SC to government: Get out of Lucio Tan firms

The Supreme Court upheld yesterday a ruling by the Sandiganbayan ordering the lifting of government’s sequestration of companies and other business interests of taipan Lucio Tan. 

In a 19-page decision penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, the SC’s First Division reaffirmed the Feb.14, 2006 Sandiganbayan order for the government – represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) – to give up control and management of Allied Banking Corp., Fortune Tobacco Corp., Foremost Farms Inc. and Shareholdings Inc.

The PCGG said it expects the Office of the Solicitor General to appeal the SC ruling.

“Normally, the PCGG through the Solgen will file a motion for reconsideration,” PCGG Commissioner Narciso Nario told The STAR.

“But we have not yet received a copy of the decision,” Nario said.

The High Court reiterated the anti-graft court’s ruling that the disputed business interests do not constitute ill-gotten wealth.

“In sum, there can be no question that indeed, petitioner’s orders of sequestration are void and have no legal effect,” the SC said.

“It must be emphasized that petitioner’s evidence does not show how the properties sequestered were acquired by respondents or that they are ‘ill-gotten wealth’ and whether former President Marcos intervened in their acquisition,” the SC added.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna abstained from the ruling, which was concurred in by justices Consuelo Yñares-Santiago and Renato Corona.

Tan’s lawyer Estelito Mendoza said the tycoon was “most gratified” on learning of the SC’s decision.

“It has been 21 long years since the writs of sequestration, which have been declared null and void, have been issued. It proves all along our main contention that there is no prima facie basis that the shares constitute ill- gotten wealth as defined under Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2 and as required by the Constitution,” Mendoza said.

The Aquino administration created the PCGG in 1986 soon after the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos to go after the ill-gotten wealth and assets of the late strongman and his alleged cronies, including Tan.

PCGG, then chaired by Jovito Salonga, seized Allied Bank on June 19, 1986 and Fortune Tobacco on July 24 of the same year. The following month, PCGG ordered the sequestration of Foremost Farms.

Tan and co-petitioners questioned the sequestration before the SC in September 1986, but the High Court referred the matter to the Sandiganbayan in February 1990.

Tan, in his petition, said PCGG’s takeover should be voided because only two members of the commission signed the writs of sequestration and that the writs “lapsed into ineffectivity” because there was no judicial confirmation that the assets in question were ill-gotten.

He also argued that the writs were issued despite the absence of prima facie evidence that the shares were ill-gotten.

The Sandiganbayan, in response, said signatures of two commissioners were enough to validate a writ of sequestration and that the writs did not expire because the PCGG filed the appropriate cases within the required six-month period from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.

But the anti-graft court agreed with Tan that there was nothing in the 190 pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the government to support the issuance of the writs of sequestration. 

The Sandiganbayan pointed out that in the case of Foremost Farms, for instance, the only meeting regarding its sequestration was held on the very same day the order was issued.

It said this “bolsters the apprehension that there was truly no deep discussion on the basis of issuing such sequestration order.”

The Sandiganbayan also warned the government against indiscriminate use of its sequestration powers.

“Inasmuch as the sequestration tends to impede or limit the exercise of proprietary rights by private citizens, it should be construed strictly against the state,” the Sandiganbayan said.

“Sequestration is an extraordinary, harsh and even severe remedy. It should be confined to its lawful parameters and exercised with due regard in the words of its enabling laws to the requirements of fairness, due process and justice,” it pointed out. With Rainier Allan Ronda

 

 

 

 

Show comments