ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYANG.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001Facts: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 ofvagueness; 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. Thefocalpointof thecaseisthealleged vaguenessofthelaw inthe termsituses. Particularly, this terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this, thepetitioneruses the facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.Issue: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 lawseekstopenalizecannotbeplausiblyargued.Void-for-vaguenessdoctrineismanifestlymisplacedunderthepetitionersreliancesinceordinaryintelligencecanunderstandwhatconduct is prohibited by the statute. It canonly be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, wherein clarification by a saving clause or construction cannot be invoked. Said doctrine may not invoke in this case since the statute is clear and free from ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires areasonable degree ofcertainty for thestatute to be upheld, not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. Onthe otherhand,over breadth doctrinedecrees thatgovernmentalpurpose maynot beachievedbymeanswhichsweepunnecessarilybroadlyandtherebyinvadetheareaofprotected freedoms. Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial challenge is allowed to be made to vague statute and 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 successfully since 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 ofa statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application mightbeunconstitutional.Onits faceinvalidation ofstatues results instriking themdown entirely on the ground that theymight be applied to parties notbefore the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected. It is evident that the purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law is more 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 merit.