Marcos ill-gotten wealth: Arelma and Swiss bank accounts

MARCOS ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Decision, dated 2 April 2009, of the Sandiganbayan which FORFEITED in favor of the REPUBLIC all assets, properties, and funds belonging to ARELMA, S.A., with an estimated aggregate amount of USD 3,369,975 as of 1983, plus all INTERESTS AND ALL OTHER INCOME. The case discussed below also gave a background on the RELATED ILL-GOTTEN SWISS BANK ACCOUNTS of the Marcoses, totaling USD 356 MILLION.

2012 SUPREME COURT DECISION

THE decision of the Supreme Court, dated April 25, 2012, in the consolidated cases entitled "FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, Respondent" and "IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, Petitioner,

vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent", docketed as G.R. No. 189434 and G.R. No. 189505, written by former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, referred to the underlying Sandiganbayan case docketed as CIVIL CASE NO. 0141 where the Sandiganbayan declared all assets and properties of ARELMA , S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos, FORFEITED in favor of the government.

The Supreme Court DENIED the foregoing petitions. It AFFIRMED the appealed Decision, dated 2 April 2009, of the Sandiganbayan which FORFEITED in favor of the Republic all assets, properties, and funds belonging to ARELMA, S.A., with an estimated aggregate amount of USD 3,369,975 as of 1983, plus all INTERESTS AND ALL OTHER INCOME that accrued thereon.

BACKGROUNDER

On 17 December 1991, the Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a Petition for Forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the forfeiture law, Republic Act No. 1379 in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14. The petition was docketed as CIVIL CASE NO. 0141.

The Republic, through the PCGG and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought the declaration of SWISS BANK ACCOUNTS totaling USD 356 MILLION (now USD 658 MILLION), and two TREASURY NOTES worth USD 25 MILLION and USD 5 million, as ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH.

The Republic also sought the FORFEITURE of the ASSETS OF DUMMY CORPORATIONS and entities established by nominees of Marcos and his wife, Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, as well as real and personal properties MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION to the spouses’ lawful income. This claim was based on evidence collated by the PCGG with the assistance of the UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT and the SWISS FEDERAL POLICE DEPARTMENT .

The Petition for Forfeiture described among others, a corporate entity by the name "ARELMA , Inc.," which maintained an account and portfolio in MERRILL LYNCH, NEW YORK , and which was purportedly organized for the same purpose of HIDING ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH .

Before the case was set for pretrial before the Sandiganbayan , the MARCOS CHILDREN and PCGG CHAIRPERSON Magtanggol Gunigundo SIGNED SEVERAL COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS (a General Agreement and Supplemental Agreements) all dated 28 December 1993 for a GLOBAL SETTLEMENT of the Marcos assets. One of the "whereas" clauses in the General Agreement specified that the Republic "obtained a JUDGMENT from the SWISS FEDERAL TRIBUNAL on DECEMBER 21, 1990, that the Three Hundred Fifty-six Million U.S. dollars (USD 356 MILLION ) belongs in principle to the Republic of the Philippines provided certain conditionalities are met xxx." This Decision was in turn based on the finding of ZURICH DISTRICT ATTORNEY Peter Cosandey that the DEPOSITS IN THE NAME OF THE FOUNDATIONS WERE OF ILLEGAL PROVENANCE.

IMELDA Marcos filed a manifestation before the Sandiganbayan claiming she was NOT A PARTY to the Motion for Approval of the Compromise Agreements, and that she OWNED 90% OF THE FUNDS while the remaining 10% belonged to the MARCOS ESTATE.

In a 19 September 2000 Decision, the Sandiganbayan INITIALLY GRANTED the 2000 Motion, declaring that the SWISS DEPOSITS held in escrow at the PNB were ill-gotten wealth, and, thus, FORFEITED in favor of the State.

In a Resolution dated 31 January 2002, the Sandiganbayan REVERSED its earlier ruling and denied the 2000 Motion.

Thereafter, alleging GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION on the part of the Sandiganbayan in rendering its 31 January 2002 Resolution, the Republic filed a Petition for CERTIORARI with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 152154, entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan (for brevity, the "SWISS DEPOSITS DECISION").

Resolving the abovementioned petition of the Republic, the SUPREME Court, in G.R. No. 152154, SET ASIDE the assailed 31 January 2002 Sandiganbayan Resolution and REINSTATED the 19 September 2000 Decision of the Sandiganbayan, including the declaration that the SWISS DEPOSITS WERE ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH.

