The next issue of
Kilosbayan, the enlightening and cerebral publi-cation issued by the activist/nationalist group of former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga, carries an interesting article on the Anti-Plunder Law, written by Senator Salonga himself. It capsulizes the Supreme Court decision, which runs to over 100 pages, into a real "brief", a few pages long, without missing out any of the substantive issues and facts taken up in the High Tribunal’s ruling. To those who may not have the time or leisure to read the Supreme Court decision in its entirety, Senator Salonga’s
Kilosbayan article can be very instructive.
There is reason why Senator Salonga went out of his way to summarize the Supreme Court decision on the Anti-Plunder Law. Obviously, he would like this generation and future generations of Filipinos to know what the law is all about, so that they could be guided accordingly. Moreover, Senator Salonga himself authored the anti-plunder bill and steered it through both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Because of the limited space of this column, I cannot take up the merits of the Supreme Court ruling, as summarized by the Salonga brief. Let me just, therefore, take up other interesting facets, like how the Anti-Plunder Law came into being, or what has happened since then, or how the Supreme Court tackled the challenge to its constitutionality. Senator Salonga filed the Senate bill in August 1988, and it was eventually endorsed to the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, chaired by Senator Wigberto Tañada. At that time, then Senator Joseph Estrada was a political ally of Senator Salonga.
During the Senate deliberations on the anti-plunder bill in June 1989, Senator Tanada was interpellated by Senators Ernesto Maceda, Neptali Gonzales, Teofisto Guingona, Alberto Romulo, and Vicente Paterno. Amendments were introduced, and the bill was approved on second reading on the same day by the senators present, which included Erap. On July 25, 1989, all the senators present, including Erap again, approved the bill on third reading.
In the meantime, the House of Representatives passed a slightly different version of the anti-plunder bill. The original House bill was filed by Rep. Lorna Verano Yap and eventually sponsored, at Senator Salonga’s request, by Rep. Pablo Garcia, then chairman of the House Committee on Justice. There was then a Senate-House conference that reconciled the differing versions of the two bills. For the record, the conferees from the Senate were Tañada, Rene Saguisag, Neptali Gonzales, Juan Ponce Enrile and Jose Lina.
As Senator Salonga recounted it, the Conference Committee Report was approved on May 27, 1991, by all the senators present, including Erap. Presented to President Corazon Aquino on June 13, 1991, it was signed into law on July 12, 1991 and became known as Republic Act 7080, or the Anti-Plunder Law. At that time, no one knew that Senator Estrada would become the first sitting president to be formally charged of violating the Anti-Plunder Law.
When the lawyers of former President Estrada questioned the constitutionality of the Anti-Plunder Law, the oral arguments for the petitioners were presented by Atty. Pacifico Agabin, former UP law dean. On the other hand, those who argued for the respondents were Solicitor General Simeon Marcelo and Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. For the record, the date of the oral arguments was September 18, 2001.
The Supreme Court decision was penned by Justice Josue N. Bellosillo. The other nine justices who concurred were Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jose Melo, Reynato Puno, Vicente Mendoza, Jose Vitug, Artemio Panganiban, Leonardo Quisumbing, Arturo Buena, and Sabino de Leon. Two of them — Justices Mendoza and Panganiban — issued separate concurring opinions.
Four justices —- Santiago Kapunan, Bernardo Pardo, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, and Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez – dissented. The last three were appointees of former President Estrada. But each one of the four dissenters issued a separate opinion. Justice Antonio Carpio abstained, on the ground that he was one of the complainants against Erap before the Ombudsman. Had the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, Justice Kapunan would have penned the decision for the court.
Senator Salonga has an interesting observation on the Bellosillo decision: Its repeated reference to Justice Mendoza’s concurring opinion. "This deferential attitude is understandable. Justice Mendoza, who had been teaching Constitutional Law in the UP before his elevation to the Supreme Court, studied the case in depth and wrote a scholarly opinion that reads like a lecture on Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Remedial Law, and Statutory Construction. Parts of this opinion will probably be cited in law review articles and quoted by lawyers, law professors, law students and textbook writers in discussing the various aspects of this first plunder case against a former president," Senator Salonga said.
Senator Salonga also comments on Justice Panganiban’s concurring opinion. "The separate concurring opinion of Justice Panganiban -— actually a point-by-point answer to the dissenters, led by Justice Kapunan —- is notable for its conciseness, unmistakable clarity, and incisive analysis . . . Simple statutory construction, not a declaration of unconstitutionality, is the key to the alleged vague words of the Anti-Plunder Law. And the most basic rule in statutory construction is to ascertain the meaning of a term from the legislative proceedings," stated Senator Salonga.
Thoughts For Today:
Wishing you God’s perfect touch today:
to touch your life with joy,
bless your heart with love,
and comfort your soul with peace.
Shine on! God is with you. God will never leave you empty.
He will replace everything you lose.
If He asks you to put something down,
it’s because He wants you
to pick up something greater. My e-mail addresses
jaywalker@pacific.net.ph and
artborjal@yahoo.com