MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has denied the appeal of former first lady Imelda Marcos and her daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta to recover several assets included in a P200-billion civil forfeiture case that was dismissed by the court in 2019.
In its 15-page resolution promulgated last Thursday, the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division denied the Marcoses’ motion for reconsideration that prayed for the court to issue a writ of execution for its 2019 decision on Civil Case No. 0002.
Filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in 1987, the forfeiture case had sought to recover P200 billion worth of wealth allegedly amassed illegally by the Marcos family and their cronies during martial law.
A writ of execution would effectively lift the sequestration and freeze orders earlier issued by the court on the assets which were subjects of the case, among them a trust account with P55 million, several real estate properties and a 526-piece art collection in the safekeeping of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
The Fourth Division said the former first lady and her daughter failed to raise any new meritorious argument in their appeal that would warrant the reversal of its Jan. 25, 2023 ruling denying their original motion.
“A motion for reconsideration should be denied when the same only constitutes a rehash of issues previously put forward… Nevertheless, after thoughtful consideration thereof, as well as the records of this case, the Court still does not find any cogent reason to overturn its earlier pronouncement,” the resolution read.
The anti-graft court maintained that it cannot issue a writ of execution on its 2019 decision as the judgment is not yet considered final and executory since the ruling is under appeal by the PCGG before the Supreme Court (SC).
It said that while the Rules of Court allow execution of judgment pending appeal under extraordinary circumstances, Mrs. Marcos and her daughter failed to provide “good reason” to be exempted from the general rule.
The court gave no merit to the Marcoses’ argument that the case had dragged on for more than three decades already, causing them to suffer “mentally and emotionally” and depriving them of their “proprietary rights.”
The court also gave no weight to the Marcoses’ claim that the properties must be given back to their owners as the PCGG supposedly dissipated them when it entered into several compromise agreements without the defendants’ consent.
The Fourth Division maintained that the validity of a majority of the compromise agreements entered into by the PCGG has already been affirmed by the SC.
“With the above pronouncements by no less than the Highest Court, the contention that the subject properties were dissipated while under the PCGG administration has no leg to stand on,” the ruling, penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi, read.
Associate Justices Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and Maryanne Corpus-Mañalac concurred with the ruling.