REPUBLIC V.

SANDIGANBAYAN

Even during the interregnum, the Filipino people continued to enjoy,

under the Covenant (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and
the Declaration (Universal Declaration of Human Rights),
almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.

During the interregnum, Filipinos found themselves without a constitution, but certainly not
without fundamental rights.

However, the UDHR, a response to violation of human rights in a particular period in world
history, did not include the exclusionary right. Thus, the conclusion that it can be invoked even
in the absence of a constitution also rests on shifting sands. Be that as it may, it could still be
invoked as a constitutional right on or after the Freedom Constitution took effect on March 25,
1986 and later, when the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, 1987.

Exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this constitutional provision
originated from Stonehill v. Diokno. This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants
that encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions.

ICCPR

Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State “to respect and to ensure to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present
Covenant.” Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to
insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence.”

UDHR

The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that
“[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Although the signatories to the
Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court
has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law
and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under
international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.

FACTS:

Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan for dismissing petitioner’s Amended Complaint and ordered the return of the
confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth Dimaano and for denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.
Following the successful EDSA Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive
Order No. 1 (“EO No. 1”) creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (“PCGG”).
EO No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. EO No.
1 vested the PCGG with the power “(a) to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to
accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order” and the power “(b) to promulgate such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this order.” Accordingly,
the PCGG, through its then 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.

The AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major
General Josephus Q. Ramas (“Ramas”). On 27 July 1987, the AFP Board issued a Resolution on
its findings and recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of Ramas.

ISSUES:

Legality of the search and seizure

(1) whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973
Constitution during the interregnum,that is, after the actual and effective takeover of
power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist
forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional
Constitution); and

(2) whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(“Declaration”) remained in effect during the interregnum.

HELD:

(1) the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum.

During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the
supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and
orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no
municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus,
during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights
because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum.

A revolution has been defined as “the complete overthrow of the established

government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it” or as “a
 sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually
effected with violence or at least some acts of violence.”

However, upon the adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the sequestered companies assailed
the sequestration orders (issued by the Philippine Commission on Good Government – PCGG)
as contrary to the Bill of Rights of the Freedom Constitution.

Bernas’ Argument:

For these reasons, the honorable course for the Constitutional Commission is to delete
all of Section 8 of the committee report and allow the new Constitution to take effect in
full vigor. If Section 8 is deleted, the PCGG has two options. First, it can pursue the
Salonga and the Romulo argument—that what the PCGG has been doing has been
completely within the pale of the law. If sustained, the PCGG can go on and should be
able to go on, even without the support of Section 8. If not sustained, however, the
PCGG has only one honorable option, it must bow to the majesty of the Bill of Rights.

(2) the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration
remained in effect during the interregnum.

The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de juregovernment, assumed

responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines
is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State “to respect and to
ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights45 recognized
in the present Covenant.” Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government
had the duty to insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that
“[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Although the signatories to the
Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court
has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law
and binding on the State.46 Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under
international law to observe the rights47 of individuals under the Declaration.

As admitted by petitioner’s witnesses, the Constabulary raiding team confiscated items not
included in the warrant. According to the search warrant, you are supposed to seize only for
weapons. For the search and seizure of five (5) baby armalite rifles M-16 and five (5) boxes of
ammunition. Money and other PIECES OF JEWELRY were contained in attaché cases and cartons
with markings “Sony Trinitron,” and I think three (3) vaults or steel safes, Believing that the
attaché cases and the steel safes were containing firearms, they forced open these containers
only to find out that they contained money.
Other things seized: The communications equipment, money in Philippine currency and US
dollars, some PIECES OF JEWELRY, land titles.

The search warrant did not particularly describe these items and the raiding team confiscated
them on its own authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize these items without
showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless search and seizure. Clearly, the
raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these items.

RULING:

The seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are contraband per se,
and they are not, they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding seized them.
However, we do not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items, merely that
the search and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and withhold these items
from the possessor. We thus hold that these items should be returned immediately to
Dimaano.