.[10] But the doctrine does not apply as
against legislations that are merely couched in imprecise language but
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and
which nonetheless specify a standard though defectively phrased; or
to those that are apparently ambiguous yet fairly applicable to certain to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect"
types of activities. The first may be "saved" by proper construction, upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes
while no challenge may be mounted as against the second whenever regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent
directed against such activities.[11] With more reason, the doctrine cannot construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the
be invoked where the assailed statute is clear and free from ambiguity, statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all
as in this case. society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to
The test in determining whether a criminal statute is void for justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no
uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that
warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with
understanding and practice.[12] It must be stressed, however, that the narrow specificity."[15] The possible harm to society in
"vagueness" doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and
may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing "on their
of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in
American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made to
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal do service when what is involved is a criminal statute. With
statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very respect to such statute, the established rule is that "one to whom
existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to
alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be
against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which
the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. its application might be unconstitutional."[20] As has been
pointed out, "vagueness challenges in the First Amendment
The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial
application only to free speech cases. They are inapt for testing invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due
the validity of penal statutes. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it, process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a
in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, "we have not particular defendant."[21]Consequently, there is no basis for
recognized an 'overbreadth' doctrine outside the limited context petitioner's claim that this Court review the Anti-Plunder Law
of the First Amendment."[16] In Broadrick v. Oklahoma,[17] the on its face and in its entirety.
Court ruled that "claims of facial overbreadth have been
entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, Indeed, "on its face" invalidation of statutes results in striking
seek to regulate only spoken words" and, again, that them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to
"overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally
when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to protected.[22] It constitutes a departure from the case and
be applied to protected conduct." For this reason, it has been controversy requirement of the Constitution and permits
held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the most decisions to be made without concrete factual settings and in
difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger sterile abstract contexts.[23] But, as the U.S. Supreme Court
must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which pointed out in Younger v. Harris[24]
the Act would be valid."[18] As for the vagueness doctrine, it is
said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is [T]he task of analyzing a proposed statute, pinpointing its
vague in all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages deficiencies, and requiring correction of these deficiencies
in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of before the statute is put into effect, is rarely if ever an
the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others."[19] appropriate task for the judiciary. The combination of the
relative remoteness of the controversy, the impact on the
legislative process of the relief sought, and above all the petitioners Gallego and Agoncillo challenged the constitutionality of
speculative and amorphous nature of the required line-by-line Sec. 3, par. (e), of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for being
analysis of detailed statutes, . . . ordinarily results in a kind of vague. Petitioners posited, among others, that the term "unwarranted" is
highly imprecise and elastic with no common law meaning or settled
case that is wholly unsatisfactory for deciding constitutional
definition by prior judicial or administrative precedents; that, for its
questions, whichever way they might be decided. vagueness, Sec. 3, par. (e), violates due process in that it does not give
fair warning or sufficient notice of what it seeks to penalize. Petitioners
For these reasons, "on its face" invalidation of statutes has been further argued that the Information charged them with three (3) distinct
described as "manifestly strong medicine," to be offenses, to wit: (a) giving of "unwarranted" benefits through manifest
employed "sparingly and only as a last resort,"[25] and is partiality; (b) giving of "unwarranted" benefits through evident bad
generally disfavored.[26] In determining the constitutionality of a faith; and, (c) giving of "unwarranted" benefits through gross
statute, therefore, its provisions which are alleged to have been inexcusable negligence while in the discharge of their official function
violated in a case must be examined in the light of the conduct and that their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against them was violated because they were left to guess
with which the defendant is charged.[27]
which of the three (3) offenses, if not all, they were being charged and
prosecuted.
