PCGG to appeal S’pore court ruling on FM wealth

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) is set to appeal the Singapore Supreme Court’s decision on the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses in the island-state.

In a statement released the other night, the PCGG said it is set to appeal a decision rendered by the Singapore High Court on Dec. 27 for being "patently flawed."

The decision, the PCGG said, found the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and the Republic of the Philippines had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singapore High Court. The PCGG also said that, when the PNB made a claim for the beneficial interest in the funds, it could only have done so on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.

However, despite the PNB being its escrow agent, the Republic of the Philippines has not in any way authorized the PNB to submit to jurisdiction on its behalf, the PCGG said. Therefore, the PNB’s acts "should not, in any way, bind the Republic."

Further, by its affirmative defenses in its application for a stay in the proceedings, the Philippine government was found by the Singapore Court to have submitted to its jurisdiction by virtue of its petition that the funds be released to the Republic of the Philippines, the PCGG said.

The PCGG said it should be noted, however, that had the Philippines not filed for the release of the funds, any decision favoring the stay would have resulted in an "absurdity" in which proceedings were stayed with the funds remaining in the custody of the Singapore court.

The Philippine government will continue to heavily assert its rights under the State Immunity Act, which provides that only through its ambassador can a sovereign state waive its state immunity in a foreign country.

Thus, even as the Singapore court mistakenly construed the acts of PNB as a submission to jurisdiction on behalf of the Philippine government, the provisions of the State Immunity Act stand to invalidate that conclusion, the PCGG statement said.

PCGG legal department director Jay Miguel refuted the claims of lawyer Rod Domingo Jr., who is the legal counsel of the Marcos human rights victims, stating that their view of the decision is as flawed as the decision itself.

"The recent decision is not a decision on the merits of the West LB AG Case, but a decision on the Republic’s application for an order that would stay the interpleader proceedings," Miguel said.

"Lest the statements of Domingo continue to mislead those interested in the case and give them false hopes, the public has to be appraised that the said decision did not in any way adjudicate the funds in question to any of the parties but was merely a denial of an application," Miguel said. — Sandy Araneta