Sandiganbayan junks Marcos family’s bid to get seized properties
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has junked the plea by former first lady Imelda Marcos and her daughter Irene to recover the properties sequestered from them in their dismissed P200- billion civil forfeiture case.
In a 40-page resolution on Jan. 25, the court’s Fourth Division said the motion by the two members of the Marcos family seeking the return of the properties declared as ill-gotten and sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was junked for lack of merit.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 0002 and included a frozen trust account with P55 million and several sequestered properties and companies.
Following the dismissal of the said case in 2019, the Marcoses said that the freeze orders and sequestration on assets and properties could now be lifted.
In their motion on Aug. 5 last year, Mrs. Marcos and Irene sought the return of the recovered properties, which were denominated as frozen accounts, surrendered by virtue of compromise agreements, sequestered but not in the PCGG’s custody, and those that were sequestered under the PCGG’s control and supervision.
They also lamented before the court that the decision on their dismissed case have caused them to “suffer greatly, mentally and emotionally” and that it took more than three decades for the case to be resolved.
However, the Sandiganbayan, in its resolution, said that it was timely for the PCGG to file an appeal on the dismissed case at the Supreme Court in August last year, which made the decision junking the case as not yet final.
“The fact that more than three decades have passed before the said case was decided is not a good reason considering that numerous factors have contributed to said length of period,” read the resolution written by Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi, also the division chair.
Concurring with him were Associate Justices Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and Maryann Corpus-Mañalac.
The court also said that the Marcoses “offered no proof or reason how the properties subject of this case are being dissipated.”