Romualdez vs Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 152259

July 29, 2004

Facts:

     The People of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission on Good

Government (PCGG) filed an information before the anti-graft court on July 12, 1989
charging Romualdez with violation of Sec. 5, Republic Act No. 3019 as amended.

     The information states that on or about and during the period from July 16 to July 29,
1975, Romualdez, brother-in-law of President Marcos, former president of the
Philippines, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, and with evident of bad faith, for
the purpose of promoting his self-interest and/or that of others, intervene directly or
indirectly, in a contract between the National Shipyard and Steel Corporation
(NASSCO), a government-owned and controlled corporation and the Bataan Shipyard
and Engineering Company (BASECO), a private corporation, the majority of stocks of
which is owned by former Pres. Marcos, whereby the NASSCO sold, transferred and
conveyed to the BASECO its ownership and all its titles and interests over all equipment
and facilities including structures, buildings, shops, quarters, houses, plants and
expendable and semi-expendable assets, located at the Engineer Island known as the
Engineer Island Shops including some equipment and machineries from Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte needed by BASECO in its shipbuilding and ship repair
program for the amount of P 5, 000, 000.00.

       Romualdez argues that he enjoys derivative immunity, because he allegedly served

as a high-ranking naval officer ----- specifically, as naval aide-de-camp – of former
President Marcos. He relies on Sec. 17, Art. VII of the 1973 Constitution, as amended,
which states that:
“The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. Thereafter, no suit
whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by him or by other pursuant to his specific
orders during his tenure.”       

Issue:

      Whether or not pursuant to Sec. 17, Art. VII of the 1973 Constitution, Romualdez is
immune from criminal prosecution.
Ruling:

      No. As aptly pointed out by Sandiganbayan, the provision in Sec. 17, Art VII of 1973
Constitution is not applicable to Romualdez because the immunity amendment became
effective only in 1981 while the alleged crime happened in 1975.

      In Estrada vs Desierto, the SC explained that executive immunity applied only
during the incumbency of a President. It could not be used to shield a non-sitting
President from prosecution for alleged criminal acts done while sitting in office.
Romualdez’s reasoning fails since he derives his immunity from one who is no longer
sitting as president. Verily, the felonious acts of public officials and their close relatives
“are not acts of the State, and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but
stands on the same footing as any other trespasser.”