In a single-page order, Judge Aida Rangel Roque told the 73-year-old widow of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos to attend the hearing set on Dec. 10 at 10 a.m. at the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 26.
"The appearance of accused Imelda Marcos on the next scheduled hearing is hereby ordered by the Court," the order stated. She sent her lawyer with a power of attorney to be her representative, but Roque said the defendant cannot make a lawyer appear on her behalf.
A representative is prohibited in criminal cases and is only allowed in civil suits, according to state prosecutor Ruben Carretas, who is handling the case for the prosecution. He is under the supervision of assistant chief state prosecutor Nilo Mariano.
In 1986, the administration of then President Corazon Aquino found that the Marcos couple maintained accounts in Swiss Bank Corp. in Geneva, Switzerland amounting to some 16,195.258 in Swiss francs under the name of Maler.
Under Philippine laws, Filipino citizens are not allowed to have a foreign exchange account in any other country without first seeking the approval of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
The Marcoses and their cronies were held criminally liable for having a foreign exchange account abroad and for their alleged "failure to report interest earnings" of the account to proper authorities.
The Supreme Court (SC) held that even if the old laws on dollar-salting cases (CB Circular Nos. 960, 1318, 1353, and Republic Act 265) have been repealed with the enactment of the New Central Bank Act (RA 7653), this does not mean Marcos is off the hook.
Among Marcos’ co-defendants were the late Jose Fernandez, former Central Bank governor during the time of former President Marcos, and the late Roberto Benedicto, a sugar baron and ally of the late president.
Fernandez and Benedicto were removed from the charge sheet because of their death, which, under Philippine law, extinguishes a defendant’s criminal as well as civil liability.
Hector River, one of the defendants, tried but failed to convince the Supreme Court that the dollar-salting suits should be nullified because the period in which they should be filed had lapsed.
Prescription, or the lapse of time for which they should be charged, cannot be made a defense because of "political realities" –’ widow and cronies enjoyed the protection of the late dictator when he was still in power, the SC said.
In May 1996, the Court of Appeals upheld the authority of former Manila Judge Guillermo Loja in trying four of the 25 dollar-setting cases. The SC consolidated the suits in a Manila court, 21 of which were previously filed in Pasig City.
Pasig Judge David Nitafan was even rebuked by the SC when he dismissed in July 1992 the cases even if there was no move from the defense to throw out the charges. The cases were then ordered reinstated.
"A combination of these two personalities (judge and defense counsel) in one person is violative of due process, not only of the accused but also of the prosecution," Liu said.
The Supreme court ruled that the regular regional trial courts have jurisdiction over the administrative cases because what was applicable during that was PD 1606, which states that cases having a jail term of six years and below fall in RTC’s and not the Sandiganbayan.