Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Case Digest - Romualdez VS Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Rae Cerdeño
    The Sandiganbayan filed criminal charges against Alfredo Romualdez for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act by intervening in a contract between two government corporations as the brother-in-law of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Romualdez filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the term "intervene" in Section 5 of the Act is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the ordinary meaning of "intervene" provides sufficient clarity and that vagueness does not render a penal law invalid. The Court dismissed Romualdez's petition and affirmed the criminal case against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Romualdez VS Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Rae Cerdeño
    1K views1 page
    The Sandiganbayan filed criminal charges against Alfredo Romualdez for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act by intervening in a contract between two government corporations as the brother-in-law of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Romualdez filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the term "intervene" in Section 5 of the Act is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the ordinary meaning of "intervene" provides sufficient clarity and that vagueness does not render a penal law invalid. The Court dismissed Romualdez's petition and affirmed the criminal case against him.

    Original Title

    CASE DIGEST_ ROMUALDEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Sandiganbayan filed criminal charges against Alfredo Romualdez for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act by intervening in a contract between two government corporations as the brother-in-law of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Romualdez filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the term "intervene" in Section 5 of the Act is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the ordinary meaning of "intervene" provides sufficient clarity and that vagueness does not render a penal law invalid. The Court dismissed Romualdez's petition and affirmed the criminal case against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Case Digest - Romualdez VS Sandiganbayan

    Uploaded by

    Rae Cerdeño
    The Sandiganbayan filed criminal charges against Alfredo Romualdez for allegedly violating the Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act by intervening in a contract between two government corporations as the brother-in-law of former President Ferdinand Marcos. Romualdez filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the term "intervene" in Section 5 of the Act is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the ordinary meaning of "intervene" provides sufficient clarity and that vagueness does not render a penal law invalid. The Court dismissed Romualdez's petition and affirmed the criminal case against him.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ROMUALDEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN

    GR. NO. 152259


    July 29, 2004

    FACTS
    Sandiganbayan filed a criminal case against Alfredo T. Romuladez. Romualdez files a
    Motion to Dismiss.

    On or about and during the period of July 16, 1975 to July 29, 1975, Alfredo T.
    Romualdez, brother-in-law of Ferdinand Marcos (related by affinity within the third
    civil degree), with bad faith intervene in a contract between the National Shipyard
    and Steel Corporation (NASSCO), a government-owned and controlled corporation
    and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company (BASECO), a private corporation,
    the majority stocks of which is owned by former President Marcos, whereby NASSCO
    was sold, transferred and conveyed to the BASECO its ownership and all its titles and
    interests over all equipment and facilities, located at the Engineer Island Shops
    including some of its equipment and machineries from Jose Panganiban, Camarines
    Norte needed by BASECO in its shipbuilding and ship repair program for the amount
    of P5,000,000. The act is said to be a violation of RA 3019, Sec 5 (Anti Graft and
    Corruption Practices Act, Prohibition on Certain Relatives).

    Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any
    relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of
    the Philippines, xxx, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction,
    contract or application with the Government: xxx.

    ISSUE (Statutory Construction, Presumption of Constitutionality)


    Whether or not Sec 5 of RA 3019 is unconstitutional because its vagueness (on the
    term intervene) violates the due process right of an individual to be informed of the
    nature and the cause of the accusation against him.

    DECISION
    The Court has not declared any penal law unconstitutional on the ground of
    ambiguity.

    Romualdez claim that the term “intervene” is vague,, but the Court says it can be
    easily understood through simple statutory construction. The absence of a statutory
    definition of a term used in a statute will not render the law void for vagueness, if the
    meaning can be determined through the judicial function of construction. Elementary
    is the principle that words should be construed in their ordinary and usual meaning.
    The term “intervene” should therefore be understood in its ordinary acceptation,
    which is “to come between.” Criminally liable is anyone covered in the enumeration
    of Sec 5 of RA 3019.

    In sum, the Court holds that the challenged provision is not vague, and that in any
    event, the void for vagueness doctrine is not applicable to the case. The Petition is
    dismissed and the questioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are affirmed.

    You might also like