Ong v. Sandiganbayayn, G.R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005

DUE PROCESS: Void for Vagueness/Overbreadth
Ong v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005
FACTS
In 1992, Congressman Bonifacio H. Gillego executed a Complaint-Affidavit against then
BIR Commission Jose Ong for amassed properties worth disproportionately more than his
lawful income. Upon conduct of a pre-charge investigation, a recommendation from the
Ombudsman that the Forfeiture Proceedings be instituted against his properties which he
illegitimately acquired in just a span of 2 years as Commissioner. Ong filed a Counter-Affidavit,
submitting his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the years 1988-1990, ITR, bank certificate
of a loan from Allied Bank, certificate of retirement benefit from SGV, Acknowledgement of Trust
that he acquired an assets for his brother-in-law, and other documents explaining the sources of
funds with which he acquired the questioned assets.
In view of Ong’s arguments, the Ombudsman issued another Order, which results to
subpoena issued to Allied Bank, SGV and BIR pertaining to the production of the documents
that Ong claimed. It proved negative since they could not produce the same that would justify
Ong’s claim. Ong, is then directed to submit the same, but instead of complying, he filed a
Motion for its recall, the voluntary inhibition of the handling investigators, and reassignment of
the case. Ong objected to the proceedings taken thus far, claiming that he was not notified of
the subpoenas issued to 3rd parties to substantiate his claims and that the order violates his right
to due process and to be presumed innocent because it requires him to produce evidence to
exculpate himself.
The Resolution was then issued directing the filing by the Ombudsman, in collaboration
with the OSG, of a petition for recovery of ill-gotten under RA 1379 against Ong. A Petition for
forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property was accordingly filed before the Sandiganbayan
against Ong and his wife, Nelly. In its Order, the Sandiganbayan directed the issuance of a writ
of preliminary attachment against the properties of petitioners.
Spouses Ong filed an Answer denying the order and alleges that the Special Prosecutor
and the Ombudsman intentionally failed to consider the retirement and separation pay Ong
received from SGV and other lawful sources of funds used in the acquisition of the questioned
properties. They also content that Nelly was denied due process inasmuch as no separate
notices or subpoena were sent to her during the preliminary investigation conducted by the
Ombudsman. They aver that Nelly Ong is entitled to a preliminary investigation because a
forfeiture proceeding is criminal in nature.
ISSUE
Whether or not they were denied of due process as RA 1379 is unconstitutional as it is
vague and does not sufficiently define ill-gotten wealth and how it can be determined in violation
of the non-delegation of legislative power provision, and insofar as it disregards the presumption
of innocence by requiring them to show cause why the properties in question should not be
declared property of the state.
RULING
No. The court dismissed the case reiterating that in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, that the
powers of the Ombudsman, as defined by RA 6770 corollary to Section 13, Article XI of the
1987 Constitution, include, inter alia, the authority to: (1) investigate and prosecute on its own or
on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or
agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has
primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this
primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of
Government, the investigation of such cases; and (2) investigate and initiate the proper action
for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth and/or unexplained wealth amassed after February 25, 1986
and the prosecution of the parties involved there.
In the same case, the Court declared that the Ombudsman has the correlative powers to
investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth
which were amassed after February 25, 1986. There is therefore no merit in petitioners’
contention that the absence of participation of the OSG taints the petition for forfeiture with
nullity. Therefore, the attacks against the constitutionality of RA 1379 because it is vague,
violates the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination, and breaches the
authority and prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, are unmeritorious.
The law is not vague as it defines with sufficient particularity unlawfully acquired property
of a public officer or employee as that "which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such
public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately
acquired property." It also provides a definition of what is legitimately acquired property. Based
on these parameters, the public is given fair notice of what acts are proscribed. The law,
therefore, does not offend the basic concept of fairness and the due process clause of the
Constitution. Neither is the presumption of innocence clause violated by Sec. 2 of RA 1379
which states that property acquired by a public officer or employee during his incumbency in an
amount which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and
to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property shall be presumed
prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired. While that is the rule, many of the States have
established a different rule and have provided that certain facts only shall constitute prima facie
evidence, and that then the burden is put upon the defendant to show or to explain that such
facts or acts are not criminal. It has been frequently decided, in case of statutory crimes, that no
constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the State of some material
fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to
the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed
without unlawful intention.

Ong v. Sandiganbayayn, G.R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ong v. Sandiganbayayn, G.R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ong v. Sandiganbayayn, G.R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DUE PROCESS: Void for Vagueness/Overbreadth

Ong v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 126858, September 16, 2005

You might also like