Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. is set to testify today against former Marcos crony Lucio Tan before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division.
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) said yesterday it has asked the Sandiganbayan to compel the attendance of Marcos as a hostile witness against Tan in the anti-graft court.
The Sandiganbayan has also set additional hearing dates for the government to present its evidence on Aug. 1, 20, 21 and 22.
In 1987, the PCGG filed a forfeiture case against Tan and several of his companies, including Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery, Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp., Silangan Holdings, Dominium Realty, Construction Corp. and Shareholdings Inc.
The case docketed as Civil Case No. 005 has dragged on for 20 years.
Marcos’ appearance, according to PCGG Commissioner Nicasio Conti, is pursuant to Section 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which provides that a party may present a hostile witness or a person having adverse interest against his claim.
“It is expected that Bongbong Marcos will testify on his family’s claim against the interest of Mr. Lucio Tan, which is consistent with the earlier assertion of his mother, former first lady Mrs. Imelda Marcos,” Conti said.
Assistant Solicitor General John Emmanuel Madamba explained that the attendance of Marcos was secured to compel him to produce and testify on the documents earlier marked in evidence by Mrs. Marcos pertaining to numerous corporations belonging to Mr. Tan, 60 percent of which are being claimed by the Marcoses, alleged as ill-gotten by the government.
“I have been advised (by my lawyers). I am not to speak on the specifics of my testimony or any of the legal issues that have arisen,” said Marcos in an interview with the media at his lawyers’ office at the Marcos Ochoa Serapio & Tan (MOST) Law Firm located in Ortigas Center, Pasig City.
Among those present were his lawyers and lawyers from the PCGG.
Marcos’ lawyers had earlier met in the law firm to discuss the case, but declined to comment on specifics.
However, the MOST Law Firm said in a statement that the purpose of the meeting was to prepare Marcos for his testimony.
They said that sources had informed them that former First Lady Imelda Marcos would be testifying after her son.
When asked how this case is different from the case of Mrs. Marcos, Rep. Marcos declined to comment, saying, “even if I wanted to answer it I cannot.”
“We do not want to preempt the testimony tomorrow. I am afraid we will just have to leave it at that for now,” he said.
Marcos also said he does not need to insulate himself when he testifies against Tan, even if his testimony would be used by the government or the PCGG against him.
“I don’t need to insulate myself from anything. I haven’t committed any crime. I haven’t done anything wrong. Why do I need to insulate myself?” Marcos said.
He said the subject on a compromise agreement with Tan has not come up.
“We simply had not discussed it. Within the family, with my lawyers, we just simply have not talked about it at all. Whether or not we will enter into such a discussion, may be beyond where we are now. That question is much, much too far ahead of where we are now,” he said.
Bongbong said the determining factor is whether what they are saying is true or not.
Rep. Marcos said this testimony is important to the Marcos family.
“Because they have been lying about what has been going on. They, meaning, let us generalize by calling them the cronies,” he said.
On the other hand, Marcos said that his family knows Constante Rubio, the close confidante of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, who claimed the wealth of the former president came from business dealings, particularly on gold trading, and not ill-gotten wealth.
Rubio’s testimony was admitted in the lower court and was “perpetuated,” meaning it became a legal document and could be used as testimony evidence even after his death, to prove that the Marcos wealth was acquired legally.
Rep. Marcos had admitted that if Rubio’s testimony is “useful,” they would use it in the Marcos cases. He however said he has not read it yet. – With James Mananghaya