In light of the foregoing disquisition, it is evident that the purported
ambiguity of the Plunder Law, so tenaciously claimed and argued at In dismissing the petition, this Court held that Sec. 3, par. (e),
length by petitioner, is more imagined than real. Ambiguity, where of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act does not suffer from the
none exists, cannot be created by dissecting parts and words in the constitutional defect of vagueness. The phrases "manifest partiality,"
statute to furnish support to critics who cavil at the want of scientific "evident bad faith," and "gross and inexcusable negligence" merely
precision in the law. Every provision of the law should be construed in describe the different modes by which the offense penalized in Sec. 3,
relation and with reference to every other part. To be sure, it will take par. (e), of the statute may be committed, and the use of all these
more than nitpicking to overturn the well-entrenched presumption of phrases in the same Information does not mean that the indictment
constitutionality and validity of the Plunder Law. A fortiori, petitioner charges three (3) distinct offenses.
cannot feign ignorance of what the Plunder Law is all about. Being one
of the Senators who voted for its passage, petitioner must be aware that The word 'unwarranted' is not uncertain. It seems lacking
the law was extensively deliberated upon by the Senate and its adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized (Webster,
appropriate committees by reason of which he even registered his Third International Dictionary, p. 2514); or without justification
affirmative vote with full knowledge of its legal implications and sound
or adequate reason (Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. US Dept.
constitutional anchorage.
of Justice, C.D. Pa., 405 F. Supp. 8, 12, cited in Words and
The parallel case of Gallego v. Sandiganbayan[28] must be Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 43-A 1978, Cumulative
mentioned if only to illustrate and emphasize the point that courts are Annual Pocket Part, p. 19).
loathed to declare a statute void for uncertainty unless the law itself is
so imperfect and deficient in its details, and is susceptible of no
reasonable construction that will support and give it effect. In that case,
The assailed provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
Act consider a corrupt practice and make unlawful the act of the gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable
public officer in: doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the
overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
x x x or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, The running fault in this reasoning is obvious even to the simplistic
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, mind. In a criminal prosecution for plunder, as in all other
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, x x crimes, the accused always has in his favor the presumption of
innocence which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and unless the
x (Section 3 [e], Rep. Act 3019, as amended).
State succeeds in demonstrating by proof beyond reasonable doubt that
culpability lies, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.[29] The use of
It is not at all difficult to comprehend that what the aforequoted the "reasonable doubt" standard is indispensable to command the
penal provisions penalize is the act of a public officer, in the respect and confidence of the community in the application of criminal
discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions, in law. It is critical that the moral force of criminal law be not diluted by
giving any private party benefits, advantage or preference which a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men
is unjustified, unauthorized or without justification or adequate are being condemned. It is also important in our free society that every
reason, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross individual going about his ordinary affairs has confidence that his
inexcusable negligence. government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without
convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost
In other words, this Court found that there was nothing vague or certainty. This "reasonable doubt" standard has acquired such exalted
ambiguous in the use of the term "unwarranted" in Sec. 3, par. (e), stature in the realm of constitutional law as it gives life to the Due
of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which was understood in Process Clausewhich protects the accused against conviction except
its primary and general acceptation. Consequently, in that case, upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
petitioners' objection thereto was held inadequate to declare the section constitute the crime with which he is charged.[30] The following
unconstitutional. exchanges between Rep. Rodolfo Albano and Rep. Pablo Garcia on this
score during the deliberations in the floor of the House of
On the second issue, petitioner advances the highly stretched theory Representatives are elucidating -
that Sec. 4 of the Plunder Law circumvents the immutable obligation of
the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts DELIBERATIONS OF THE HOUSE OF
constituting the crime of plunder when it requires only proof of a pattern REPRESENTATIVES ON RA 7080, 9 October 1990
of overt or criminal acts showing unlawful scheme or conspiracy -
MR. ALBANO: Now, Mr. Speaker, it is also elementary in our criminal
SEC. 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the law that what is alleged in the information must be proven beyond
crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and reasonable doubt. If we will prove only one act and find him guilty of
every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the the other acts enumerated in the information, does that not work
against the right of the accused especially so if the amount committed,
 say, by falsification is less than P100 million, but the totality of the The thesis that Sec. 4 does away with proof of each and every
crime committed is P100 million since there is malversation, bribery, component of the crime suffers from a dismal misconception of the
falsification of public document, coercion, theft? import of that provision. What the prosecution needs to prove beyond
MR. GARCIA: Mr. Speaker, not everything alleged in the information reasonable doubt is only a number of acts sufficient to form a
needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. What is required to be combination or series which would constitute a pattern and involving an
proved beyond reasonable doubt is every element of the crime amount of at least P50,000,000.00. There is no need to prove each and
charged. For example, Mr. Speaker, there is an enumeration of the every other act alleged in the Information to have been committed by
things taken by the robber in the information three pairs of pants, the accused in furtherance of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy
pieces of jewelry. These need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. To illustrate,
but these will not prevent the conviction of a crime for which he was supposing that the accused is charged in an Information for plunder with
charged just because, say, instead of 3 pairs of diamond earrings the having committed fifty (50) raids on the public
prosecution proved two. Now, what is required to be proved beyond
treasury. The prosecution need not prove all these fifty (50) raids,
reasonable doubt is the element of the offense.
