Inquirer file photo
MANILA, Philippines — The Sandiganbayan has thrown out the remaining six ill-gotten wealth cases involving the alleged misuse of the controversial coconut levy funds against the late President Marcos Sr., his wife Imelda, and the late tycoon Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., due to the prosecution’s failure to even begin its presentation of evidence and witnesses since the cases were filed nearly four decades ago.
In a resolution promulgated on Dec. 12, the Second Division junked Civil Case Nos. 0033-B, 0033-C, 0033-D, 0033-E, 0033-G and 0033-H, against the Marcoses and Cojuangco for “inordinate delay,” a 37-year wait which the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the complainant in all cases, should have justified.
READ: Sandigan junks 2 more Marcos, crony wealth cases
“There have been many opportunities for the plaintiff to begin its initial presentation of evidence and witnesses throughout these decades, and yet it did not choose to do so,” the antigraft court said in its 42-page resolution.
Allegations
It also cited the prosecution’s failure to come to trial prepared and multiple pleadings for “unjustified and unmeritorious postponements.”
This latest ruling also effectively wipes out all of the civil charges brought by the PCGG, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), against the Marcoses to recover the wealth they allegedly illegally acquired through the coco levy fund.
Two other civil cases in connection with the purchase of First United Bank (FUB), predecessor of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), as well as of San Miguel Corp. (SMC) shares were dismissed by the same division on Dec. 6.
The last six cases pertained to the alleged creation of companies out of coco levy funds; the formation and operation of the Bugsuk project and award of P998 million in damages to agricultural investors; the disadvantageous purchases and settlement of the accounts of oil mills; the unlawful disbursement and dissipation of coco levy funds; the acquisition of Pepsi-Cola, and the grant of behest loans and contracts.
Threat of prosecution
The original complaint was filed on July 31, 1987, and was amended three times. The court then granted the motion by the PCGG to subdivide the cases into a total of eight.
According to the Sandiganbayan, the government held the burden to prove the following: that it followed the prosecution procedures of the cases; that the “complexity and volume” of the issues and evidence at hand caused the “inevitable” deferment of the cases, and that the defendants were not subjected to prejudice by the delays.
It cited the guidelines set in the case of Cagang v. Sandiganbayan when a party invokes a violation to their right to a speedy trial and disposition.
The government’s response to these claims would have helped its case, but because the prosecution had not sufficiently disproved any of them after all these years, the antigraft court stressed that it had to rule in favor of the Marcoses and Cojuangco.
Unprepared for trial
“Herein, defendants have undoubtedly suffered prejudice due to the lengthy and seemingly interminable threat of prosecution,” the court said. “Despite the passage of time… the defendants have not yet had an opportunity to present a single witness or any piece of evidence for their defense.”
It added: “It is inevitable for the defense witnesses’ to fade, or for witnesses themselves to become unavailable, and for crucial pieces of evidence to be lost to the ravages of time.”
The Sandiganbayan also pointed to the actions by the government that led to the postponement of the trial.
“There are various instances where plaintiff Republic came unprepared for the set trial, prayed for unjustified and unmeritorious postponements, and moved that the hearings and proceedings be suspended pending the Supreme Court’s action on their interlocutory motions,” it said.
These motions merely deferred the initial presentation of evidence, and worse, the government “did not see it fit to go to trial” even after the resolution of some of their motions, noted the antigraft court.
“All told, the proceedings in these cases were attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays resulting in the violation of the defendants’ right…. under Sec. 16, Article III of the Constitution, and as such, this court must dismiss them against the defendants,” the court concluded.
Lost cause
The resolution was written by Associate Justice Geraldine Econg, the division chair, and had the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo Caldona and Arthur Malabaguio.
Danny Carranza, secretary general of the farmers’ group Kilusan Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo at Katarungang Panlipunan (Katarungan), expressed dismay over the Sandiganbayan’s decision.
“Oftentimes justice is elusive, especially when power changes hands in favor of the same people who cannot be expected to correct the wrongs in the past,” Carranza told the Inquirer in a text message on Tuesday.
He said the coco levy cases “could have, should have, been decided before the Marcos family returned to power.”
“Unfortunately, everything is possible now, including the reversals of the cases that should have favored the return of coco levy (funds) to coconut farmers as beneficial owners,” Carranza said.
He added: “We cannot expect the complete return of the coco levy now, nor ever. If there are still other pending cases on the coco levy fund, we expect that these same cases will not be decided in favor of coconut farmers.”
Dindo Divida, a coconut farmer from San Narciso town, Quezon, and a member of Katarungan, also shared his frustrations: “We are used to being toyed with by the legal system. Justice is truly elusive for the poor.”
Quezon farmers are believed to have been the biggest contributors to the coco levy fund, which was collected primarily during the martial law years under the regime of the late Marcos Sr.
Investment expansion
The coco levy was imposed by Marcos Sr. on the produce of farmers between 1973 and 1982, supposedly to develop the coconut industry.
After raising P100 million, the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) established the Coconut Investment Fund on behalf of the coconut farmers.
In 1975, then President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 755, which authorized the PCA, whose board included Cojuangco, to use the levy funds to buy 72.2 percent of First United Bank. Cojuangco became its president and chief executive officer.
With the PCA and UCPB in their control, Cojuangco and his associates were able to buy companies and mills placed under the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF), a group of 14 holding companies whose assets included 47 percent of SMC.
In 1986, shortly after the Edsa People Power Revolution, all coco levy-acquired assets were sequestered by the PCGG and cases were filed in 1987 against the Marcoses and their associates.
For farmers’ benefit
In December 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the coco levy funds were “public in character” but left it to the Sandiganbayan to decide who owned the assets acquired with the funds.
In January 2012, the high tribunal declared that the coco levy fund belonged to the government for the benefit of the country’s coconut farmers.
The Supreme Court also affirmed a 2004 ruling of the Sandiganbayan that awarded a 24-percent block of shares in SMC (originally 27 percent but diluted and reduced because of SMC’s expansion) registered in the name of the CIIF and its holding companies, to the government, which holds it in trust for the country’s coconut farmers.
On Feb. 26, 2021, Republic Act No. 11524, or the Coconut Farmers and Industry Trust Fund Act, was signed by then President Rodrigo Duterte creating a trust fund for some 3.5 million coconut farmers who own not more than five hectares of land and belong to the poorest sector in the country.
On June 2, 2022, just weeks before the end of his term, Duterte signed Executive Order No. 172, or the Coconut Farmers and Industry Development Plan, to serve as basis in using the P75-billion coco levy fund through various programs and projects.
In 2022, the Department of Finance said the Commission on Audit reported that the coco levy assets were worth P111.3 billion. —with a report from Delfin T. Mallari Jr. and Inquirer Research