You are on page 1of 3

4/27/2016

G.R.No.17165:G.R.No.75885CaseDigest

G.R.No.75885CaseDigest
G.R.No.75885,May27,1987
BataanShipyard&EngineeringCo
vs.PCGG
Ponente:Narvasa
Facts:
BataanShipyardandEngineeringCo.,Inc(BASECO)privatecorporation
PresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment(PCGG)issuedthesequestrationorder
ThecorporationknownasBASECOwasownedorcontrolledbyPresidentMarcosduringhisadministration,throughnominees,bytaking
undueadvantageofhispublicofficeand/orusinghispowers,authority,orinfluence,andthatitwasbyandthroughthesamemeans,
thatBASECOhadtakenoverthebusinessand/orassetsoftheNationalShipyardandEngineeringCo.,Inc.,andothergovernment
ownedorcontrolledentities.
AsevidencefoundinMalacanangshortlyafterthesuddenflightofPresidentMarcoswerecertificatescorrespondingtomorethan
ninetyfivepercent(95%)ofalltheoutstandingsharesofstockofBASECO,endorsedinblank,togetherwithdeedsofassignmentof
practicallyalltheoutstandingsharesofstockofthethree(3)corporationsabovementioned(whichhold95.82%ofallBASECOstock),
signedbytheownersthereofalthoughnotnotarized.Whilethepetitioner'scounselwasquicktodisputethisassertedfact,assuringthe
CourtthattheBASECOstockholderswerestillinpossessionoftheirrespectivestockcertificatesandhadneverendorsedtheminblank
ortoanyoneelse,thatdenialisexposedbyhisownpriorandsubsequentrecordedstatementsasameregestureofdefiancerather
http://jeanneguian.blogspot.com/2015/11/grno75885casedigest.html

1/3

4/27/2016

G.R.No.17165:G.R.No.75885CaseDigest

thanaverifiablefactualdeclaration.
InaccordancewithExecutiveOrdersNumbered1and2promulgatedbyPresidentCorazonAquino,PCGGthroughitscommissioners
andagentorderedsequestration,takeoverandotherprovisionalordersaffectingBASECO.
CommissionerDiazinvokedtheprovisionsofSection3(c)ofExecutiveOrderNo.1,empoweringtheCommissionToprovisionally
takeoverinthepublicinterestortopreventitsdisposalordissipation,businessenterprisesandpropertiestakenoverbythegovernment
oftheMarcosAdministrationorbyentitiesorpersonsclosetoformerPresidentMarcos,untilthetransactionsleadingtosuchacquisition
bythelattercanbedisposedofbytheappropriateauthorities.
Issues:
1.Aretheprovisionalremediesinvolvedinthiscaseunconstitutional?
2.AretheactsofPCGGanditsCommissionersdonewithoutorinexcessofitspowersorwithgraveabuseofdiscretion?
3.WasthereaviolationoftherightagainstselfIncriminationandunreasonablesearchesandseizures?
Ruling:
1.No.
TheProvisionalor"Freedom"ConstitutionrecognizesthepoweranddutyofthePresidenttoenact"measurestoachievethemandateof
thepeopletorecoverillgottenpropertiesamassedbytheleadersandsupportersoftheMarcosregimeandprotecttheinterestofthe
peoplethroughordersofsequestrationorfreezingofassetsoraccounts.Andasalsoalreadyadvertedto,Section26,ArticleXVIIIofthe
1987Constitutiontreatsof,andratifiestheauthoritytoissuesequestrationorfreezeordersunderProclamationNo.3.Theinstitutionof
theseprovisionalremediesisalsopremisedupontheState'sinherentpolicepower,regarded,astliepowerofpromotingthepublic
welfarebyrestrainingandregulatingtheuseoflibertyandproperty,andasthemostessential,insistentandillimitableofpowersinthe
promotionofgeneralwelfareandthepublicinterest,andsaidtobecoextensivewithselfprotectionandnotinaptlytermedalsothelaw
ofoverrulingnecessity.
2.No,PCGGsgeneralfunctionistoconductinvestigationsinordertocollectevidenceestablishinginstancesofillgottenwealth,issue
sequestration,andsuchordersasmaybewarrantedbytheevidencethuscollectedandasmaybenecessarytopreserveandconserve
theassetsofwhichittakescustodyandcontrolandpreventtheirdisappearance,lossordissipationandeventuallyfileandprosecutein
http://jeanneguian.blogspot.com/2015/11/grno75885casedigest.html

2/3

4/27/2016

G.R.No.17165:G.R.No.75885CaseDigest

theassetsofwhichittakescustodyandcontrolandpreventtheirdisappearance,lossordissipationandeventuallyfileandprosecutein
thepropercourtofcompetentjurisdictionallcasesinvestigatedbyitasmaybewarrantedbyitsfindings.Itdoesnottryanddecide,or
hearanddetermine,oradjudicatewithanycharacteroffinalityorcompulsion,casesinvolvingtheessentialissueofwhetherornot
propertyshouldbeforfeitedandtransferredtotheStatebecauseillgottenwithinthemeaningoftheConstitutionandtheexecutive
orders.
3.No.Therightagainstselfincriminationhasnoapplicationtojuridicalpersons.Whileanindividualmaylawfullyrefusetoanswer
incriminatingquestionsunlessprotectedbyanimmunitystatute,itdoesnotfollowthatacorporation,vestedwithspecialprivilegesand
franchises,mayrefusetoshowitshandwhenchargedwithanabuseofsuchprivileges.

Links

GetafreeEvernoteaccounttosavethisarticleandviewitlateronanydevice.
Createaccount

http://jeanneguian.blogspot.com/2015/11/grno75885casedigest.html

3/3