By Raul Gonzalez
Quick-to-the-draw critics who have not even read my letter regarding the Marcos jewels to Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman Camilo Sabio jumped into conclusion (or confusion), saying that I advocate the return of the jewelry to former First Lady Imelda Marcos.
This is farthest from truth. One of them is a certain Etta Rosales, who is so pathetic in her misguided accusations that I am tempted not to dignify her claims with a response.
However, for the sake of accuracy to set the records straight, and to place the issue in perspective based on constitutional provisions:
1). I have to respond to the letters of Mrs. Imelda Marcos’s lawyer asking for the return of the jewelry because the PCGG, to whom the letter of Imelda’s lawyer was sent, obviously failed to reply, in violation of the specific provision of Republic Act (RA) 6713, The Ethical Standards Act. The law requires that public officials must reply to official communications addressed to them within 15 days upon receipt, otherwise, they could be violating RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
2). The letter of Imelda’s lawyer cited specific constitutional provisions and Supreme Court decisions which cannot be ignored and should be properly addressed; and
3). I did not order the return of the jewelry outright. I precisely directed Chairman Sabio and the PCGG board of commissioners to thoroughly review the matter and determine if there are legal impediments on the return of the jewelry.
Maybe it is good to reproduce in full the text of my letter to Chairman Sabio dated June 4, 2009:
This refers to the letter of former First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, through her counsel, dated May 25, 2009, addressed to your office. As embodied in the said letter, Mrs. Marcos demanded for the immediate return of all her pieces of jewelry, which were: (1) taken by the PCGG from the Malacañang Palace during the 1986 Edsa incident; and (2) those turned over to PCGG by the US government.
Per arguments and legal basis of Mrs. Marcos, it must be emphasized that your Office has not initiated any civil or criminal proceeding in any court, tribunal or agency for the forfeiture of the subject jewelry. In fact, there is no existing court decision which pronounces that subject jewelry are ill-gotten and must be forfeited in favor of the government.
Evidently, Mrs. Marcos remains to be the legitimate owner of said prized jewelry. In addition to that, your office never issued any sequestration or freeze order over said jewelry, which is mandated by Article 18 of the 1987 Constitution. She, likewise, hoists Executive Order 2, affording her the fair opportunity to contest claims over the subject jewelries before appropriate Philippine authorities. In the same vein, Executive Order 14 is clear that your office shall file a case with the Sandiganbayan for the recovery of the alleged ill-gotten properties. Presently, no final determination yet can be had that the subject jewelry are ill-gotten.
Mrs. Marcos, likewise, clarifies the cases of Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co. Inc. v. PCGG 150 SCRA 181 [1987], Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 106244, January 22, 1997, and People v. Clores, GR 61408, October 12, 1983, as her legal arguments for the immediate return of the subject jewelries.
In view, thereof, your office is hereby required to consider the legal basis and the proffered arguments of the entreaty sought for by Mrs. Marcos. Thus, it is incumbent upon your office to deliberate the legal ramifications in resolving the said matter in the next board meeting.
If you find no legal impediment, your office is directed to return the subject jewelry.
Under Article 18, Section 26, of the Constitution, it says categorically:
“The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation 3 dated March 25, 1986, in relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more than 18 months after the ratification of the Constitution. However, in the national interest, as certified by the President, the Congress may extend said period.
“A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon showing of a prima facie case. The order and the list of the sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered with the proper court. For orders issued before the ratification of the Constitution, the corresponding judicial action or proceeding shall be filed within six months from its ratification. For those issued after such ratification, the judicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within six months from the issuance thereof.
“The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein provided.”
It should be noted that the Constitution, in paragraph 2 of Section 26, further emphasized that under Proclamation 3 dated March 25, 1986, “Recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more than 18 months after ratification of the Constitution.”
The Constitution was ratified on February 2, 1987. It is now June 2009, more than 22 years after the ratification of the Constitution, and the Constitution adds that sequestration orders “issued before the ratification of the Constitution, the corresponding judicial action or proceeding shall be filed within six months” from the date of the ratification.
So, is anybody remiss in their duty to sequester or freeze the Imelda jewelry? I repeat, I am not taking-up the cudgels for Mrs. Marcos. I am merely citing the law. After all, the law says that no person shall unduly enrich himself at the expense of another. Even the Republic must adhere to this doctrine. If it can be proven that these jewelry are ill-gotten by the proper court, by all means let it be forfeited by the Republic of the Philippines.
Find more like this: Opinion
