The landmark court

decisions of 2019
By: Daphne Galvez - Reporter / @DYGalvezINQ
INQUIRER.net / 06:25 PM December 31, 2019

Source: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1207890/landmark-court-decisions-in-2019

MANILA, Philippines — “The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they
grind exceeding fine,” is an expression of assurance that although justice
may be slow, it will come eventually

In the Philippines, it would take years, reaching up to decades before

justice is served, with court decisions taking just as long to materialize.

However, we hold in our hearts the hope that justice will be served with
fairness.

In 2019, Philippine courts laid down decisions on some of the most

controversial cases the country had ever faced for years, including the
verdict on the most gruesome attack on media workers and by far, the
most violent election-related incident ever to be recorded in the
Philippines.

INQUIRER.net recaps the landmark court decisions in 2019 that shook the
entire with either anger or awe.

Maguindanao massacre verdict

Ten years.

It took 10 years before justice was served for the 57 lives out of 58 that
were lost in the most gruesome and violent election-related incident in
Philippine history.
On November 23, 2009, death came for 58 people in the town of
Ampatuan, in the southern province of Maguindanao. Their bodies were
hastily buried in three shallow graves on a hilltop.

The wife and sister of Maguindanao governorship candidate Esmael

“Toto” Mangudadatu and 32 media workers were among those killed.

Mangudadatu was gunning to end the 20-year rule of the Ampatuan

family. His rival was Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., mayor of Datu Unsay
town, and son of the incumbent governor, Andal Ampatuan, Sr.

On Dec. 19, 2019, Ampatuan Jr. and his brother Zaldy Ampatuan — along
with 26 others — were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
committing 57 counts of murder for the massacre. Even though the police
said 58 people were killed, the body of the 58th victim,
photojournalist Reynaldo “Bebot” Momay, was never found.
The accused who were found guilty were sentenced to reclusion
perpetua which meant 40 years of imprisonment without parole.

Also found guilty as accessories were 15 individuals — mostly police

officers — at the time of the massacre. They were sentenced to
imprisonment of from six years to 10 years and eight months.

However, despite the convictions, more than half of the 101 suspects who
were tried for the massacre, or 56 individuals, were acquitted, including
former mayor Sajid Islam Ampatuan and his brother-in-law Akmad
“Tato” Ampatuan.

Most were police officers were also deemed by the court to be “totally
innocent” of the crimes charged.

Of the 197 people eventually charged with murder, eight have died
during the hearings, including Andal Ampatuan Sr. Some 80 suspects still
remain at large.
The Marcos wealth cases

2019 was a year of losses for the government in terms of its efforts to
retrieve billions worth of ill-gotten wealth from the late former president
Ferdinand Marcos and his family.

The Sandiganbayan has dismissed five out of seven ill-gotten wealth cases
filed by Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the
agency in charge of recovering the Marcos ill-gotten wealth and the
plaintiff in the case, the against the Marcoses due to insufficient evidence.

Weakening the cases filed against the Marcoses was the inability of the
PCGG to submit to the Sandiganbayan original documents, instead of
photocopied ones.

The Sandiganbayan ruled that under the Rules of Court, this is a violation
of the Best Evidence Rule (or Rule 130, Section 3 of the Rules of Court,
which states that no evidence is admissible other than the original
document itself).

Losses
In August, the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division dismissed a P102-billion
forfeiture case against the Marcoses and cronies led by Roberto S.
Benedicto. The case was filed 32 years ago on July 31, 1987. 
The anti-graft court said the PCGG “miserably failed to adduce evidence”
to prove its allegations that officials of the Development Bank of the
Philippines (DBP), acting on orders of the Marcoses, extended loans to
various shipping companies held by Marcos cronies.

It added that the PCGG also had only provided photocopies of documents
that could have connected the transactions to the Marcoses, including a
resolution by the DBP’s board of governors approving a $32.7-million
loan favoring Benedicto’s companies.
Last September, the same Sandiganbayan branch junked the P1.052-
billion civil case filed against former ambassador Bienvenido Tantoco,
some of his relatives, and Dominador Santiago for supposedly acting as
dummies of the Marcoses in acquiring artworks, jewelry, real estate and
stakes in businesses.

