Supreme Court blocks anew PCGG bid on Eastern Telecoms

The Supreme Court has blocked anew the government’s plan to present more evidence in a sequestration case it filed against the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos and several others in connection with their purchase of majority shares of a telecommunications company.

Maintaining its earlier vote of 7-7, the high tribunal dismissed for lack of merit the appeal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) seeking a reversal of the Feb. 7, 2002, ruling of the Sandiganbayan which disallowed the deposition of Maurice Bane as additional evidence in the PCGG’s bid to take control of Eastern Telecommunications Phils. Inc. (ETPI).

The high court also dismissed the government’s motion asking Chief Justice Renato Corona to inhibit himself from the case after he was impeached by the House of Representatives.

“As stated in the last part of the December 13, 2011, decision … the en banc already deliberated on the case and failed to arrive at a conclusive decision because of a tie vote,” the court said in its March 13 ruling.

“After considering the arguments raised in the motion for reconsideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines, the court resolves to deny the same for lack of merit,” it added.

Under the court’s internal rules, a decision of the lower court would be upheld in case of a tie vote of the 15-member high tribunal.

Aside from the late dictator, also indicted were his wife Ilocos Norte Representative Imelda Marcos, his son and namesake Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Jose Africa, Manuel Nieto Jr., Roberto Benedicto and Potenciano Ilusorio.

In throwing out the government’s request for Corona’s inhibition, the court argued that the Chief Justice “had already weighed the merits of the case and voted on the main decision even before he was hastily impeached on December 12, 2011.”

In its December 2011 ruling, the court said it did not accept the deposition of Bane,  former ETPI director and treasurer in trust, after the PCGG failed to prove that the witness was unavailable at the time the case was originally filed in 1987.