it being sufficient to prove by pattern at least two (2) of the raids beyond
MR. ALBANO: I am aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but considering that in reasonable doubt provided only that they amounted to at
the crime of plunder the totality of the amount is very important, I feel least P50,000,000.00.[31]
that such a series of overt criminal acts has to be taken singly. For
instance, in the act of bribery, he was able to accumulate A reading of Sec. 2 in conjunction with Sec. 4, brings us to the
only P50,000 and in the crime of extortion, he was only able to logical conclusion that "pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of
accumulate P1 million. Now, when we add the totality of the other the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy" inheres in the very acts of
acts as required under this bill through the interpretation on the rule accumulating, acquiring or amassing hidden wealth. Stated otherwise,
of evidence, it is just one single act, so how can we now convict him? such pattern arises where the prosecution is able to prove beyond
MR. GARCIA: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, for purposes of proving an reasonable doubt the predicate acts as defined in Sec. 1, par.
essential element of the crime, there is a need to prove that element (d). Pattern is merely a by-product of the proof of the predicate
beyond reasonable doubt. For example, one essential element of the acts. This conclusion is consistent with reason and common
crime is that the amount involved is P100 million. Now, in a series of sense. There would be no other explanation for a
defalcations and other acts of corruption in the enumeration the total combination or series of
amount would be P110 or P120 million, but there are certain acts that
could not be proved, so, we will sum up the amounts involved in those overt or criminal acts to stash P50,000,000.00 or more, than "a scheme
transactions which were proved. Now, if the amount involved in these or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill gotten wealth." The
transactions, proved beyond reasonable doubt, is P100 million, then prosecution is therefore not required to make a deliberate and conscious
there is a crime of plunder (underscoring supplied). effort to prove pattern as it necessarily follows with the establishment of
a series or combination of the predicate acts.
It is thus plain from the foregoing that the legislature did not in any
manner refashion the standard quantum of proof in the crime of Relative to petitioner's contentions on the purported defect of Sec. 4
plunder. The burden still remains with the prosecution to prove beyond is his submission that "pattern" is "a very important element of the
any iota of doubt every fact or element necessary to constitute the crime of plunder;" and that Sec. 4 is "two pronged, (as) it contains a
crime. rule of evidence and a substantive element of the crime," such that
without it the accused cannot be convicted of plunder -
 JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: In other words, cannot an accused be convicted SEC. 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of
under the Plunder Law without applying Section 4 on the Rule of establishing the crime of plunder x x x x
Evidence if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the commission
of the acts complained of? It purports to do no more than prescribe a rule of procedure for the
ATTY. AGABIN: In that case he can be convicted of individual crimes prosecution of a criminal case for plunder. Being a purely procedural
enumerated in the Revised Penal Code, but not plunder. measure, Sec. 4 does not define or establish any substantive right in
favor of the accused but only operates in furtherance of a remedy. It is
JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: In other words, if all the elements of the crime only a means to an end, an aid to substantive law. Indubitably, even
are proved beyond reasonable doubt without applying Section 4, can without invoking Sec. 4, a conviction for plunder may be had, for what
you not have a conviction under the Plunder Law?
