ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 156774. March 25, 2003]

CAWALING, JR. vs. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 25 2003.

G.R. No. 156774 (Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. v.The Solicitor General, Joseph "Erap" Ejercito Estrada, Jose "Jingoy" Ejercito Estrada.)

This is a petition for declaratory relief filed by Benjamin E. Cawaling Jr. to declare unconstitutional Rep. Act No. 7080, "An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder."

On 10 December 2002 RTC Judge Boargenes C. Candolea of Sorsogon City dismissed the petition motu proprio on the ground that since petitioner was not being indicted for plunder he was bereft of any personal and substantial interest in the case, hence, he has no legal standing to sue.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was denied as he failed to satisfy all the requisites for a petition for declaratory relief:(a) there must be an actual controversy; (b) petitioner must have a legal interest in the controversy affected by the statute; (c) controversy must be ripe for judicial determination; and, (d) petition must be filed before there is breach or violation.

The petitioner comes to us on a petition for review urging immediate adjudication of his petition to save on "tax money which are necessarily spent in administering the very ill-defined crime of 'plunder' through the continued implementation of a clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional Anti-Plunder Law."Petitioner advances several novel theories:

First, the requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are "irreconcilably inconsistent."Since the term "proper party" is synonymous with "aggrieved party," it would be preposterous for an aggrieved party against whom an indictment for plunder has been filed to institute a petition for declaratory relief "before a breach of the said statute had transpired;"

Second, the Anti-Plunder Law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it unreasonably distinguishes between "plunderers who amassed P50 million worth of ill-gotten wealth" and the ordinary grafters and corrupt offenders."There is no substantial difference between "ill-gotting (of) wealth with a total value of P50 million" and "ill-gotting (of) wealth with a lower value, of say, P49 million;"

Third, the term "P50 million total value of ill-gotten wealth" is inherently ambiguous because the term includes "non-cash items with no definite cash values like:shares of ownership equity in a business enterprise where the actual worth of publicly traded stocks fluctuates in the stock market x x x; fixed assets or real properties whose actual worth depend(s) on their current fair market values x x x; tangible assets; and intangible benefits with no cash value; and,

Lastly, the Anti-Plunder Law is "somewhat similar in application to an ex post facto law" because "it makes criminal an act which was not so at the time the action was performed."Owing to "inflationary economic trend," a public officer who "ill-got P50 to 82.95 million wealth in 2001 cannot be prosecuted for the crime of 'plunder' because inflation factors had lowered the economic worth of ill-gotten wealth to P30.14 to 49.99 million (which are totally below the class distinction limit of 50 million) at 1994 constant prices."

The petition must be denied. Primarily, the issue on the constitutionality of the Anti-Plunder Law has already been laid to rest by this court in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan. [1] Moreover, petitioner failed to satisfy all the prerequisites for a declaratory relief enumerated in the third paragraph hereof.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of proper showing that the court a quo committed a reversible error.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw G.R. No. 148560, 19 November 2001.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011