Gov't set to appeal Marcos case ruling

MANILA, Philippines - The government will appeal the Sandiganbayan dismissal of the P51-billion damage suit against the late President Ferdinand Marcos, his widow Imelda, and several others.

Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz said that the anti-graft court seemed oblivious to the political reality during martial law in deciding to clear the Marcoses, several officials of his administration and some businessmen of liability.

“We should appeal this,” Cadiz said, noting that the justices who came out with the ruling were the same ones who upheld the plea bargaining agreement between the special prosecutors of the Office of the Ombudsman and dismissed military comptroller and accused plunderer Carlos Garcia.

He said he would coordinate with the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on the action to be taken once they receive their copies of the decision.

In a 69-page ruling, the anti-graft court’s Special Second Division cleared the Marcos couple, former trade minister Roberto Ongpin, former military chief Fabian Ver, and several other government and private individuals of involvement in the operations of the so-called “Binondo Central Bank,” which sold US dollars in the black market from 1984 to 1986.

The Sandiganbayan cited the “absence of evidence” in its ruling penned by Associate Justice Samuel Martires. The anti-graft court said the OSG and the PCGG failed to prove that the Marcoses and their co-accused had enriched themselves by stealing government money.

In a phone interview Friday night, PCGG Commissioner Gerard Mosquera said the PCGG is in possession of an order from the Sandiganbayan Second Division setting hearings on the case on Jan. 31, 2012 and Feb. 1, 2012. The order is dated Oct.10, 2011.

“Considering that there are still incidents to be resolved by this Court, let the hearing for today and tomorrow be cancelled and reset to Jan. 31 and Feb 1, 2012, both at 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon,” the order stated.

“Yes, there seems to be irregularities in the way the decision was promulgated. We will definitely file an MR (motion for reconsideration),” said Andres Bautista, PCGG chairman. He said they expect to file an MR within 15 days of the receipt of their copy of the decision.

Cadiz said the Sandiganbayan appeared to be revising history with its decision as if nothing happened during martial law and the Marcoses did nothing wrong. “It’s like Holocaust did not happen,” Cadiz said, referring to the Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews during World War II.

Malacañang, through deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte, said it would be up to the PCGG and the OSG to take action on the Sandiganbayan’s decision.

She said the administration inherited the case and gave assurances that government lawyers were always under instructions to file strong charges.

The case, filed on July 23, 1987, held that the Marcoses and their officials conspired with private individuals – including eight Chinese businessmen who acted as operators, financiers, couriers and agents – in managing and operating the Binondo Central Bank.

The operation allegedly involved the buying of US dollars in the black market and the direct shipment of dollar stocks to Hong Kong where they were sold and traded at higher prices without prior clearance and authority from the Central Bank of the Philippines and without payment of fees, charges, and taxes to the government.

The complaint accused the respondents of “misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder of the nation’s wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other acts of corruption, betrayal of public trust, and brazen abuse of power, at the expense and to the grave and irreparable damage of plaintiff and the Filipino people.”

Based on the case, Ongpin and Vinnie James Yu, assistant general manager of the Marcos-era National Development Authority, conspired with the Marcoses for the creation of joint venture Triad Asia Limited (TAL) with Triad Holding Corp. (THL).

The joint venture was entitled to government equity of $500,000 but Ongpin allegedly infused $10,640,000 instead, using National Development Corp. (NDC) and Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corp. (PASAR) resources.

“This (decision) came as a surprise,” Mosquera said upon learning of the Sandiganbayan decision. “We find the decision highly irregular because the trial is not yet completed.

“The timing is very suspicious. Why render a decision when we are still presenting evidence?” he said. “We have not yet received a copy of the decision. What we know about it is what we’ve read in the papers.”

He said they would write to the Sandiganbayan on Tuesday to question the decision. He clarified that it is not yet the MR that they expect to file within 15 days of the receipt of the decision. He also said the PCGG is mulling filing administrative cases against the justices who signed the decision.