MANILA, Philippines—The Presidential Commission on Good Government is asking the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan to temporarily stop its proceedings in the 24-year-old forfeiture case against tycoon Lucio Tan.
The PCGG, through the Office of the Solicitor General, has asked the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division to defer hearings in the case against Tan while government lawyers challenge its earlier rulings before the Supreme Court.
But Tan, through his lawyer Estelito Mendoza, opposed the PCGG move and said it was “glaringly dilatory and frivolous.”
The PCGG has pending petitions before the high tribunal questioning the anti-graft court’s resolution dismissing the similar case against two other defendants, and the refusal of the Fifth Division’s justices to inhibit from the case. The PCGG is also questioning the move of the court to recall to the witness stand Joselito Yujuico, the vice president of General Bank and Trust Co., which was the precursor of Tan’s Allied Bank.
“In line with the well-entrenched precept of judicial respect and courtesy, plaintiff seeks the suspension of the proceedings pending final disposition of the issues brought before the Supreme Court,” the PCGG said in its motion.
It said that if the Sandiganbayan went on with the proceedings, the PCGG petitions with the high court would be “rendered moot and moribund.”
It also cited a Supreme Court ruling that had faulted the Court of Appeals for continuing to exercise jurisdiction over a case that was already elevated to the Supreme Court.
The PCGG filed the forfeiture case against Tan in 1987, calling his companies part of the ill-gotten wealth of the family of ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
The companies that are the subject of the forfeiture cases are Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery, Allied Banking Corp., Foremost Farms, Himmel Industries, Grandspan Development Corp., Silangan Holdings, Dominium Realty and Construction Corp., and Shareholdings Inc.
But in his opposition, Tan said the case has been pending for 24 years, and he saw no reason to delay the proceedings.
He also said the PCGG’s motion was meant to mask its inability to present its witness during the next hearing of the case.
“Plaintiff’s ‘Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings’ to delay this case exposes and confirms further the fact that plaintiff fully realizes that it has failed to present evidence to substantiate allegations of the complaint,” he said, adding that this was despite the fact that in filing the complaint, the government issued a verification that it already had evidence in its possession.
He also asked the Sandiganbayan to deem terminated the government’s presentation of evidence in the forfeiture case.