Marcos heirs remain defendants in P200-B case

MANILA, Philippines - The Marcos children remain defendants in a P200-billion case against their family, although the Sandiganbayan had cleared them in 2005, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

The SC said Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos and Irene Marcos-Araneta, being compulsory heirs of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, must remain defendants for reversion, re-conveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against their father.

“Thus, while it was not proven that respondents conspired in accumulating ill-gotten wealth, they may be in possession, ownership or control of such ill-gotten properties or the proceeds thereof as heirs of the Marcos couple,” read the SC decision.

“Thus, their lack of participation in any illegal act does not remove the character of the property as ill-gotten and, therefore, as rightfully belonging to the state.”

Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, President Aquino’s first appointee to the SC, penned the 27-page decision.

Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes, another Aquino appointee, concurred in the ruling.

In a decision on Dec. 6, 2005, the Sandiganbayan cleared the three Marcos children of any liability in Civil Case No. 0002, which involves alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family, including real estate properties here and abroad.

In affirming the anti-graft court, the SC said it was correct in dismissing the complaint against the Marcos siblings because the prosecutors failed to comply with Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court that the evidence must be the original document itself.

The SC said government prosecutors were not able to sufficiently explain why they failed to present the originals of the documents showing the Marcos siblings’ participation in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.

“Thus, absent any convincing evidence to hold otherwise, it follows that petitioner failed to prove that the Marcos siblings and Gregorio Araneta III collaborated with former President Marcos and Imelda Marcos and participated in the first couple’s alleged accumulation of ill-gotten wealth insofar as the specific allegations herein were concerned,” read the SC decision.

However, the SC modified the portion in the ruling where the names of the three Marcos children were ordered removed as defendants in the case.

The SC said that unless executors of the Marcos estate or the heirs waive in favor of the state their right to protect the estate or those properties found to be ill-gotten wealth in their possession, then they may not be dropped as defendants in the case.

The case against the Marcos estate executors, former first lady Imelda Marcos and Marcos Jr., must be maintained pursuant to the Rules of Court, the SC said.

Under that provision, actions may be commended to recover from the estate, real or personal property, or an interest therein, or to enforce a lien thereon; and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commended against the executors.

Imee and Irene must also be maintained as defendants on the basis of the “non-exhaustive” list attached to the amended complaint of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, which states that the Marcos couple and their immediate family owned the listed properties.

The PCGG accused Imee of dollar salting in using Glorious Sun to import denim fabrics from one supplier at prices much higher that those paid by other users of similar materials.

It was also alleged that the Marcoses personally benefited from the sequestered media networks IBC-13, BBC-2, and RPN-9, in which Imee had a substantial interest.

Irene was accused of having conspired with her husband, Gregorio Araneta III, in his being Marcos’ conduit to Pantranco, paving the way for his father-in-law’s ownership of the company in violation of the Constitution.