NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
SC Dismisses Estrada's PDAF Petitions; Clarifies Graft Against Plunder
Photo credit: Senate PH
The Supreme Court En Banc has dismissed several petitions filed by Senator Jinggoy Estrada related to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) cases. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.
The Court ruled the petitions moot and academic after noting the Sandiganbayan’s January 19, 2024 decision acquitting Estrada of plunder charges. This applies to his Petitions for Certiorari in G.R. No. 236238, G.R. No. 249919, and G.R. No. 254892
At the same time, the Court rejected Estrada’s argument that his graft charges—under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)—should be “absorbed” by his plunder charges under RA 7080. These petitions, G.R. Nos. 228374-84, were likewise dismissed.
Background on Charges
The Ombudsman had earlier found probable cause to indict Estrada, Janet Lim Napoles, and other officials for:
• Plunder: Alleged ill-gotten wealth of at least PHP 183.8 million from Napoles-linked PDAF kickbacks.
• Graft: Eleven counts involving approximately PHP 255.1 million channeled through foundations from Estrada’s PDAF allocations.
Court Clarification
The Supreme Court clarified:
• Graft under RA 3019 involves giving an unwarranted advantage to a private individual.
• Plunder under RA 7080 involves a public officer personally benefiting from illicit acts.
Absorption principle: “The absorption principle…does not apply between graft and plunder, except in rare cases where the same public officer is both the giver and recipient of the unwarranted benefit.”
Key Takeaway
The ruling confirms that graft and plunder are distinct offenses. Violations of RA 3019 may be prosecuted separately from plunder, ensuring accountability for each wrongdoing.
The Court ruled the petitions moot and academic after noting the Sandiganbayan’s January 19, 2024 decision acquitting Estrada of plunder charges. This applies to his Petitions for Certiorari in G.R. No. 236238, G.R. No. 249919, and G.R. No. 254892
At the same time, the Court rejected Estrada’s argument that his graft charges—under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)—should be “absorbed” by his plunder charges under RA 7080. These petitions, G.R. Nos. 228374-84, were likewise dismissed.
Background on Charges
The Ombudsman had earlier found probable cause to indict Estrada, Janet Lim Napoles, and other officials for:
• Plunder: Alleged ill-gotten wealth of at least PHP 183.8 million from Napoles-linked PDAF kickbacks.
• Graft: Eleven counts involving approximately PHP 255.1 million channeled through foundations from Estrada’s PDAF allocations.
Court Clarification
The Supreme Court clarified:
• Graft under RA 3019 involves giving an unwarranted advantage to a private individual.
• Plunder under RA 7080 involves a public officer personally benefiting from illicit acts.
Absorption principle: “The absorption principle…does not apply between graft and plunder, except in rare cases where the same public officer is both the giver and recipient of the unwarranted benefit.”
Key Takeaway
The ruling confirms that graft and plunder are distinct offenses. Violations of RA 3019 may be prosecuted separately from plunder, ensuring accountability for each wrongdoing.
Oct 29, 2025
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
