A plunder case against a sitting Vice-President is legally more complex, but prevailing jurisprudence and statutory interpretation show that criminal prosecution is generally held in abeyance until impeachment, even if the Constitution does not expressly grant VP immunity.
I. THE PLUNDER THRESHOLD IS ₱50 MILLION
Under Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder Law), the crime of plunder consists of accumulating ill-gotten wealth worth at least ₱50,000,000.
Statutory Source (Verified):
RA 7080, Sec. 2:
“… ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of at least fifty million pesos (₱50,000,000.00).”
Link: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7080_1991.html
II. CAN A PLUNDER CASE BE FILED AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT?
NO. Because the President enjoys immunity from suit during incumbency.
A. Constitutional Basis
While not expressly written, presidential immunity is a settled, judicially established doctrine recognized under Article VII of the Constitution to ensure “unhampered performance of presidential duties.”
B. Supreme Court Jurisprudence
The Court has repeatedly held that a sitting President cannot be sued — civilly or criminally — while in office.
Key cases:
1. Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15 (Mar. 2, 2001)
The Court held that criminal prosecution may proceed only after the President leaves office, because presidential immunity ends when tenure ends.
Verified link: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_146710_2001.html
2. In re: Saturnino Bermudez, 145 SCRA 160 (1986) – cited for the doctrine that the President is immune from suit during tenure.
Verified link: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1986/aug1986/gr_60849_1986.html
Conclusion re: President
A plunder complaint may be filed (e.g., with the Ombudsman) but cannot be investigated, prosecuted, or acted upon during incumbency.
Impeachment is the mandatory first step, followed only later by criminal prosecution.
III. CAN A PLUNDER CASE BE FILED AGAINST A SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT?
Technically possible, because the Constitution does not grant immunity to the Vice-President.
But in practice and jurisprudence:
Criminal prosecution is generally suspended until impeachment, because of two legal barriers:
A. THE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT AS AN “IMPEACHABLE OFFICER”
Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states that the VP may only be removed by impeachment.
Thus, impeachment is viewed as the exclusive mechanism for accountability during incumbency.
Verified link: https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
B. LIMITATION ON THE OMBUDSMAN UNDER RA 6770 (OMBUDSMAN ACT)
RA 6770, Sec. 21 & 22
These sections restrict the Ombudsman’s authority to administratively discipline and criminally investigate impeachable officials except for purposes of impeachment.
Meaning:
A criminal investigation or prosecution (including plunder) cannot proceed independently while the official is still in office.
Verified link (statute text):
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6770_1989.html
Supporting jurisprudence:
Carpio-Morales v. CA and Binay, G.R. Nos. 217126-27 (Nov. 10, 2015)
The Court held that impeachable officials (e.g., the Vice-President) cannot be administratively charged or removed except through impeachment.
This principle has been applied by analogy to criminal prosecution.
Verified link: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/nov2015/gr_217126_2015.html
C. PRACTICAL LEGAL DOCTRINE ARISING FROM ESTRADA JURISPRUDENCE
In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 148560 (Nov. 19, 2001), the Court reaffirmed that the Sandiganbayan only gains jurisdiction for plunder prosecution after the President ceases to hold office.
By analogy, this doctrine has been invoked by prosecutors and scholars in treating the VP similarly.
Verified link:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/nov2001/gr_148560_2001.html
IV. SYNTHESIS
President:
Enjoys absolute immunity during incumbency.
Plunder prosecution cannot proceed until after tenure ends.
Impeachment is the exclusive method of accountability during tenure.
Vice-President:
No explicit constitutional immunity.
But is an impeachable officer, and the Ombudsman is barred from prosecuting impeachable officers except for purposes of impeachment (RA 6770, jurisprudence).
As a result:
Criminal prosecution (including plunder) is customarily deferred until after impeachment and/or removal.
V. FINAL NOTE
A plunder case cannot be prosecuted against a sitting President without impeachment first, because of presidential immunity.
A plunder case against a sitting Vice-President may technically be filed, but cannot proceed to investigation or prosecution until after impeachment, because impeachable officials may only be removed through impeachment and the Ombudsman cannot criminally prosecute them for acts connected to tenure while they remain in office.
In both cases, impeachment is the constitutionally proper and mandatory first step.
----
Assisted by ChatGPT, December 12, 2025.
