Republic vs. Sandiganbayan 4.
On Aug 1 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under RA 1379
G.R. No. 104768 | July 21, 2003 | J. Carpio
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
SUMMARY: Five days after the People Power Revolution, a warrant for the
seizure of illegal firearms from the home of Elizabeth Dimaano, mistress of an
AFP General, was issued. The PC seized, aside from a paltry number of firearms,
jewelry, land titles, and cash. The PCGG began investigations on the general for
graft and corruption charges. Over the course of the investigation, the PCGG was
unable to find evidence, and the Sandiganbayan acquitted the defendants on for
lack of evidence, and the inadmissibility of evidence obtained via illegal search
and seizure leading to the current motion.
DOCTRINE: During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the
revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited
the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the abrogation of the
1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law
higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. 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
during the interregnum.
FACTS:
1. Upon assuming office after the success of EDSA Revolution, President
Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1, creating the Presidential
Commission on Good Governance (PCGG). Under EO No. 1, the PCGG is
tasked to recover all ill-gotten wealth of Ferdinand Marcos and his family
and associates. EO No. 1 vests on PCGG the following powers:
a. Conduct investigation as may be necessary to accomplish and carry
out the purposes of this order
b. Promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the purpose of this order
2. PCGG Chairman Jovito R. Salonga created an AFP Anti-Graft Board to
investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel.
One such report was the alleged unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of
Major General Josephus Ramas.
3. The Board recommended Ramas’ prosecution for violating RA 3019 (Anti-
Graft & Corrupt Practices Act) & RA 1379 (The Act of Forfeiture of
Unlawfully Acquired Property), with the following pieces of evidence:
a. That he owned a house and lot in Cebu City worth Php700k.
b. That his mistress, Dimaano, had equipment and communication
facilities in her house from the military
c. That his mistress had Php2.8m and $50k worth of cash in her house,
when she was unemployed
against Ramas, which the SolGen amended to include Dimaano as co-
respondent. Ramas denied he owned the house/lot in Cebu worth P700k,
and that his house in La Vista was proportional to his income.
5. On March 3, 1986, The Philippine Constabulary (PC) served at Dimaano’s
residence a search warrant captioned “Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition.”
6. The PC also confiscated military equipment, money amounting to
P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollar, land titles, and jewelry in addition to
the contents of the warrant.
7. It was found that Elizabeth Dimaano, a secretary, could not have legally
afforded the goods confiscated. She was found to be the mistress of Major
General Josephus Ramas.
8. During the court proceedings in the Sandiganbayan, the petitioners (PCGG)
could not get enough evidence for a conviction and so moved for
postponement several times.
9. The Sandiganbayan got fed up, new evidence was never presented and
warned they would take drastic action if this kept continuing. Ramas filed a
motion to dismiss based on the ruling of Republic v Migrino, which showed
that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate military officers just
because they held a military position without showing they are
“subordinates” of former Pres Marcos.
10. The Sandiganbayan acquitted the defendants, based on the ruling, the lack of
evidence, and the inadmissibility of evidence obtained via illegal search and
seizure leading to the current motion.
ISSUES/RATIO:
1. W/N the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution was active during the
interregnum after the People Power Revolution? – NO
No. The Bill of Rights was not active during the interregnum, the 1973
Constitution having been discarded by the Revolutionary Government. During
the interregnum (after the effective takeover of power by the revolutionary gov’t
up to Mar 24 1986, the adoption of the Provisional Constitution) the 1973
Constitution was not in force and the revolutionary gov’t was not bound by the
Bill of Rights. In fact, if the Bill was operative, it would render all sequestration
orders issued by the PCGG as void.
However, the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the
Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. During the interregnum,
the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law
because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and
orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution,
there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the
revolutionary government. 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 during the interregnum.
It was only upon the adoption of the Provisional Constitution on 25 March 1986
that the directives and orders of the revolutionary government became subject to
a higher municipal law that, if contravened, rendered such directives and orders
void. The Provisional Constitution adopted verbatim the Bill of Rights of the
1973 Constitution. The Provisional Constitution served as a self-limitation by the
revolutionary government to avoid abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to it
by the people.
2. W/N the protection accorded to individuals under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”) and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Declaration”) remained in
effect during the interregnum? –YES
Yes. The State assumed responsibility for the compliance of the Covenant
(ICCPR) which still outlawed illegal search and seizure. Further, the PCGG had
no jurisdiction to investigate the case under E.O. 1 which established it.
Protection accorded to individuals according to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights & the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were
still in effect.
a. As the de jure Gov’t, the Revolutionary Gov’t assumed the
responsibility of maintaining the state’s good faith to comply with
the Covenant which the Philippines is signatory to.
b. Art 2(1) of the Covenant binds requires each signatory State “to
respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject
to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant”.
