THE Marcos family is barred by law from making any effort to retake control or regain possession of assets already declared part of their ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of government, as well as companies and land holdings earlier surrendered by the late dictator’s cronies through compromise agreements.
This was declared by the Sandiganbayan Third Division in a 40-page resolution promulgated last January 25.
Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi penned the ruling with the concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega and Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac.
“(T)he Court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with respect to the properties that ‘have already been recovered by the government or transferred to third persons not involved herein,’ or those which have been the subject of court decisions and compromise agreements as the same were barred by res judicata …(based on) conclusiveness of judgment and mootness. Thus, the Court can no longer rule on the said properties,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Having been decided with finality, the said assets are now beyond the reach of the Marcos family and the issue of ownership may no longer be brought to court.
The ruling effectively denied the prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution in the omnibus motion dated Aug. 10, 2022 and a supplement dated Aug. 17, 2022 filed by former First Lady Imelda Marcos and her daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta.
The mother and youngest sister of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. had asked the court to issue a writ of execution covering all assets involved in the case, which they classified into four categories: frozen accounts; assets surrendered by virtue of compromise deals; assets sequestered by the government but not under the custody of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG); and those that were sequestered and remained under the PCGG’s control and supervision.
Their move was based on the 2019 ruling of the Sandiganbayan that dismissed Civil Case No. 0002 for failure of government lawyers to prove that the remaining properties in dispute were part of the Marcos family’s unlawfully acquired wealth.
Further, the widow and the daughter of the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos asked the court to declare three other classifications of properties as “not ill-gotten” and to order their turnover to the family.
These were properties listed as not sequestered; released from sequestration after a compromise deal; and those included in cases already dismissed by final judgment.
Imelda and Irene argued that they have a “good and valid reason” to seek execution of the ruling which came after the case dragged on for more than 30 years. They said they “suffered greatly mentally and emotionally” during that period while the dissipation of the seized properties caused them “unjust and unreasonable deprivation of their proprietary rights.”
Likewise, they challenged the validity of all compromise agreements entered into by the Marcos cronies with the PCGG in the past three decades.
Declaring themselves as the rightful owners and saying that they never gave their consent to the agreements, they insisted that there was no valid contract to speak of and that the properties subject of such deals “must be returned to their lawful owners.”
GOV’T STAND
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) attacked the motion as premature, citing the pendency of the Republic’s petition for review of certiorari filed on Aug. 10, 2022.
Likewise, it invoked the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in the case of Republic vs. Ma. Imelda “Imee” Marcos, which affirmed the 2005 finding that the evidence established a prima facie presumption that the properties were ill-gotten.
It also stressed the applicability of the 2003 SC pronouncement in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan that the lawful income of the late dictator and his widow amounted to only $304,372.43.
Evidence submitted by the Marcoses also came under fire as the OSG noted that documents attached to the testimony of defendant Constante Rubio were mere photocopies, hence inadmissible as evidence.
The Sandiganbayan sustained the Republic’s position that the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution should be denied for lack of merit, noting that the judgment is not yet final since the OSG filed a timely petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Neither was the court impressed with the Marcoses’ claim of mental and emotional suffering and dissipation of their assets.
“The same does not constitute the good reason contemplated by the Rules of Court that would rationalize the granting of their Omnibus Motion. The defendants (Marcoses) also offered no proof or reason how the properties subject of this case are being dissipated,” the Sandiganbayan said.
To remove any confusion, the court declared that properties “already recovered, transferred to third persons not included in the case, or have become the subject of court decisions and compromise agreements” are already considered moot and academic.
The resolution listed the shares of stocks in Marcopper Mining under the IRC Group of Companies ceded to the PCGG by businessman Jose Y. Campos; 526 pieces of art collections now in the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for safekeeping; 111,415 PLDT shares sold in 2006 for P25.2 billion.
independent Realty Corporation’s 30 percent stake in Philippine Integrated Meat Corp (Pimeco) sold for 100 million in 2019; the Marcos family’s P934.915 million and $8.002 million deposits at Security Bank and Trust Company; several real properties in Baguio City including the JY Campos lot, Banaue Inn, Hans Menzi Compound, and Fairchild Compound surrendered by Campos.