Thereafter, on 16 July 2004, the Republic filed before the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (2004 Motion) to declare "the funds, properties, shares in and interests of ARELMA, wherever they may be located, as ill-gotten assets and forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 1379.

The Sandiganbayan FORFEITED the funds of ARELMA, INC., presently under management and/or in an account at the MERRILL LYNCH ASSET MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK, U.S.A., in the estimated aggregate amount of US$3,369,975.00 as of 1983, plus all INTERESTS and all other INCOME that accrued THEREON.

On 22 October 2009, Ferdinand "BONGBONG" Marcos, Jr. filed with the Supreme Court the instant Rule 45 Petition, questioning the said Sandiganbayan Decision.

One week later, IMELDA Marcos filed a separate Rule 45 Petition on essentially identical grounds, which was later CONSOLIDATED with the first Petition.

The two petitions questioned the aforementioned Sandiganbayan decision which FORFEITED the funds of ARELMA, INC. in favor of the Republic.

As earlier stated, the Supreme Court DENIED the consolidated petitions of Bongbong and Imelda Marcos.

FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS ARE CIVIL IN NATURE

The crux of the present case devolved solely upon the RECOVERY OF ASSETS presumptively characterized by the law as ill-gotten, and owned by the State; hence, it is AN ACTION IN REM .

Forfeiture proceedings are ACTIONS IN REM and THEREFORE CIVIL IN NATURE. Proceedings under R.A. 1379 do NOT terminate in the imposition of a PENALTY but merely in the FORFEITURE of the properties illegally acquired in favor of the State.

FORFEITURE CASES impose neither a personal criminal liability, nor the civil liability that arises from the commission of a crime (ex delicto). The liability is based solely on a statute that safeguards the RIGHT OF THE STATE TO RECOVER UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED PROPERTIES. Executive Order No. 14 (E.O. No. 14), Defining the Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former President Ferdinand Marcos, authorizes the filing of FORFEITURE SUITS that will PROCEED INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS . Section 3 of E.O. 14 empowered the PCGG to file INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS SEPARATE FROM THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS .

FULL-BLOWN TRIAL NOT REQUIRED IN FORFEITURE CASES SO LONG AS THE PARTIES ARE GIVEN THE OCCASION TO PARTICIPATE AND EXPLAIN HOW THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

A careful analysis of Section 5 of RA 1379 readily discloses that the word "hearing" does not always require the formal introduction of evidence in a trial, only that the parties are given the occasion to participate and explain how they acquired the property in question. If they are unable to show to the satisfaction of the court that they lawfully acquired the property in question, then the court shall declare such property forfeited in favor of the State. There is no provision in the law that a full blown trial ought to be conducted before the court declares the forfeiture of the subject property. Thus, even if the forfeiture proceedings do not reach trial, the court is not precluded from determining the nature of the acquisition of the property in question even in a summary proceeding.

As forfeiture suits under R.A. 1379 are CIVIL in nature, it follows that RULE 35 of the Rules of Court on SUMMARY JUDGMENT may be applied to the present case. This is consistent with the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court in the SWISS DEPOSITS DECISION upholding the summary judgment rendered by the Sandiganbayan over the Swiss deposits, which are subject of the same Petition for Forfeiture as the ARELMA assets.

IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT

FURTHER, the Supreme Court held that, In accordance with the PRINCIPLE OF IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENTS, PETITIONERS Bongbong and Imelda Marcos could no longer use the present forum to assail the ruling in the SWISS DEPOSITS DECISION, which had become FINAL AND EXECUTORY.

Aside from the fact that the method employed by petitioners was improper and redundant, the Supreme Court also ruled that it found no cogent reason to REVISIT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN IN CIVIL CASE NO. 0141, which this Court in the Swiss Deposits Decision found to be THOROUGH AND CONVINCING.

