01 Republic V Sandiganbayan (andojoyan)

GR 104768 Article III – Section 1 Petitioners Republic of the Philippines

Republic v Sandiganbayan July 21, 2003 Carpio, J. Created By Andojoyan Respondents

Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano

Recit Ready Summary

After EDSA, President Cory issued EO 1 creating the PCGG. The PCGG created the AFP AntiGraft Board, which investigated the “unexplained wealth” of Major General Ramas, and a search warrant was issued for the home of Elizabeth Dimaano, Ramas’ alleged mistress. Communications equipment, jewelry, land titles, money and weapons & ammunition were seized. Ramas denied allegations and Dimaano assumed ownership of seized items. Ramas used the case of Republic v. Migrino as a defense, as he cannot be classified as a subordinate under its definition in E.O. No. 1. Petitioner claims that during the interregnum, the Bill of Rights was not operative. The Court agreed with petitioner but held that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights were still effective, which accorded Filipinos almost the same rights available from the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The Court then stated that those items which were not included in the search warrant are not admissible as evidence and must be returned to Dimaano. DOCTRINE: During the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights then. Nevertheless, the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. Facts of the Case Following the EDSA revolution, President Corazon

Aquino issued EO 1 creating the residential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The PCGG was tasked to recover all ill-gotten wealth of Former Pres. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. The PCGG, through Chairman Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft Board tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired. The AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas. A Resolution was issued stating Ramas had a house and lot in La Vista, and a house and lot in Cebu. A search warrant was then issued for the house of Elizabeth Dimaano, Ramas’ alleged mistress. Equipment/items and communication facilities, money in the amount of P2.87M and $50,000, land titles, weapons and ammunition, etc. were sequestered from Dimaano’s home. The money confiscated was never declared in Dimaano’s SALN. It also seemed impossible for her, a mere secretary to own that much money. The Board recommended that Ramas be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 1379 (The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property). And on August 1, 1987, PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379 against Ramas, in which Dimaano was also impleaded. However, Dimaano claimed ownership of all (money, communication equipment, jewelry and land titles) that was taken from her house. The case was delayed for up to four years, because petitioner kept asking for postponement of trial. Respondents filed motions to dismiss based on the case of Republic v. Migrino. The

Sandiganbayan then rendered a resolution, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. It also ordered the return of confiscated items to Dimaano. Issues 1. W/N PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate respondents 2. W/N the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before completion of

presentation of evidence 3. W/N the properties confiscated were illegally seized and therefore inadmissible as evidence 4. W/N the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum 5. W/N the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained in effect during the interregnum (Declaration) Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis 1. The PCGG has no jurisdiction

2.

3.

4.

5.

Ruling NO NO

YES

NO

YES

to investigate respondents. The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories : a. AFP personnel who have accumulated illgotten wealth during the admin of former Pres Marcos by being the latter’s immediate family, relative, subordinate or close associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers, influence b. AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns their cases to the PCGG. There must be a prima facie showing that the respondent unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former Pres Marcos and/or his wife. There was no such evidence shown The search warrant was captioned “Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.” However, the raiding team also seized, aside from one baby armalite rifle, 40 rounds of ammunition, and one pistol, communications equipment, cash, jewelry and land titles. The EDSA revolution was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, which is why the resulting government was a revolutionary government. It was not bound by any constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations the government assumed under international law. During the interregnum the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law—there was no municipal law higher than these. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights then. However, even after said government, the Court ruled that the Freedom Constitution and later the 1987 Constitution expressly recognized the validity of sequestration orders. The revolutionary government was a de jure government. Thus, it could not escape responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of

international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary gov’t was also obligated under international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration. (During the interregnum, directives and orders issued by gov’t officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted them, and these should not have violated the Covenant or the Declaration.) 6. The warrant is thus valid with respect to the items specifically described in the warrant, which is why the raiding team had no legal basis to seize items without showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless search and seizure. The seizure of these items was therefore void and must be returned to the person from whom the raiding team seized them. Disposition Petition dismissed. Remanded to Ombudsman. Separate Opinions