Government appeals junking of case vs Marcos et al.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has contested the Sandiganbayan decision dismissing the P50-billion ill-gotten wealth case against the Marcos and Ver families, former Trade Minister Roberto Ongpin and the participants in the so-called Binondo central bank, claiming the case was resolved too early and questioning the court’s “procedural shortcuts.”

According to the OSG, it was shown that the very operation of the Binondo central bank violated the law and other government rules and regulations, and Ongpin’s admission to having spearheaded its operations entitled the government to damages.

In its January 20 decision dismissing the case, the Sandiganbayan Special Second Division ruled that government lawyers failed to establish that the respondents had conspired to steal and appropriate government resources for themselves.

The respondents were the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his righthand man Fabian Ver, Imelda Marcos, Irwin Ver,  Rexor Ver, Wyrlo Ver, Helma Ver Tuason and Faida Ver Resurreccion. Also charged were traders Edna Camcam, Jimmy Chua, Go Pok, Catalino Coo, Raffy Chua, Peter Uy, Benito Peñalosa, Sio Lim, Wilson Chua, Balbino Diego, Arturo Pacificador, Sally See and Vinnie James Uy.

They were accused of manipulating the trading of dollars through the Binondo central bank, which served as an underground dollar market in the 1980s.

In its motion for reconsideration, the OSG said the Sandiganbayan Special Second Division should not have resolved the civil case on January 19 because Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and several other respondents had yet to present their evidence.

Court ruled early

It noted that the court had denied a plea to declare the defendants as having waived their right to present evidence, and scheduled several hearings to receive defense evidence. The case was earlier reset to Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2012, it said.

The OSG said it was surprised when the court ruled on the matter before these dates.

“It was therefore surprising and highly irregular for the honorable court to have promulgated a decision in this case as it did on Jan. 19, 2012, 12 days before the scheduled Jan. 31, 2012, and Feb. 1, 2012 hearing dates which were set for the reception of defendants’ evidence,” it said.

It further said a case should only be submitted for decision only after all the parties had  presented their respective evidence.

Rules violated

But in this case, the state was not given the chance to present rebuttal or additional evidence because the case was resolved before some defendants had rested their case, it said. The court violated the order of trial and the rules of court, it added.

It further said that a court could not on its own or motu propio dismiss a case for lack of evidence even against defendants who had not presented evidence. Under the rules, a court may only dismiss a case motu propio on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

“Courts cannot simply promulgate a decision without regard to the means or process used to arrive at a decision. Considering the importance of the present case, it is not too much to ask for a heightened concern and attention to the process and fairness from the court,” it added.

It said that the “procedural infirmities” and the denial of the state’s right to due process rendered the decision void, and thus, the case must be reinstated.

The OSG questioned as well the “inaccurate opening sentence” in the court’s ruling, saying it “betrays at the onset its slant and lack of fairness.”

The opening statement of the decision, penned by Justice Samuel Martires, stated that the case was a P50-billion damage suit seeking to recover through reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages the funds acquired by the defendants through abuse of rights and power.

However, the OSG claimed this to be inaccurate because the P50 billion was just part of the government’s claim for moral damages. It was just the secondary relief and not the principal cause of action in the civil suit, it added.

The OSG also wondered at Martires’ participation in the resolution of the case. It noted that the case was heard by the Second Division. Martires, the ponente, was originally with the Second Division, but was later transferred to the Third Division. After Martires was transferred, the case was heard by the regular members of the Second Division.