In the first place, using a Rule 45 Petition to question a judgment that has already become FINAL is improper, especially when it seeks RECONSIDERATION OF FACTUAL ISSUES, such as the EARNINGS of the late President from 1940 TO 1965 and the existence of real properties that petitioners claimed were auctioned off to pay the taxes. Secondly, petitioners NEVER RAISED the existence of these earnings and real properties AT THE OUTSET and NEVER MENTIONED these alleged other incomes by way of defense in their ANSWER. In their Answer, and even in their subsequent pleadings, they merely made GENERAL DENIALS of the allegations without stating facts admissible in evidence at the hearing. Both the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court found that the Marcoses’ UNSUPPORTED DENIALS of matters patently and necessarily within their knowledge were INEXCUSABLE , and that a TRIAL WOULD HAVE SERVED NO PURPOSE AT ALL.

The Supreme Court held that R.A. 1379 provided that whenever any PUBLIC OFFICER or employee had acquired during his incumbency an amount of property MANIFESTLY OUT OF PROPORTION TO HIS SALARY as such public officer and to his other lawful income, said property shall be PRESUMED PRIMA FACIE to have been UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED.

THE MARCOS SPOUSES NEVER FILED ANY STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH

The Sandiganbayan found that NEITHER the late Ferdinand Marcos nor petitioner Imelda Marcos filed any STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES , as required by law, from which their net worth could be determined. Coupled with the fact that the Answer consisted of GENERAL DENIALS and a standard plea of "lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations" – what the Court characterized as "foxy replies" and mere pretense – fairness dictates that what must be considered as LAWFUL INCOME should only be the accumulated salaries of the spouses and what are shown in the public documents they submitted, such as their INCOME TAX RETURN (ITR) and their BALANCE SHEETS.

TE LAWFUL INCOME OF THE MARCOS SPOUSES AMOUNTED TO MERELY $304,372.43.30

The amounts representing the combined salaries of the spouses were admitted by petitioner Imelda Marcos in paragraph 10 of her Answer, and reflected in the Certification dated May 27, 1986 issued by then Minister of Budget and Management Alberto Romulo:

Ferdinand E. Marcos, as President

1966-1976 at ₱ 60,000/year ₱ 660,000
1977-1984 at ₱ 100,000/year 800,000
1985 at ₱ 110,000/year 110,000
₱ 1,570,000

Imelda R. Marcos, as Minister

June 1976-1985 at ₱ 75,000/year ₱ 718,000

In addition to their accumulated salaries from 1966 to 1985 were the Marcos couple's combined salaries from January to February 1986 in the amount of ₱30,833.33. Hence, their total accumulated salaries amounted to ₱ 2,319,583.33. Converted to U.S. dollars on the basis of the corresponding peso-dollar exchange rates prevailing during the applicable period when said salaries were received, the total amount had an equivalent value of $304,372.43.30.

PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION: THE ASSETS AND PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY THE MARCOSES WERE MANIFESTLY AND PATENTLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THEIR AGGREGATE SALARIES AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS

The Supreme Court reiterated that the Republic was able to establish the PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses were MANIFESTLY AND PATENTLY DISPROPORTIONATE to their aggregate salaries as public officials. The Republic presented further evidence that they had bigger deposits beyond their lawful incomes, foremost of which were the SWISS ACCOUNTS deposited in the names of FIVE FOUNDATIONS spirited away by the couple to different countries. Petitioners Bongbong and Imelda Marcos thus FAILED TO OVERTURN THIS PRESUMPTION when they merely presented VAGUE DENIALS and pleaded "lack of sufficient knowledge" in their Answer.

LAW OF THE CASE

PETITIONERS Bongbong and Imelda Marcos may no longer question the findings of the Sandiganbayan, affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Swiss Deposits Decision, as these issues have long become the "LAW OF THE CASE" in the original Petition for Forfeiture.

LAW OF THE CASE is a term applied to an established rule that when an APPELLATE COURT passes on a question and REMANDS the case to the LOWER COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS , the question there SETTLED becomes the LAW OF THE CASE upon SUBSEQUENT APPEAL. It means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the CONTROLLING legal rule or decision between the SAME PARTIES in the SAME CASE continues to be the law of the case, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.

The principle means that QUESTIONS OF LAW that have been PREVIOUSLY RAISED AND DISPOSED OF in the proceedings shall be CONTROLLING IN SUCCEEDING INSTANCES where the SAME legal question is raised, PROVIDED that the facts on which the legal issue was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.

