THE ILL-GOTTEN MALACAÑANG JEWELRY COLLECTION OF THE MARCOSES

SUMMARY: Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO HIS SALARY as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be PRESUMED PRIMA FACIE TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY Acquired. 

THE ILL-GOTTEN MALACAÑANG JEWELRY COLLECTION OF THE MARCOSES:

The 2017 resolution of the Supreme Court written by former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in the consolidated cases entitled "ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Xxx. IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS and IRENE MARCOS ARANETA, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent", docketed as G.R. No. 213027 and promulgated on January 18, 2017, referred to the pieces of JEWELRY, known as the MALACAÑANG COLLECTION, which were were labeled as ILL-GOTTEN and were consequently FORFEITED in favor of the Republic.

The underlying SANDIGANBAYAN case was Civil Case No. 0141, a FORFEITURE CASE entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos, (represented by his Estate/Heirs) and Imelda R. Marcos", which was filed by the Republic through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), pursuant to Republic Act No. (R.A.) 1379 in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1,8 2,9 1410 and 14-A.

The Sandiganbayan case sought the RECOVERY of the assets and properties pertaining to the Marcoses, who acquired them directly or indirectly through, or as a result of, the IMPROPER OR ILLEGAL USE OF FUNDS OR PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Some of the properties were already ADJUDGED AS ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH and consequently FORFEITED in favor of the government.

In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (the Swiss deposits case), the Court en banc in 2003 decreed that the deposits in various Swiss banks, were ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH AND FORFEITED in favor of the State.

Likewise, in Marcos v. Republic (the Arelma case), the Court's Second Division in 2012 declared that the funds, properties, and interests of Arelma were also ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH AND FORFEITED in favor of the State.

Actually, the pieces of jewelry were categorized into THREE COLLECTIONS.

The FIRST was the so-called HAWAII COLLECTION seized by the United States Customs Service and turned over to the Philippine Government. A ruling was made by the United States (U.S.) Hawaii District Court on December 18, 1992 that the Republic of the Philippines was entitled to the possession and control of the said collection.

The SECOND was the ROUMELIOTES COLLECTION, referred to as "MIA Jewelry", which was seized from Roumeliotes at the Manila International Airport on March 1, 1986. Although not covered by the forfeiture proceeding, respondents earlier sought their inclusion in then pending negotiations for settlement.

The THIRD was the MALACAÑANG COLLECTION, which was seized from Malacañang after February 25, 1986 and transferred to the Central Bank on March 1, 1986. This collection was the object of the aforementioned 2017 resolution of the Supreme Court.

Based on the 1991 valuation of auction house Christie, Manson and Woods International, Inc., the Roumeliotes, Malacañang and Hawaii collections were worth between US$5,3 l 3,575 (low estimate) to US$7,112,879 (high estimate).

Invoking the declaration of the Supreme Court in the Swiss deposits case, the Republic stated that the lawful income of the Marcoses amounting to USD 304,372.43 was GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE to the value of the pieces of jewelry in 1991.

The Sandiganbayan issued a PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT dated 13 January 2014 ruling that (1) the MALACAÑANG COLLECTION was part and subject of the forfeiture petition; (2) the Motion for Summary Judgment was proper; and (3) the FORFEITURE of the Malacañang Collection was justified pursuant to R.A. 1379.

The ISSUES for the Supreme Court's resolution in the aforementioned consolidated cases were as follows: (1) whether the Sandiganbayan has JURISDICTION over the properties; (2) whether the MALACAÑANG COLLECTION can be the subject of the FORFEITURE CASE; (3) whether FORFEITURE is justified under R.A. 1379; (4) whether the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was not inconsistent with the Request for Admission; and (5) whether the Sandiganbayan correctly declared that the forfeiture was not a deprivation of petitioners' right to DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

In disposing of the aforementioned consolidated cases, the Supreme Court held that it FOUND NO REVERSIBLE ERROR in the ruling of the Sandiganbayan.

The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan CORRECTLY ACQUIRED JURISDICTION over the case. The properties were INCLUDED in the 1991 Petition.

According to the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan correctly noted the ANNEXES, which were mentioned in and made an INTEGRAL PART of the 1991 Petition, itemizing and enumerating the pieces of jewelry with their estimated values. It ultimately found that the 1991 Petition had categorically alleged that the MALACAÑANG COLLECTION was INCLUDED in the assets, monies and properties sought to be recovered.

The Supreme Court further ruled that the Sandiganbayan CORRECTLY HELD that the FORFEITURE WAS JUSTIFIED and that the Malacañang Collection was subject to forfeiture. The LEGITIMATE INCOME of the Marcoses had been pegged at USD 304,372.43.

The Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings in Republic v. Sandiganbayan and in Marcos v. Republic that "whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO HIS SALARY as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be PRESUMED PRIMA FACIE TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED."

Petitioners FAILED to satisfactorily show that the properties were lawfully acquired; hence, the PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION that they were UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED prevails.

Section 2 of R.A. 1379 provides that "[w]henever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be PRESUMED PRIMA FACIE to have been UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED."

In this regard, the Sandiganbayan had taken JUDICIAL NOTICE of the LEGITIMATE INCOME of the Marcoses during their incumbency as public officers for the period 1966-1986 which was pegged at USD 304,372.43.

The Supreme Court furthermore held that the invocation by petitioners of lack of observance of DUE PROCESS at this stage of the proceedings was rather belated, especially when it was never invoked before the Sandiganbayan.

Needless to say, the VARIOUS PLEADINGS petitioners had filed in this case and in other cases involving the Marcos properties were COUNTLESS OCCASIONS when they could have proven that the Malacañang Collection had indeed been lawfully acquired as claimed.

The allegation of the petitioners that they were DENIED DUE PROCESS by not being given any opportunity to prove their lawful acquisition of the Malacañang Collection could not be given credence for being UTTERLY BASELESS.

IN FINE, the Supreme Court AFFIRMED the assailed PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT dated 13 January 2014 and Resolution dated 11 June 2014 rendered by the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0141.

Source :

ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS and IRENE MARCOS ARANETA, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 213027, January 18, 2017.

https://www.facebook.com/100002290961177/posts/4636535173099469/