Republic v Sandiganbayan

GR 104768 July 21, 2003 Carpio, J.

Article III – Section 1 Created By Andojoyan
Petitioners Respondents
Republic of the Philippines 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 Anti-
Graft 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 CorazonAquino 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 Ruling
1. W/N PCGG has jurisdiction to investigate respondents NO
NO
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 YES
inadmissible as evidence
4. W/N the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the
NO
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 YES
Declaration of Human Rights remained in effect during the interregnum
(Declaration)
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. The PCGG has no jurisdiction 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.
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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