is crucial for the prosecution is to present sufficient evidence to
ATTY. AGABIN: Not a conviction for plunder, your Honor. engender that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove
JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: Can you not disregard the application of Sec. 4
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, even granting
in convicting an accused charged for violation of the Plunder Law? for the sake of argument that Sec. 4 is flawed and vitiated for the
reasons advanced by petitioner, it may simply be severed from the rest
ATTY. AGABIN: Well, your Honor, in the first place Section 4 lays down a of the provisions without necessarily resulting in the demise of the law;
substantive element of the law x x x x after all, the existing rules on evidence can supplant Sec. 4 more than
JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: What I said is - do we have to avail of Section 4 enough. Besides, Sec. 7 of RA 7080 provides for a separability clause -
when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt on the acts charged
constituting plunder? Sec. 7. Separability of Provisions. - If any provisions of this
ATTY. AGABIN: Yes, your Honor, because Section 4 is two pronged, it Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance
contains a rule of evidence and it contains a substantive element of the is held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act and t
crime of plunder. So, there is no way by which we can avoid Section he application of such provisions to other persons or
4.
circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
JUSTICE BELLOSILLO: But there is proof beyond reasonable doubt
insofar as the predicate crimes charged are concerned that you do not Implicit in the foregoing section is that to avoid the whole act from
have to go that far by applying Section 4? being declared invalid as a result of the nullity of some of its provisions,
ATTY. AGABIN: Your Honor, our thinking is that Section 4 contains a assuming that to be the case although it is not really so, all the
very important element of the crime of plunder and that cannot be provisions thereof should accordingly be treated independently of each
avoided by the prosecution.[32] other, especially if by doing so, the objectives of the statute can best be
achieved.
We do not subscribe to petitioner's stand. Primarily, all the
essential elements of plunder can be culled and understood from its As regards the third issue, again we agree with Justice Mendoza
definition in Sec. 2, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and "pattern" is not that plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal
one of them. Moreover, the epigraph and opening clause of Sec. 4 is intent. Thus, he says, in his Concurring Opinion -
clear and unequivocal:
x x x Precisely because the constitutive crimes are mala in unlawful scheme or conspiracy. As far as the acts constituting
se the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for the pattern are concerned, however, the elements of the crime
plunder. It is noteworthy that the amended information alleges must be proved and the requisite mens rea must be shown.
that the crime of plunder was committed "willfully, unlawfully
and criminally." It thus alleges guilty knowledge on the part of Indeed, 2 provides that -
petitioner.
Any person who participated with the said public officer in the
In support of his contention that the statute eliminates the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder
requirement of mens rea and that is the reason he claims the shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition
statute is void, petitioner cites the following remarks of Senator of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of
Taada made during the deliberation on S.B. No. 733: mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the
Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court.
