Danding asks SC to inhibit Carpio

Businessman Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco is asking the Supreme Court to disqualify Justice Antonio Carpio from taking part in the case involving Cojuangco’s shares of stock in the Bulletin Publishing Corp. which the government claims to be ill-gotten.

Cojuangco through counsel Estelito P. Mendoza claimed that Carpio is biased against him, citing an article written by presidential chief-of-staff Rigoberto Tiglao which appeared in the April 13, 1993 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review entitled: Crusader or Crook – Presidential Aide Carpio Takes on Manila’s Elite:

"Carpio presents himself not merely as Ramos lawyer, but as the field commander of the president’s shock troops in reforming the country…the major initiatives in which he has played a role include: the drive against Eduardo Cojuangco, the close associate of former president Ferdinand Marcos; the moves to confiscate Marcos estate; the campaign to dismantle Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.’s (PLDT) monopoly in telecommunication. Carpio is unabashedly upbeat in his assessment of all three campaigns. He is confident, for example, the government will ultimately checkmate Cojuangco, adding We will soon see the crumbling of his empire."

Carpio was then Ramos’ chief counsel while Tiglao was FEER’s Manila bureau chief.

The government through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is hoping to reclaim these Bulletin shares. It filed and later won the case before the Sandiganbayan when the court’s fourth division on March 14, 2002 declared the disputed shares as ill-gotten.

The shares, totaling 198,052.5 are actually registered under the names of Jose Campos (90,8665.5) Cojuangco (90,877) and Cesar C. Zalamea (16,309). Cojuangco denied owning any shares of stock in Bulletin, but claimed that he is holding those shares in his name as nominee and trustee of the late Hanz M. Menzi who used to own the newspaper.

Cojuangco said the shares he holds in trust could not be declared as ill-gotten. He asked the high court to reverse the Sandigan ruling on the grounds that:

1. The shares were admittedly privately owned by Hanz Menzi even prior to the time Marcos became president.

2. There was no evidence that Marcos acquired those shares from Menzi.

3. There was no showing that government funds were used to acquire those shares, even if they were actually acquired by Marcos. (The PCGG did not take a position as to how, how much or with what funds Marcos acquired the shares from Menzi and no evidence was presented on these matters.)