C.

Republic Act No. 7080 defines the crime of plunder as the accumulation of
iIIgotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts in the
aggregate amount of 1'50,000,000.00 by a public official. The theft of such an
amount from the nation is unforgivably criminal, and no person who is
capable of such an act has a place in public office.
Void for Vagueness - declaration that a law is invalid because it is not
sufficiently clear.  Laws are usually found void for vagueness if, after setting
some requirement or punishment, the law does not specify what is required or
what conduct is punishable.  
FACTS:
Petitioner, Former President Joseph Estrada, the highest-ranking official to be
prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder), assailed the constitutionality of the said law based on the following
grounds: (1) the law suffers from vagueness; (2) it dispenses with the reasonable
doubt standard in criminal prosecutions; and (3) it abolishes the element of mens
rea or criminal intent in the crimes already punishable under the Revised Penal
Code. The foregoing, according to Estrada, violated his fundamental rights to due
process and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
ISSUE:
Is the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being vague?

Ruling: 
No. The plunder law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters
which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation.  Republic
Act 7080 also known as Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7569, provides for
comprehensive guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it what
conduct would render them liable to its penalties.
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensive standards
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as its meaning and differ
in application. However, the questioned law is not rendered uncertain and void
merely because general terms are used therein or because of the employment of
terms without defining them. The petitioner’s reliance on “void-for-vagueness”
doctrine is clearly misplaced. It can only be invoked against the specie of
legislation that is utterly vague on its face, that which cannot be clarified either by
a saving clause or by construction. Being one of the senators who voted for its
passage, petitioner must be aware that the law was extensively deliberated upon by
the senate and its appropriate committees by reason of which he even registered his
affirmative vote with full knowledge of its legal implications and due observance
to the constitution
-------------
Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide for the statutory
definition of the terms “combination” and “series” in the key phrase “a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts. These omissions, according to
the petitioner, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly
vague and overbroad and deny 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.
Combination — the result or product of combining; the act or process of
combining. To combine is to bring into such close relationship as to obscure
individual characters.

Series — a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another
in spatial and temporal succession.
i. What is meant by “Void-for-vagueness” Doctrine?
The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that "a statute which either forbids or
requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the
first essential of due process of law." 13 The overbreadth doctrine, on the other
hand, decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
e Doctrine that a penal; statute is unconstitutional if it does not reasonably a person
on notice as to what the person may not do, or what the person is required to do
ii. Legislators cannot provide all the details in the law to fit and apply in all
circumstances. When can a law be considered vague?
A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ
in its application.
It must be stressed, however, that the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires a
reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld
As a rule a statue maybe said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards
that “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ
as to its application” It is repugnant to the constitution in two aspects: (a) it violates
due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair
notice of the conduct to avoid and (b) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion
in carrying out its provisions and become an arbitrary flexing of the government
muscle.
-A statute is vague or overbroad, in violation of the due process clause, where
its language does not convey sufficiently definite warning to the average
person as to the prohibited conduct. A statute is unconstitutionally vague if
people of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.
iii. How should law, which is intrinsically limited, be applied and interpreted
so that their perceived vagueness is set aside?
Crimes must be defined in a statute with appropriate certainty and definiteness. 24
The standards of certainty in a statute prescribing punishment for offenses are
higher than in those depending primarily on civil sanctions for their enforcement.
25 A penal statute should therefore be clear and unambiguous. 26 It should
explicitly establish the elements of the crime which it creates 27 and provide some
reasonably ascertainable standards of guilt. 28 It should not admit of such a double
meaning that a citizen may act on one conception of its requirements and the courts
on another. 29