3
Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001) Ponente: Bellosillo, J. Former president Joseph Ejercito Estrada was charged with: Plunder (RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659) under sec. 2 in relation to Sec. 1 (d) (1) (2) violation of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt practices act) violation of RA 6713 (The code of conduct and ethical standards for public officials and employees) Perjury (Art. 183, RPC) Illegal Use of an Alias (CA No. 142, as amended by RA 6085) In his motion to quash the information against him, Estrada alleged that RA 7080 as amended by RA 7659 is unconstitutional for (a) vagueness, (b) dispensing with the “reasonable doubt” standard in criminal prosecutions, requiring less evidence for proving the predicate crimes of plunder, and (c) abolishing the element of mens rea as a crime already punishable under the RPC. He said that it thus deprives him of due process and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 1. Is RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 vague? Estrada: The law does not define “combination,” “series” and “pattern.” SC: A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms used therein are not defined. There is no constitutional or statutory command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. It is not vague as long as the legislative will is clear. The principle is to use the words of a statute in their natural, plain and ordinary signification. From the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: Combination –the result or product of combining. 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 an temporal succession From the legislative deliberations on the bill: Combination –at least 2 acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par (d) Series -2 or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d) Ha the legislature intended a techinical or distinctive meaning for “combination and “series,” it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law. According to the Sandiganbayan to which the Court agrees to: Pattern –consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsection (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). It is directd towards a common purpose or goal and there must be an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to achieve said common goal. If there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal. When is a statute vague? It is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. When a statute is vague, it is repugnant to the Constitution in 2 aspects: 1. It violates due process. 2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. Test for determining whether a criminal statue is void for uncertainty: Whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice Void for vagueness doctrine: A statue 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 element of due process of law. Overbreadth doctrine:

1 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 1 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

Joseph Ejercito Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)Ponente: Bellosillo, J.

Former president Joseph Ejercito Estrada was charged with: Plunder (RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659) under sec. 2 in

relation to Sec. 1 (d) (1) (2) violation of RA 3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt practices act) violation of RA 6713 (The code of conduct and ethical standards

for public officials and employees) Perjury (Art. 183, RPC) Illegal Use of an Alias (CA No. 142, as amended by RA 6085)

In his motion to quash the information against him, Estrada alleged that RA 7080 as amended by RA 7659 is unconstitutional for (a) vagueness, (b) dispensing with the “reasonable doubt” standard in criminal prosecutions, requiring less evidence for proving the predicate crimes of plunder, and (c) abolishing the element of mens rea as a crime already punishable under the RPC. He said that it thus deprives him of due process and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

1. Is RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 vague?Estrada: The law does not define “combination,” “series” and “pattern.”SC: A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because general terms used therein are not defined. There is no constitutional or statutory command requiring the legislature to define each and every word in an enactment. It is not vague as long as the legislative will is clear.The principle is to use the words of a statute in their natural, plain and ordinary signification.

From the Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary:Combination –the result or product of combining. To bring into such close relationship as to obscure individual charactersSeries –a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial an temporal succession

From the legislative deliberations on the bill:Combination –at least 2 acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par (d)Series -2 or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d)

Ha the legislature intended a techinical or distinctive meaning for “combination and “series,” it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.

According to the Sandiganbayan to which the Court agrees to:Pattern –consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsection (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). It is directd towards a common purpose or goal and there must be an overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy to achieve said common goal. If there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.

When is a statute vague?It is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application.

When a statute is vague, it is repugnant to the Constitution in 2 aspects:1. It violates due process.2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.

Test for determining whether a criminal statue is void for uncertainty:Whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the

proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice

Void for vagueness doctrine:A statue 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 element of due process of law.

Overbreadth doctrine:A governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep

unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and t one which is verbroad because of possible “chilling effect’ upon unprotected speech.Rationale: The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes.

The rationale does not apply to penal statues. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. The strict scrutiny, overbreadth and vagueness doctrines have special application only to free speech cases. Vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated only as applied to a particular defendant.

2. Does the Plunder law dispense with reasonable doubt?No. The burden still remains with the prosecution to prove beyond reasonbale ground every element of the crime. What the prosecution needs to prove is the series or combination of acts which constitute a pattern and involving an amount of at least P50,000.

3. Is plunder malum in se?Yes. It requires the proof of criminal intent, to be proven by the prosecution. The application of mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the RPC to the Anti-Plunder Law indicates that mens rea is an element of plunder. The declaration in RA 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se.

Fallo: RA 7080, as amended by RA 7659 is CONSTITUTIONAL. Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Mendoza, J. concurs: (in addition to those discussed in the majority opinion)

The case against Estrada is under sec. 2, in relation to sec. 1 (d) (1) (2) but what he wants is an “on its face” attack on the whole law. However, the other provisions in the Anti-Plunder law are irrelevant to the case.

Estrada: The statute should be subjected to strict scrutiny.“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution...” -US v. Carolene Products Co.

The American Court did not say that such legislation is not to be presumed, much less that it is presumptively invalid, but only that a “narrower scope” will be given for the presumption of constitutionality in respect of such statutes. What the footnote in Carolene Products posits is a double standard of judicial review. Strict scrutiny is used in laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender or race, and facial challenges are allowed for this purpose.

Rule of strict construction –a rule of legal hermeneutics to determine the intent of the legislature

Strict scrutiny –a standard of judicial review for determining the quality and amount of governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. The focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest

Deferential review –laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental interest, without courts seriously inquiring into the substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative means by which the objectives could be achieved

Intermediate review –the substantiality of the governmental interest is seriously looked into and the availability of less restrictive alternatives considered

Criminal laws cannot survive the test of strict scrutiny if it is used on them.

Page 2: 1 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan

As applied to Estrada, the Anti-Plunder Law presents only problems of statutory construction, not vagueness or overbreadth.

The penalty for plunder is not grossly disproportionate to the penalties imposed for the predicate crimes. When special complex crimes are created out of existing crimes, the penalty for the new crime is heavier.

(same with the majority opinion on other points)