The Sandiganbayan dismissed the 37-year-old ill-gotten wealth case filed against the former President Marcos Ferdinand Sr., his wife Imelda Marcos, and their associate Roman Cruz due to inordinate delay and violation of due process.
According to a 30-page resolution released by the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division, it cited that the Marcoses, specifically Imelda Marcos, could no longer testify in court considering her age of 95 years old.
The so-called dismissal of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth cases is a disturbing setback in the fight for justice and accountability in the Philippines.
Rather than serving as a triumph for the Filipinos, the dismissal of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth cases is a disturbing setback in the fight for justice and accountability in the Philippines.
The court added that the defendants were already prejudiced by the trial’s delay, citing no fair trial can be afforded since (1) the witnesses may have already died, and (2) the evidence may no longer be located after more than 30 years from the filing of the complaint
“It is unquestionable that the defendants have already been prejudiced by the inordinate delay. The fact that the case was filed against the defendants and pending before this Court where they are made to defend themselves, secure services of paid counsel, and spend for their bail is enough trouble and prejudice to them,” the Sandiganbayan said.
Unexplained luxxury
The Civil Case No.0006 filed against the Marcoses accuses the family of purchasing estates of land and assets through their associate Roman Cruz, that are unreasonable for their income.
The properties involved were: two residential lots and two condominiums in Baguio City; a residential building in Makati; a residential land in Metro Manila; and a parcel of land and six condominium units in California, United States
However, the Supreme Court (SC) said that the government has the right and obligation to recover the Paoay properties from the Marcoses.
“While the lessor does not need to be the owner of the property, they must possess an authority or a right to lease it… or at the very least, act as an agent of the owner, usufructuary, or lessee. Seeing as Marcos, Sr. had no authority over the property, either as owner or possessor,” SC said.
What is ‘Ill-gotten wealth’?
According to the Republic Act No. 7080, ‘ill-gotten wealth” means any asset, property, business enterprise or material acquired through:
- misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
- any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
- illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned corporations and their subsidiaries;
- any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
- agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests;
- undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines
What are the other dismissed cases against the Marcoses?
In 2019, Sandiganbayan junked a civil case accusing the Marcos family of pocketing 200 billion ill-gotten wealth.
Meanwhile, in 2023, Sandiganbayan dismissed a civil case against the Marcoses, which accused the family of obtaining huge loans from the Government Service Insurance System in favor of Philippine Integrated Meat Company (PIMECO) due to evidence failing to prove that it is ill-gotten.
Sandiganbayan also dismissed a Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) case bidding to reclaim assets and properties in possession of the Marcoses’ alleged dummies due to a lack of sufficient evidence presented.
Timeline of the Marcoses’ stolen property case
In January 2023, The Sandiganbayan denied the Marcoses’ bid to regain seized wealth and properties currently in the possession of the government. However, in May 2023, they denied the Marcoses’ Motion of Reconsideration.
In August 2023, the Sandiganbayan also denied the appeal to reconsider the June 2023 decision on the dismissal of Civil Case 0014 against the Marcoses due to having no case against the defendants.
Lastly, in September 2023, the Supreme Court voided a lease contract between Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and the Philippine Tourism Authority over properties in Paoay, Ilocos Norte, as the former had “no authority, ownership, or possession” and therefore had “no legal claim.”
