Facts:
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then President of the Philippines, faced criminal charges of Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 (RA 7080) as amended by RA 7659, among other charges of corruption. The Office of the Ombudsman filed separate Informations before the Sandiganbayan on April 4, 2001, enumerating various illegal acts that allowed Estrada to accumulate ill-gotten wealth amounting to over P4 Billion.
The Informations detailed acts ranging from receiving bribes from illegal gambling, misappropriation of public funds, forcing government institutions to invest in stocks, and maintaining an interest in a business enterprise while in office. The Plunder Law provided that public officials who amassed wealth illicitly of at least P50,000,000.00 would be liable for the crime and subject to life imprisonment or death.
Estrada raised critical issues against the Plunder Law, asserting it to be constitutionally infirm on grounds of vagueness, the absence of standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for predicate crimes, and the alleged conversion of mala in se crimes into mala prohibita.
Issues: The legal issues raised in the decision of the Supreme Court focused on the constitutionality of the Plunder Law, specifically:
1. Whether RA 7080 is unconstitutional for being vague and thus violates an accused’s right to due process and to be informed of the accusation against them.
2. Whether RA 7080 violates due process by requiring less evidence to prove the predicate crimes that establish the act of plunder.
3. Whether plunder, as defined in RA 7080, is a malum prohibitum and, if so, if Congress has the power to classify it as such.
Court’s Decision:
The Philippine Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Plunder Law, resolving each issue systematically:
1. The Law is not vague: The Supreme Court maintained that RA 7080 is not unconstitutionally vague. A statute is not facially invalid if men of common intelligence can comprehend its meaning. Since RA 7080 clearly defines “plunder” through ascertainable standards, men of common intelligence need not guess its meaning.
2. Standard of Proof: The Court concluded that proving a “pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy” is not a bypassing of the “reasonable doubt” standard. Instead, the prosecution remains obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting plunder.
3. Mala in se versus Mala Prohibitum: The Court found that the classification of plunder as a heinous offense within RA 7659 implies that it is a malum in se crime. Congress indeed has the prerogative to redefine and penalize acts as mala prohibita, but this does not offend due process since the definition of plunder in RA 7080 requires criminal intent.
Doctrine:
The decision reiterated the doctrine that all laws are presumed constitutional, and any challenge must establish clear infringement of constitutional rights. Additionally, technical precision is not required in penal statutes’ language as long as a person of ordinary intelligence can understand the prohibited conduct—the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are inapplicable to penal laws.
Historical Background:
The prosecution of Estrada came after his presidency was marred by allegations of corruption, eventually leading to his ousting by the EDSA II Revolution in January 2001. His prosecution represented significant accountability measures on high-ranking officials and tested the legal boundaries of penal laws such as the Plunder Law, which was crucial in the State’s anti-corruption initiatives. The decision provided legal clarity on the definition and elements of plunder and set a precedent for subsequent cases involving corruption and accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by public officials.
Leave a Reply