Miguel Ambrose A.

Frias
2022-0267
Statutory Construction
Friday, 7:30-9:30PM

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 148560
Date of the Decision: November 19, 2001

Facts:

Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the petitioner, former President of the Philippines, to be prosecuted
under RA 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) as amended by RA
7659 wished to impress that the assailed law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that
thin but distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionally infirm.

He made a call the Court to question the Plunder Law’s constitutionality on the grounds of:

a. It suffers from the vice of vagueness

b. It dispenses with the “reasonable doubt” standard in in criminal prosecutions
c. It abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.

All of which are clear violations of the fundamental rights of the accused, namely the right
due process and the right to be informed of the nature of the cause of the accusations
against him.

The petitioner claimed Sections 1, 2, and 4 of the Plunder Law have transgressed
constitutional boundaries.

Issue:

Whether or not the RA 7080 (Plunder Act) is unconstitutional due to its vagueness or
ambiguity.

Held:

The Supreme Court, through the Hon. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, holds that RA 7080, also
known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659 as CONSTITUTIONAL. Consequently,
the petition to declare the law unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court discerned that there is nothing vague or ambiguous that will confuse the
petitioner’s defense as he is completely informed of the accusations against him to enable
him to prepare an intelligent defense.
The Court further stated that a statue in not rendered uncertain and void merely because
general terms are used therein, or because of the employment of terms without defining
them.

There is not positive constitutional or statutory command requiring the legislature to define
each and every word in an enactment. The congress’ inability to define the words used in a
statute will not necessarily result in the vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the
legislative will is clear, which is distinctly expressed in the plunder law.