The Supreme Court affirmed yesterday with finality an earlier decision lifting the government’s sequestration on the shares of tycoon Lucio Tan in several companies, including Allied Banking Corp. (ABC) and Fortune Tobacco Corp.
The Court stressed that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General were unable to raise new arguments in their motion for reconsideration filed last Jan. 2 to warrant the reversal of its Dec. 7, 2007 decision.
The SC pointed out that, “the basic issues have already been passed upon and there is no substantial argument therein to warrant a modification of this Court’s decision.”
The resolution signed by First Division Clerk of Court Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal affirmed the 19-page decision penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, which affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision lifting the PCGG’s sequestration orders against Tan’s properties namely ABC, Fortune Tobacco, Foremost Farms Inc., and Shareholdings Inc.
In lifting the sequestration order, the High Tribunal noted that the PCGG failed to present prima facie evidence to show that the shares belong to the government or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions.
In its 62-page motion for reconsideration, the PCGG, through its special legal counsel Catalino Generillo, insisted that there is prima facie basis to justify the issuance of the sequestration orders covering Allied Bank, Fortune Tobacco, Foremost Farms Inc., and Shareholdings Inc.
The PCGG also stressed that the Sandiganbayan decision upheld by the Supreme Court in its Dec. 7 ruling was null and void, as it has no jurisdiction over the petitions for certiorari, prohibition and injunction originally filed by Lucio Tan in the High Court, which the latter in turn had referred to the anti-graft court.
According to the PCGG, Presidential Decree No. 1606 that created the Sandiganbayan did not vest the anti-graft court with jurisdiction to take cognizance of such petitions.
The PCGG noted that Section 4 of PD 1606 gives Sandiganbayan the power to hear cases of violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; crimes committed by public officers and employees including those employed in government-owned corporations; and other crimes committed by public officers or employees in relation to their office.
Even if the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to try and decide Tan’s petition, the PCGG claimed the anti-graft court erred in holding that there is no prima facie evidence to justify the issuance of the sequestration orders.
“In the instant case, petitioner presented 190 documents as evidence. Respondents failed to rebut, explain or contradict the evidentiary facts upon which the questioned sequestration orders were anchored,” the PCGG said.
The Court, in ordering the lifting of sequestration on Tan’s shares, said the government did not present evidence that the shares belong to the government or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions.
“Nor is there evidence that respondents, taking undue advantage of their connections or relationship with former President Marcos or his family, relatives and close associates, were able to acquire those shares of stock,” the SC said.
The Court noted that the only evidence held by petitioner prior to the issuance of the writs of sequestration was the minutes of its meetings.
But the PCGG said it is entitled to the legal presumption that its official duty was regularly performed and that matters discussed during its meetings have been carefully studied and reviewed by the commissioners.
“What is undeniable is the minutes of meetings indubitably prove that the decision to sequester was presented to the Commission. The approval by the PCGG of the recommendation to sequester shows it made its own independent determination of the existence of a prima facie case before it issued the writs of sequestration,” the PCGG said.
In addition, the PCGG noted that the anti-graft court had failed to take judicial notice of the admission of former First Lady Imelda Marcos that her husband, the late President Ferdinand Marcos, owns 60 percent of the Tan’s companies.
“Sandiganbayan should have taken judicial notice of the admission of defendant Imelda Marcos that President Marcos owns 60 percent of the sequestered companies and his beneficial interests therein were held in trust by respondent Lucio Tan personally and through his family members and business associates who appeared as the recorded stockholders of said companies,” the PCGG said.
The admission of Mrs. Marcos should have put to rest the issue of whether there is prima facie evidence for the issuance of the sequestration orders, the PCGG said.
“It must be emphasized that petitioner’s (PCGG) 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 Tribunal said.