E00 Republic vs Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 104768

Facts:
Immediately upon her assumption to office following the EDSA Revolution, President Corazon
C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 (EO No. 1) creating the Presidential Commission on
Good Government (PCGG) to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos.

Accordingly, the PCGG, through its Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft
Board (AFP Board) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by
AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired. Investigations include the alleged
unexplained wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas (Ramas), Commanding
General of the Philippine Army.

Evidence showed that respondent is the owner of a house and lot in Quezon City as well in
Cebu City. Moreover, equipment and communication facilities were found in the
premises of Elizabeth Dimaano. Aside from the military equipment, the raiding team
also confiscated P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano.

Affidavits of members of the Military Security Unit disclosed that Elizabeth Dimaano is the
mistress of respondent Ramas. Dimaano had no visible means of income and is supported by
respondent for she was formerly a mere secretary. With these, a prima facie case exists against
respondent Ramas for ill-gotten and unexplained wealth. The PCGG filed a petition for
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, known as The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully
Acquired Property (RA No. 1379), against Ramas and impleaded Dimaano as co-defendant, in
favor of the State.

However, the Sandiganbayan subsequently dismissed the complaint because there was an
illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated. The first Resolution dismissed
petitioners Amended Complaint and ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent
Elizabeth Dimaano, while the second Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the search of Dimaano’s home was legal.

Held:
NO. It is true that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during
an interregnum (any period during which a state has no ruler or only a temporary executive).

However, the protection accorded to individuals in International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration) remained in
effect during the interregnum. When no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and
orders issued by government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the
authority granted on them.

The raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not
included in the search warrant. Dimaano was also not present during the raid (only Dimaano's
cousins witnessed the raid).

Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that no
one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence.

The Declaration provides in its Article 17(2) that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property. Thus, the revolutionary government is obligated under international law to
observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.