RULING: Petition is dismissed and the case is remanded to the Ombudsman for
appropriate action.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
Puno, J. (Concurring)
Justice Puno’s dissent does not stem from the ineffectivity of the Bill of Rights,
but from the holding that without it, the people are without their rights. He
argues that as human beings, we are gifted with certain natural inalienable
rights; the constitution guarantees and protects these rights, but it does not create
them. This is inherent in the concept of a government deriving its power from the
will of the people: the central purpose of a government is to protect and preserve
the individual’s natural rights. When a government violates the rights it was
established to protect, it gives up any authority to be obeyed by its constituents.
He goes on to explain the history of the natural right, how its name changed over
the years from natural to human, and how it is fundamental to our constitutional
theory: “at the core of constitutionalism is a strong concern for individual right”.
He notes that “the Filipinos are a freedom-loving race with high regard for their
fundamental and natural rights.”
He then explains the history of the right against unreasonable search and seizure;
how it helped spark the American Revolution, its implementation as the Fourth
Amendment of the American Constitution, and its adaptation to a Filipino mind
set in the Jones Law and our own Constitutions.
The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a part of the rights to “Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” mentioned in the American Declaration
of Independence as an inherent facet of liberty. These rights are the inherent, core
rights that make up the American, and thus Filipino, Bill of Rights, and as such
are ingrained in the fabric of Filipino society.
Finally, Justice Puno closes with the statement that under Proclamation No. 1 by
the Aquino government, the goal of the revolution was “to do justice to the
numerous victims of human rights violations” which amounted to a positive law
declaration guaranteeing natural rights, but that even without it, Miss Dimaano
can always invoke her natural right against unreasonable search and seizure as a
fundamental and natural right that is not granted by a piece of paper but by her
existence as a human being. Thus, the right against illegal search and seizures
still operates by virtue of natural law, meaning it is inherent by virtue of human
nature.
Vitug, J. (Separate, Concurring)
Agrees except believes the Bill of Rights to be in effect during the interregnum
not only because it was recognized by the 1986 Revolution but also because the
new gov’t was bound by int’l law and therefore obligated to respect the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, Pres Aquino proclaimed:
“President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
constitution…” in her early proclamations refer thusly to the 1973 Constitution.
Under Proclamations 2 and 3, the new government has acknowledged the
continued effectivity of certain portions of the 1973 constitution. Specifically,
Proclamation 3 expressly mentions Article IV (The Bill of Rights) as in full force
and effect during the interregnum. The UN ICCPR was also in effect at the time,
similarly stated in the main opinion.
Tinga, J. (Separate opinion)
Justice Tinga clarifies that the majority opinion subscribes to positivist theory,
while Justice Puno subscribes to natural law doctrine. He states that these two
theories are not at odds with each other in the case at bar, and that they are
united in the Freedom Constitution, which he believes is the basis for the
dismissal of the evidence obtained via illegal search and seizure.
The 1973 Constitution and therefore the Bill of Rights are supposed to be given
retroactive application given the 1986 Freedom Constitution’s unmistakable
thrust to bestow an uninterrupted operability of the Bill of Rights in the 1973
Constitution.
Even if it is supposed that the Freedom Constitution had no retroactive effect or
it did not extend the effectivity of the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution, still
there would be no void in the municipal or domestic law at the time as far as the
observance of fundamental rights is concerned. The Bill of Rights in the 1973
Constitution would still be in force, independently of the Freedom Constitution,
or at least the provisions thereof proscribing unreasonable search and seizure
and excluding evidence in violation of the proscription.
NOTES:
Interregnum – a period when normal government is suspended, especially
between successive reigns or regimes
In this case Interregnum [one month interregnum between February 26 and
March 24, 1986] - is, after the actual and effective takeover of power by the
revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces
up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Freedom
Constitution)
Republic vs Migrino 189 SCRA 289
Under Migrino, the Supreme Court held that the PCGG does not have
jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere
position without showing that they are subordinates of President Marcos.
Related Provisions:
Executive Order 1, Section 2
The Commission shall be charged with the task of assisting the President in
regard to the following matters:
a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by the former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close
associates
xxx
b) The investigation ... as the President may assign to the Commission from time
to time. xxx
International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour
and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks.
Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.
Proclamation 3 (Provisional Constitution), Section 1 (eff. March 25, 1986)
The provisions of ARTICLE I (National Territory), ARTICLE III (Citizenship),
ARTICLE IV (Bill of Rights), ARTICLE V (Duties and Obligations of Citizens),
and ARTICLE VI (Suffrage) of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, remain in the
force and effect and are hereby adopted in toto as part of this Provisional
Constitution.
1973 Constitution, Article IV, Section 3
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other
responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
1987 Constitution Article III Section 2
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Proclamation 1
...
I pledge to do justice to the numerous victims of human rights violations.
...
Proclamation 2
... by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and the Filipino
people ...