1. The petitioner claimed that the Plunder Law was unconstitutional for being vague due to its use of terms like "combination" and "series". However, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was not vague as it provided an intelligible guide to prohibited conduct.
2. The petitioner also argued that the Plunder Law violated due process by requiring less evidence for the predicate crimes. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the reasonable doubt standard still applied and the prosecution must prove every element of the crime charged.
3. Finally, the petitioner claimed the law eliminated the requirement of criminal intent (mens rea). The Supreme Court found this was not the case, as the amended information alleged the acts were done willfully,
1. The petitioner claimed that the Plunder Law was unconstitutional for being vague due to its use of terms like "combination" and "series". However, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was…