NATIONAL POLICY TO RECOVER ILL-GOTTEN PROPERTIES AMASSED BY THE LEADERS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE MARCOS REGIME

E.O. 14, Series of 1986, and Section 1(d) of Proclamation No. 352 declared the national policy after the ouster of the the Marcos regime in 1986. The government aimed to implement the REFORMS mandated by the people: protecting their BASIC RIGHTS, adopting a PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION , and providing for an ORDERLY TRANSITION to a government under a NEW CONSTITUTION . The said Proclamation further states that "The President shall give PRIORITY to measures to achieve the mandate of the people to RECOVER ILL-GOTTEN PROPERTIES amassed by the leaders and supporters of the PREVIOUS REGIME and protect the interest of the people through orders of SEQUESTRATION or FREEZING OF ASSETS OR ACCOUNTS ." One of the "whereas" clauses of E.O. 14 entrusts the PCGG with the "just and expeditious RECOVERY OF SUCH ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH in order that the funds, assets and other properties may be used to hasten NATIONAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY." These clauses are anchored on the overriding considerations of NATIONAL INTEREST and NATIONAL SURVIVAL, always with due regard to the requirements of FAIRNESS and DUE PROCESS .

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASES FOR THE FORFEITURE OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH CASES ALLOWED

The petitioners Bong and Imelda Marcos had again attempted to DELAY THE GOAL OF ASSET RECOVERY by their EVASIVENESS and the EXPEDIENT PROFESSION OF IGNORANCE.

A profession of ignorance about a fact that is necessarily WITHIN THE PLEADER’S KNOWLEDGE OR MEANS OF KNOWING is as ineffective as NO DENIAL AT ALL.

On a similar vein, there was a failure by PETITIONERS Bongbong and Imelda Marcos to properly TENDER AN ISSUE , which, as correctly ruled by the Sandiganbayan, JUSTIFIED the Republic’s resort to SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT may be ALLOWED where there is NO GENUINE ISSUE as to ANY MATERIAL FACT and where the moving party is ENTITLED to a judgment as a MATTER OF LAW.

Summary JUDGMENT is important in weeding out SHAM CLAIMS OR DEFENSES at an early stage of the litigation in order to avoid the expense and loss of time involved in a trial.

Even if the pleadings appear, on their face, to raise issues, summary judgment may still ensue as a matter of law if the AFFIDAVITS , DEPOSITIONS and ADMISSIONS show that such issues are NOT GENUINE. The presence or absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact determines, at bottom, the propriety of summary judgment.

A "GENUINE ISSUE", as differentiated from a fictitious or contrived one, is an issue of fact that REQUIRES THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE.

Even if in the Answer itself there appears to be a tender of issues requiring trial, yet when the relevant AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS , or ADMISSIONS demonstrate that those issues are NOT GENUINE BUT SHAM OR FICTITIOUS , the Court is justified in DISPENSING WITH THE TRIAL and RENDERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT for plaintiff.

Summary judgment, or ACCELERATED JUDGMENT as it is sometimes known, may also call for a hearing so that both the movant and the adverse party may justify their positions. However, the hearing contemplated (with 10-day notice) is for the purpose of determining WHETHER THE ISSUES ARE GENUINE OR NOT , not to receive evidence of the issues set up in the pleadings. A hearing is not de riguer. The matter may be resolved, and usually is, on the basis of AFFIDAVITS , DEPOSITIONS , and ADMISSIONS . This does not mean that the hearing is superfluous; only that the court is empowered to determine its necessity.

The Supreme Court held that, guided by the principles above indicated, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPER . The SANDIGANBAYAN DID NOT COMMIT A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GRANTING THE 2004 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by the Republic.

The Republic was well within its right to avail itself of summary judgment and obtain immediate relief, considering the INSUFFICIENT DENIALS AND PLEAS OF IGNORANCE made by petitioners on matters that were supposedly WITHIN THEIR KNOWLEDGE.

These denials and pleas constituted ADMISSIONS of material allegations under paragraph 59 of the Petition for Forfeiture – a tactic the petitioners Bongbong and Imelda Marcos had employed repeatedly in Civil Case No. 0141.

As discussed, the purpose of summary judgment is precisely TO AVOID LONG DRAWN LITIGATIONS AND USELESS DELAYS. The Supreme Court also affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s findings that the moving party, the Republic, was ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

SOURCE :

R. No. 189434 April 25, 2012

FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, Respondent.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 189505

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

LINK :

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_189434_2012.html