The PCGG filed the case in March 1988.

The anti-graft court said the government had “failed to prove by a

preponderance of evidence” that the defendants by themselves, or in
conspiracy with the Marcoses, obtained ill-gotten wealth.

Also in September, the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division affirmed the

dismissal of an ill-gotten wealth case against the heirs of Luis Yulo,
identified as one of Marcos’ cronies, and the family’s Yulo King Ranch
(YKR) Corporation involving Busuanga Properties in Palawan—the
property that is the subject of the still pending ill-gotten wealth case
numbered Civil Case 0024 against the late President Ferdinand Marcos
and his cronies.

The anti-graft court said the Philippine Agri-Business Center Corporation

(PABC)—one of the intervenors in the said Civil Case 0024—only
presented evidence consisting mainly of photocopies and that these
photocopies were not compared with the original.

The PABC bought the Busuanga Properties from the owner, Alfonso
Doronilla, in March 1975. The Busuanga Properties was taken over by
YKR Corporation led by lawyer Roberto Sabido and Luis Yulo in 1976. 
In October, the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division found defects in the
pieces of evidence presented by the PCGG and OSG in relation to the
forfeiture case against the Marcos family and their cronies, spouses Fe
and Ignacio Gimenez, involving some P267.37 million ill-gotten wealth.

It said the prosecution only submitted mere photocopies of documents,

unauthenticated private documents and had failed to produce on the
witness stand the declarants of the affidavits and testimonial evidence for
the dismissal of Civil Case No. 0007 was insufficient.

However, the Sandiganbayan ruled that even if the defects of these proofs
were disregarded, “little or no probative value can be accorded to them.”

The PCGG and OSG filed the case before the Sandiganbayan on July 21,
1987. The anti-graft court already dismissed the case in 2006, but the
Supreme Court ordered the reopening of the case in 2016.

The same branch also dismissed a P200-billion forfeiture case against the
Marcoses, which was filed in 1987. It ruled that the bulk of documentary
evidence submitted by the PCGG were “mere photocopies, most of which
are barely readable.”

Of around 200 documents submitted by government prosecutors, only 24

were original copies.

Among the alleged ill-gotten assets the PCGG had wanted to seize were
around P976 million in bank deposits in Security Bank and Trust
Company and another P711 million in Traders Royal Bank; P1.6 billion
shares of stock in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT); $292
million in foreign bank deposits; and $98 million in investments in
foreign banks, financial houses and industrial, mining, and other
corporations.

The PCGG also went after investments in real properties in New York and
London; several multi-million peso residential properties and
agricultural land in Leyte province; 177 paintings; US$8.9 million, P27
million,  jewelry, time deposit certificates, bearer certificates and other
documents in 42 crates; plus a separate cache of jewelry worth P236
million that were all taken by the Marcoses to Honolulu in Hawaii. 
In addition, there were P14 million worth of “vanity items” such as
jewelry, medallions, perfumes, and gowns in 24 boxes and suitcases that
the Marcoses had abandoned in Malacañan Palace when they fled for
Hawaii.

So far, the government has failed to recover a staggering P303.31 billion

in illegally amassed wealth from the Marcoses and their alleged cronies.

Wins
 
But it was not a total loss for the government in its bid to recover ill-
gotten wealth from the Marcoses.

In December, the Sandiganbayan Special Third Division ordered known

associates of the late president to return assets of their shares in Eastern
Telecommunications, after finding these to be part of Marcos’ ill-gotten
wealth.

The court referred to the shares of businessmen Jose Africa and Manuel
Nieto Jr., which were acquired on June 10, 1974, in Eastern
Telecommunications Phils Inc. and other investments which were
proceeds from Marcos’ illegally amassed assets.

