2018: Sandiganbayan’s rulings on high-profile cases

By: Gabriel Pabico Lalu - 6 years ago

NOT GUILTY Former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. celebrates his acquittal surrounded by supporters and media at the Sandiganbayan. LYN RILLON

MANILA, Philippines — Since its creation in 1973, the Sandiganbayan has handled a lot of controversial cases, largely because of its nature as a court hearing cases on anomalous government transactions.

This year has been no exception — especially in the last few months of 2018 — after two high-profile cases were decided upon by the anti-graft court.

More than 27 years after the cases were filed, and 32 years since her family went into self-exile, former First Lady and incumbent Ilocos Norte 2nd District Rep. Imelda Marcos was convicted of seven counts of graft cases.

On November 9, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division decided that Marcos — who was absent during the promulgation of her cases — was guilty of violating R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when she funneled funds to seven Swiss foundations while she was a member of the Batasang Pambansa, governor of Metro Manila, and as minister of Human Settlements.

According to the Sandiganbayan decision, Mrs. Marcos and her late husband former President Ferdinand Marcos set up the Swiss foundations and three other local entities using the pseudonym Jane Ryan and William Saunders for their own family’s benefit and not for charity.

“Ms. Marcos argued as a defense in her Memorandum that, what is prohibited under Article IX, Section 8 (of the 1973 Constitution) is to ‘participate in the management of any business,’” the Sandiganbayan noted in the decision.

“The court is not convinced. A ‘business’ is generally defined as the activity of making one’s living or making money by producing or buying and selling goods or services. Simply put, it is any activity or enterprise entered into for profit,” it added.

A week later, Mrs. Marcos appeared before the Court to explain her absence and post a new bail of P150,000. At the witness stand, Mrs. Marcos was quizzed by Fifth Division Chairperson Associate Justice Rafael Lagos on why she and her counsel lawyer Robert Sison skipped the promulgation.

She explained that Sison was sick, thus was unable to inform her of the proceedings, claiming that she would have attended the promulgation had she known of its schedule.

Aside from that, Mrs. Marcos cited seven ailments which prompted her doctor to advise her against attending stressful occasions to avoid “heart and brain attack and recurrence of seizure.”

Despite the medical findings, Marcos was seen attending a party in San Juan just hours after the Sandiganbayan handed out the guilty verdict against her. She stated that it was only due to the request of her daughter, Ilocos Norte Governor Imee Marcos who celebrated her birthday.

She was sentenced to serve jail time of six years and one month up to 11 years for each count. Weeks after, the Sandiganbayan allowed her to post bail again, worth P300,000, in consideration of her old age and while her motion was being heard at the Supreme Court.

Several netizens expressed delight on the decision against Mrs. Marcos, although some were disappointed that the Sandiganbayan allowed her to enjoy temporary liberty.