ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYANG.R. No.

148560, November 19, 2001

Facts:
Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder,wishes to impress upon the Court that the assailed law is so defectively
fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid from
the constitutionally infirm. His contentions are mainly based on the effects of
the said law that it suffers from the vice of vagueness; it dispenses with the
"reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and it abolishes the element of mens
rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code saying that it violates the
fundamental rights of the accused. Th e fo cal po i n t o f th e ca se is th e a ll e g ed
va g ue n e ss o f th e l a w in th e te rm s i t u se s. Particularly, this terms are:
combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this, the petitioner uses the facial
challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.I
ssue:

Whether or not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to attack the validity of the law
using the facial challenge.
Ruling:
On how the law uses the terms combination and series does not constitute
vagueness. The petitioners contention that it would not give a fair warning and
sufficient notice of what the law

seeks to penalize cannot be plausibly argued. Void-for

vagueness doctrine is manifestly
misplaced under the petitioners reliance since ordinary intelligence can undert
and whatconduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie
of legislation thatis utterly vague on its face, wherein clarification by a saving clause or
construction cannot beinvoked. Said doctrine may not invoked in this case since
the statute is clear and free from ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires
a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld, not absolute precision or
mathematical exactitude.On the other hand, over breadth doctrine decrees
that governmental purpose may not
bea ch i e ve d b y m ea n s wh i ch swe e p u n ne ce ssa ri l y b ro a dl y an d th e re b y in
va d e th e a re a o f protected freedoms.Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial
challenge is allowed to be made to vague statuteand to one which is overbroad
because of possible chilling effect upon protected speech.Furthermore, in the
area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech. A
facial challenge to legislative acts is the most difficult challenge to mount successfullysince the
challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists.Doctrines mentioned are
analytical tools developed for facial challenge of a statute in free speech cases.
With respect to such statue, the established rule is that one to who application of a statute is
constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly itmight
also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its
applicationmight be unconstitutional. On its face invalidation of statues results
in striking them downentirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties

not before the Court whose activitiesare constitutionally protected. It is evident that the
purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law ismore imagined than real.The crime of plunder
as a malum in se is deemed to have been resolve in the Congress decision to
include it among the heinous crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.Supreme Court
holds the plunder law constitutional and petition is dismissed for lacking meri