The court also tagged as ill-gotten wealth, shares in Polygon Investors and
Managers Inc, Aerocom Investors and Managers Inc. The order also
covered shares of other individuals that have been transferred to Africa
and Nieto. 
The Sandiganbayan said Africa and Nieto should pay the government
P68.16 million, which is the value of Eastern Telecoms shares held by
Aerocom Investors and Managers and Nieto before these were
transferred to ISM Communications Corp.

The Sandiganbayan Special Division has also ordered the forfeiture of

over 800 pieces of artworks amounting to $24.32 million, which the late
president Marcos and his family acquired during his 20-year rule.
The anti-graft court declared 896 pieces of art, including paintings by
renowned masters Manet, Cezanne and Van Gogh, as ill-gotten and
“unlawfully acquired,” and ruled that “the forfeiture of said properties in
favor of petitioner Republic is warranted.”

The Marcoses were also ordered to render an accounting of the paintings

and artworks still under their control and possession, and to make a list
of paintings and artworks that they already sold, and to surrender the
proceeds to the government.

They were also ordered to divulge the current location of some 156
paintings included in the PCGG’s list of missing artworks.

Additionally, they were directed to return the Grandma Moses painting

collection and the Metropolitan Museum of Manila’s art collection. The
forfeiture case also included silverware already sold at a public auction
in the United States, jewelry and other valuable decorative arts.

After Marcos died in exile three years after he was overthrown, his
widow Imelda faced hundreds of cases to recover assets believed to have
been stashed abroad and in the Philippines.

The government won a victory in 2018 when the Sandiganbayan

sentenced Imelda to 11 years in prison for making illegal bank transfers
worth $200 million to Swiss foundations while she was governor of
Metropolitan Manila in the 1970s.

She is now out on bail pending an appeal.

Despite the cases filed against her, Imelda was able to run and was
elected to several terms in the House of Representatives, while her
daughter Imee is now a senator.

Imelda’s son Bongbong also served as a senator but lost the 2016 vice-
presidential election to Leni Robredo, the widow of Jessie Robredo, a
popular former Interior, and Local Government secretary during the
administration of former president Benigno Aquino III.

Bongbong Marcos is still contesting Robredo’s electoral victory.

Salary Grade 15 for nurses upheld

After four years of battle, government nurses finally won their case for
salary upgrade when the Supreme Court ruled that their salary grades
should be at 15 and not at 10-11.

During an en banc session last October, the High Court upheld the
validity of the provision in the Philippine Nursing Act of 2002, which
states that the minimum base pay of government nurses should not be
lower than salary grade 15.

At present, salary grade 15 is pegged at P31,545 a month, while salary

grades 10-11 are pegged at P22,055.

In 2015, Ang Nars Partylist brought its case to the Supreme Court because
government nurses had been relegated to salary grades 10-11.

This was due to the signing of Executive Order (EO) 811 by former
president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2009. That EO was based on Joint
Resolution No. 4 which allowed Arroyo to modify government salaries.

The party-list filed a petition asking the Court to enforce Section 32 of

Republic Act 9173 or the Philippine Nursing Nursing Act of 2002.

While the provision was deemed valid, the High Court, however, said that
a law still needs to be passed by Congress for its implementation.

Supreme Court junks same-sex marriage legalization

September 3 was a sad day for members of the LGBTQIA+ community, as
the Supreme Court unanimously voted to dismiss a petition seeking to
legalize same-sex marriage in the country.
Dismissing the petition as “premature,” the Court also castigated the
petitioners for using the issue to pull a publicity stunt.

The High Court added that the petition filed by Atty. Jesus Nicardo Falcis
III violated the principle of hierarchy of courts just as he failed “to raise
an actual justiciable controversy.” Falcis has no legal standing on the
case, it argued.

In a petition filed by Falcis in 2015, he asked the Court to nullify portions

of Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code, which define marriage as “a union
between a man and a woman” and to nullify portions of Articles 46 (4)
and 55 (6), which include lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for
annulment and legal separation.

According to Falcis, the Family Code – in limiting marriage between man

and woman – is unconstitutional because it deprives the right to liberty
without substantive due process of law and equal protection of the laws,
violating Section 3(1) Article 15 of the 1987 Constitution.

