LAWYERS of former President Joseph Estrada yesterday filed before the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash the two writs of execution directing the Sheriff and Security Office to confiscate his personal and real estate assets.

The eight-page motion signed by Estelito Mendoza, Jose Flaminiano, Pacifico Agabin and Anna Liza Logan challenged the validity of the writs, arguing that both went beyond the text of the plunder verdict last Sept. 12 by including Estrada’s personal and real estate properties that he acquired even before he became president.

They argued that the plunder law under which Estrada was convicted only recommended "forfeiture" of assets.

Citing the definition given by the Black’s Law Dictionary, the defense noted that "forfeiture proceedings are proceedings for the divestiture of specific property."

While the decision of the court includes forfeiture of a specific sum, the plunder law limits this only to property derived or traceable to the instruments or proceeds of the crime. The inclusion of "any and all personal or real property of accused in the writs of execution here without any qualification imposes an additional penalty on the accused and is therefore void," it said.

The panel likewise underscored what it said was a "substantial variance between the judgment and the writ of execution" because the writ included Estrada’s personal and real properties which were not even mentioned in the plunder decision.

"A clerk of court who amends a writ of execution on her own initiative usurps a judicial function. If the personal and real property of the accused not traceable or related to the offense or plunder are confiscated, the accused would be deprived or property without due process and would be placed twice in jeopardy or punishment for the same offense," the lawyers said.

Pending a final resolution of Estrada’s challenge on the regularity of the writs, the defense asked the graft court to issue a status quo order or a temporary restraining order. – Peter Tabingo