SENATOR TAADA . . . And the evidence that will be
required to convict him would not be evidence for each and The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in
every individual criminal act but only evidence sufficient to the Revised Penal Code to prosecutions under the Anti-Plunder
establish the conspiracy or scheme to commit this crime of Law indicates quite clearly that mens rea is an element of
plunder.[33] plunder since the degree of responsibility of the offender is
determined by his criminal intent. It is true that 2 refers
However, Senator Taada was discussing 4 as shown by the to "any person who participates with the said public officer in
succeeding portion of the transcript quoted by petitioner: the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of
plunder." There is no reason to believe, however, that it does
SENATOR ROMULO: And, Mr. President, the Gentleman not apply as well to the public officer as principal in the
feels that it is contained in Section 4, Rule of Evidence, which, crime. As Justice Holmes said: "We agree to all the
in the Gentleman's view, would provide for a speedier and faster generalities about not supplying criminal laws with what they
process of attending to this kind of cases? omit, but there is no canon against using common sense in
construing laws as saying what they obviously mean."[35]
SENATOR TAADA: Yes, Mr. President . . .[34]
Finally, any doubt as to whether the crime of plunder is
Senator Taada was only saying that where the charge is a malum in se must be deemed to have been resolved in the
conspiracy to commit plunder, the prosecution need not prove affirmative by the decision of Congress in 1993 to include it
each and every criminal act done to further the scheme or among the heinous crimes punishable byreclusion perpetua to
conspiracy, it being enough if it proves beyond reasonable death. Other heinous crimes are punished with death as a
doubt a pattern of overt or ciminal acts indicative of the overall
straight penalty in R.A. No. 7659. Referring to these groups of culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed and syndicated
heinous crimes, this Court held in People v. Echegaray:[36] criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of
society and the psyche of the populace. [With the government]
The evil of a crime may take various forms. There are crimes terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic
that are, by their very nature, despicable, either because life was services to its people, any form of misappropriation or
callously taken or the victim is treated like an animal and utterly misapplication of government funds translates to an actual
dehumanized as to completely disrupt the normal course of his threat to the very existence of government, and in turn, the very
or her growth as a human being . . . . Seen in this light, the survival of the people it governs over. Viewed in this context,
capital crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like
ransom resulting in the death of the victim or the victim is qualified bribery, destructive arson resulting in death, and drug
raped, tortured, or subjected to dehumanizing acts; destructive offenses involving government officials, employees or officers,
arson resulting in death; and drug offenses involving minors or that their perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further
resulting in the death of the victim in the case of other crimes; destruction and damage to society.
as well as murder, rape,
parricide, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a
detention, where the victim is detained for more than three days heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the
or serious physical injuries were inflicted on the victim or acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they
threats to kill him were made or the victim is a minor, robbery are mala in se[37] and it does not matter that such acts are
with homicide, rape or intentional mutilation, destructive arson, punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder
and carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would be
carnapped vehicle is killed or raped, which are penalized by absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere
reclusion perpetua to death, are clearly heinous by their very prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law (B.P.
nature. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard
to the inherent wrongness of the acts.
There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the
significance and implications of the subject criminal acts in the To clinch, petitioner likewise assails the validity of RA 7659, the
scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in amendatory law of RA 7080, on constitutional grounds. Suffice it to
which the state finds itself to be struggling to develop and say however that it is now too late in the day for him to
resurrect this long dead issue, the same having been eternally
provide for its poor and underprivileged masses. Reeling from
consigned by People v. Echegaray[38] to the archives of jurisprudential
decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the history. The declaration of this Court therein that RA 7659 is
government and impoverished the population, the Philippine constitutionally valid stands as a declaration of the State, and becomes,
Government must muster the political will to dismantle the
by necessary effect, assimilated in the Constitution now as an integral
part of it.
Our nation has been racked by scandals of corruption and obscene
profligacy of officials in high places which have shaken its very
foundation. The anatomy of graft and corruption has become more
elaborate in the corridors of time as unscrupulous people
relentlessly contrive more and more ingenious ways to bilk the coffers
of the government. Drastic and radical measures are imperative to fight
the increasingly sophisticated, extraordinarily methodical and
economically catastrophic looting of the national treasury. Such is
the Plunder Law, especially designed to disentangle those ghastly
tissues of grand-scale corruption which, if left unchecked, will spread
like a malignant tumor and ultimately consume the moral and
institutional fiber of our nation. The Plunder Law, indeed, is a living
testament to the will of the legislature to ultimately eradicate this
scourge and thus secure society against the avarice and other venalities
in public office.
These are times that try men's souls. In the checkered history of
this nation, few issues of national importance can equal the amount of
interest and passion generated by petitioner's ignominious fall from the
highest office, and his eventual prosecution and trial under a virginal
statute. This continuing
saga has driven a wedge of dissension among our people that may
linger for a long time. Only by responding to the clarion call for
patriotism, to rise above factionalism and prejudices, shall we emerge
triumphant in the midst of ferment.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court holds that RA 7080
otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is
CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently, the petition to declare the law
unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.