The Court then left to Congress the decision whether or not to amend the
Family Code to accommodate same-sex marriage.

Complaint vs. China junked

The International Criminal Court (ICC) junked the communication made
by former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and former Foreign
Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario against China and its president on its
aggressive island-building and occupation of islands in the West
Philippine Sea.

Morales and Del Rosario claimed that thousands of Filipino fishermen

have been “persecuted and injured” by China’s activities on the West
Philippine Sea.
They presented documented cases of Chinese blockade of fishermen in
the disputed waters, Chinese destructive fishing activities and dozens of
instances where China built military installations on contested islands.

The ICC said that the crimes against humanity complaint lodged against
Chinese officials led by Chinese President Xi Jinping cannot be acted upon
as China is not a state party to the Rome Statute — the treaty that
established the ICC.

The ICC also said that while it may exercise jurisdiction if the alleged
crime was committed on territories that are state parties to the Rome
Statute,  the activities in question were not within the territory, but only
on the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

However, Morales and Del Rosario maintained that the chief prosecutor
of the ICC did not completely reject the complaint, saying that the
prosecutor welcomes “new facts and evidence” to proceed with the case.

 
Arbitral ruling favors water concessionaires
One decision of an international arbitration panel riled up the wrath of
President Rodrigo Duterte towards water distribution concessionaires
Manila Water Co. and Maynilad Water Services, Inc. which supply water
for Metro Manila and its neighboring provinces.

After the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Singapore ordered the

Philippine government in November to pay Manila Water Co. P7.4 billion
for losses incurred due to the non-implementation of rate hikes,
President Rodrigo Duterte, vented his rage on the two concessionaires.

Maynilad had won its own case in 2017 in the arbitration court, which
directed the government to pay it P3.4 billion.
The President then threatened to file economic sabotage charges against
the officials of Manila Water and Maynilad and others involved in what
he called “onerous” water concession agreements.

He also ordered Solicitor General Jose Calida and Finance, Secretary

Carlos Dominguez III, to come up with a new water concession contract
that is favorable to the public and the government.

During a congressional probe days after the President’s pronouncement,

the two concessionaires announced that they will waive the close to P11
billion arbitral award given to them by the international court.

Officials of Manila Water and Maynilad added that they were also open to
renegotiating the “onerous” provisions of their water concession
agreements with the government to distribute water in the metropolis
and nearby areas.

Despite this, however, regulator Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage

System (MWSS) decided to revoke the 15-year extension concession
agreements of Manila Water and Maynilad.

The agreements would supposedly end in 2037 but due to the revocation,
these will expire in 2022.

PhilSAT unconstitutional
The Supreme Court likewise removed the Philippine Law School
Admission Test (PhilSAT) as a requirement for admission to law schools.

The High Court declared as unconstitutional the memorandum circular

issued by the Legal Education Board (LEB) which prescribes the passing
of PhilSAT as a prerequisite for admission to law schools.

In 2017, the LEB required that prospective law students pass PhilSAT first
before they are admitted to law schools, notwithstanding if they pass the
schools’ respective entrance examinations.
In March 2019, the Court issued a temporary restraining order against
PhilSAT, acting on a petition not only the national law school test
unconstitutional, but also the LEB itself.

Also declared as unconstitutional is Paragraph 9 of LEB Memorandum

Order 7-2016, which requires all college graduates or graduate students
applying for admission to the basic law course to pass PhilSAT as a
requirement for admission to any law school in the country.

The same memorandum order said no applicant shall be admitted for

enrolment as a first-year student in the basic law courses leading to a
degree of either Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor unless the passed
PhilSAT was taken within two years before the start of studies for the
basic law course.

Both memorandums issued by LEB are “ultra vires” or issued beyond its
authority.

The High Court also ruled as unconstitutional the provisions on the LEB
orders dictating the qualifications and classifications of faculty members
and deans of graduate schools which it said is “in violation of
institutional academic freedom on who may teach.”

The Supreme Court (SC) struck down certain provisions of the said
memorandum establishing law practice internship as a requirement to
taking the bar impinges on the powers of the High Court.