Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, May 5) – The Sandiganbayan (SB) Fourth Division has denied for lack of merit a motion by members of the Marcos family to reacquire properties and assets earlier deemed as illegally obtained in a resolution promulgated on Thursday.
The defendants named in the resolution were late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, now referred to as the Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos and represented by Imelda Marcos and incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Irene Marcos-Araneta, and Constante Rubio, a close associate of the elder Marcos.
On August 5, 2022, Imelda and Irene Marcos — mother and sister to the president, respectively — filed an Omnibus Motion for the issuance of a Writ of Execution to transfer properties and assets seized by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) back to their family.
The SB on Jan. 25, 2023 resolved to deny their motion for writ of execution. The Marcoses then filed a motion to partially reconsider the denial on Feb. 17.
There were 23 different properties and assets listed in the SB’s resolution, namely:
Marcopper Mining
Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation
Philippine Long Distance Tel. Co. (PLDT)
Philippine Integrated Meat Corp. (PIMECO)
Phil. Telecoms Investment Corp. (PITC)
Phil Overseas Telecom. Corp. (POTC)
Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC)
Houses Baguio City
68634 Talaga, Mariveles, Bataan
Celebrity Sports Plaza
Hacienda Cambio
Hacienda Camsmisana
Hacienda Colisap
Hacienda Consuelo
Hacienda de Fuego
Hacienda Lonoy
Hacienda Nahalin
Hacienda Sivellana-Binubuhan
Ecological Technology Foundation
RPN, BBC, ICV TV & Radio Stations
S-54804 (64208)
S-54806 (64209)
S-54857 (64210)
According to the SB, the defendants motioned that the aforementioned properties and assets which were recovered by the government be returned to them as they had been deprived of them for over 30 years and that these had allegedly dissipated due to neglect “while under the administration of the PCGG.”
The SB added that the Marcos estate based their motion on the supposed “illegality” transfers of these properties and assets to the PCGG “by virtue of compromise agreements and the lack of authority of the PCGG in entering into such contracts.”
“The Court is not persuaded,” the SB said.
The court argued that these properties and assets were illegally obtained, citing the PCGG, which was formed during the administration of former President Cory Aquino and its mandate to recover all of the ill-gotten wealth accumulated by late President Marcos.
It also cited similar cases against the defendants involving the same illegally-obtained properties. “In those cases, the Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of the Compromise Agreements executed by the parties involving the recovery of certain properties and the authority of the PCGG to enter such agreements.”
