Republic v. Sandiganbayan

8/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407 8/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407
can only investigate the unexplained wealth

and corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall
under either of the two categories mentioned in
Section 2 of EO No. 1. These are: (1) AFP
personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten
wealth during the administration of former
President Marcos by being the latter’s
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
immediate family, relative, subordinate or close
ANNOTATED
associate, taking undue advantage of their
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan public office or using their powers, influence x x
x; or (2) AFP personnel involved in other cases
*
G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003. of graft and corruption provided the President
assigns their cases to the PCGG.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, _______________
MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q.
RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO, * EN BANC.
respondents.
11
Administrative Law; Public Officers; Ill-
Gotten Wealth; Presidential Commission on
Good Government (PCGG); Armed Forces of the VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 11
Philippines; The PCGG can only investigate the Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of
AFP personnel who have either (a) accumulated
ill-gotten wealth during the administration of Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutory
former President Marcos by being the latter’s Construction; Ejusdem Generis; Words and
immediate family, relative, subordinate or close Phrases; Mere position held by a military officer
associate, taking undue advantage of their does not automatically make him a
public office or using their powers, authority, “subordinate” as this term is used in EO Nos. 1,
influence, connections or relationships, or (b) 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed
involved in other cases of graft and corruption close association with former President Marcos;
provided the President assigns their cases to the The term “subordinate” as used in EO Nos. 1
PCGG.—The PCGG, through the AFP Board, and 2 refers to one who enjoys a close association
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/284
with former President Marcos and/or his wife, those specifically mentioned [Smith, Bell & Co.,
similar to the immediate family member, Ltd. vs. Register of Deeds of Davao, 96 Phil. 53,
relative and close associate in EO No. 1 and the 58, citing Black on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd
close relative, business association, dummy, Ed., 203].’ [T]he term “subordinate” as used in
agent or nominee in EO No. 2—there must be a EO Nos. 1 & 2 refers to one who enjoys a close
prima facie showing that the respondent association with former President Marcos
unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family
close association or relation with former Pres. member, relative, and close associate in EO No.
Marcos and/or his wife.—Mere position held by 1 and the close relative, business associate,
a military officer does not automatically make dummy, agent, or nominee in EO No. 2. x x x It
him a “subordinate” as this term is used in EO does not suffice, as in this case, that the
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he respondent is or was a government official or
enjoyed close association with former President employee during the administration of former
Marcos. Migrino discussed this issue in this President Marcos. There must be a prima facie
wise: A close reading of EO No. 1 and related showing that the respondent unlawfully
executive orders will readily show what is accumulated wealth by virtue of his close
contemplated within the term ‘subordinate.’ The association or relation with former Pres. Marcos
Whereas Clauses of EO No. 1 express the and/or his wife. (Emphasis supplied)
urgent need to recover the ill-gotten wealth Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Position
amassed by former President Ferdinand E. alone as Commanding General of the Philippine
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and Army with the rank of Major General does not
close associates both here and abroad. EO No. 2 suffice to make the occupant a “subordinate” of
freezes ‘all assets and properties in the former President Marcos for purpose of EO No. 1
Philippines in which former President Marcos and its amendments.—Ramas’ position alone as
and/or his wife, Mrs. Imelda Marcos, their close Commanding General of the Philippine Army
relatives, subordinates, business associates, with the rank of Major General does not suffice
dummies, agents, or nominees have any to make him a “subordinate” of former
interest or participation.’ Applying the rule in President
statutory construction known as ejusdem
generis that is—‘[W]here general words follow 12
an enumeration of persons or things by words of
a particular and specific meaning, such general
words are not to be construed in their widest
extent, but are to be held as applying only to 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
persons or things of the same kind or class as ANNOTATED
“subordinate” of former Pres. Marcos that vests

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction on PCGG.—Petitioner forgets that
it is precisely a prima facie showing that the ill-
Marcos for purposes of EO No. 1 and its gotten wealth was accumulated by a
amendments. The PCGG has to provide a prima “subordinate” of former President Marcos that
facie showing that Ramas was a close associate vests jurisdiction on PCGG. EO No. 1 clearly
of former President Marcos, in the same premises the creation of the PCGG on the
manner that business associates, dummies, urgent need to recover all ill-gotten wealth
agents or nominees of former President Marcos amassed by former President Marcos, his
were close to him. Such close association is immediate family, relatives, subordinates and
manifested either by Ramas’ complicity with close associates. Therefore, to say that such
former President Marcos in the accumulation of omission was not fatal is clearly contrary to the
ill-gotten wealth by the deposed President or by intent behind the creation of the PCGG.
former President Marcos’ acquiescence in
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The
Ramas’ own accumulation of ill-gotten wealth if
proper government agencies, and not the PCGG,
any.
should investigate and prosecute forfeiture
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; EO No. 1 petitions not falling under EO No. 1 and its
created the PCGG for a specific and limited amendments.—The proper government
purpose, and necessarily its powers must be agencies, and not the PCGG, should investigate
construed to address such specific and limited and prosecute forfeiture petitions not falling
purpose.—Thus, although the PCGG sought to under EO No. 1 and its amendments. The
investigate and prosecute private respondents preliminary investigation of unexplained wealth
under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, the result amassed on or before 25 February 1986 falls
yielded a finding of violation of Republic Acts under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, while
Nos. 3019 and 1379 without any relation to EO the authority to file the corresponding forfeiture
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. This absence of relation petition rests with the Solicitor General. The
to EO No. 1 and its amendments proves fatal to Ombudsman Act or Republic Act No. 6770 (“RA
petitioner’s case. EO No. 1 created the PCGG No. 6770”) vests in the Ombudsman the power
for a specific and limited purpose, and to conduct preliminary investigation and to file
necessarily its powers must be construed to forfeiture proceedings involving unexplained
address such specific and limited purpose. wealth amassed after 25 February 1986.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It is
precisely a prima facie showing that the ill- 13
gotten wealth was accumulated by a

VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 13 allowed to exercise only the powers granted to
it.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Actions;
Jurisdictions, Waivers; Where there is no
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
jurisdiction to waive, as the PCGG cannot
Ombudsman; The PCGG should have
exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers
recommended the instant case to the
never granted to it, then the respondent could
Ombudsman who has jurisdiction to conduct the
not be deemed to have waived any defect in the
preliminary investigation of ordinary
filing of the forfeiture petition by filing an
unexplained wealth and graft cases.—After the
answer with counterclaim; Parties may raise
pronouncements of the Court in Cruz, the
lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the
PCGG still pursued this case despite the
proceeding.—Petitioner’s argument that private
absence of a prima facie finding that Ramas
respondents have waived any defect in the filing
was a “subordinate” of former President Marcos.
of the forfeiture petition by submitting their
The petition for forfeiture filed with the
respective Answers with counterclaim deserves
Sandiganbayan should be dismissed for lack of
no merit as well. Petitioner has no jurisdiction
authority by the PCGG to investigate
over private respondents. Thus, there is no
respondents since there is no prima facie
jurisdiction to waive in the first place. The
showing that EO No. 1 and its amendments
PCGG cannot exercise investigative or
apply to respondents. The AFP Board
prosecutorial powers never granted to it.
Resolution and even the Amended Complaint
PCGG’s powers are specific and limited. Unless
state that there are violations of RA Nos. 3019
given additional assignment by the President,
and 1379. Thus, the PCGG should have
PCGG’s sole task is only to recover the ill-gotten
recommended Ramas’ case to the Ombudsman
wealth of the Marcoses, their relatives and
who has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary
cronies. Without these elements, the PCGG
investigation of ordinary unexplained wealth
cannot claim jurisdiction over a case. Private
and graft cases. As stated in Migrino: [But] in
respondents questioned the authority and
view of the patent lack of authority of the PCGG
jurisdiction of the PCGG to investigate and
to investigate and cause the prosecution of
prosecute their cases by filing their Motion to
private respondent for violation of Rep. Acts
Dismiss as soon as they learned of the
Nos. 3019 and 1379, the PCGG must also be
pronouncement of the Court in Migrino. This
enjoined from proceeding with the case, without
case was decided on 30 August 1990, which
prejudice to any action that may be taken by
explains why private respondents only filed
the proper prosecutory agency. The rule of law
their Motion to Dismiss on 8 October 1990.
mandates that an agency of government be
Nevertheless, we have held that the parties Same; Same; Same; During the
may raise lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the interregnum—i.e., after the actual and effective
proceeding. Thus, we hold that there was no take-over of power by the revolutionary
waiver of jurisdiction in this case. Jurisdiction government up to 24 March 1986 (immediately
is vested by law and not by the parties to an before the adoption of the Provisional
action. Constitution)—a person could not invoke any
exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because
14
there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of
Rights then.—We hold that the Bill of Rights
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS under the 1973 Constitution was not operative
ANNOTATED during the interregnum. However, we rule that
the protection accorded to individuals under the
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Covenant and the Declaration remained in
effect during the interregnum. During the
Constitutional Law; Revolutionary interregnum, the directives and orders of the
Governments; Bill of Rights; International Law; revolutionary government were the supreme
The resulting government following the EDSA law because no constitution limited the extent
Revolution in February 1986 was indisputably a and scope of such directives and orders. With
revolutionary government bound by no the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the
constitution or legal limitations except treaty successful revolution, there was no municipal
obligations that the revolutionary government, law higher than the directives and orders of the
as the de jure government in the Philippines, revolutionary government. Thus, during the
assumed under international law.—The EDSA interregnum, a person could not invoke any
Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights
As succinctly stated in President Aquino’s because there was neither a constitution nor a
Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986, the Bill of Rights during the interregnum.
EDSA Revolution was “done in defiance of the Same; Same; Same; Sequestration Orders;
provisions of the 1973 Constitution.” The To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973
resulting government was indisputably a Constitution remained operative during the
revolutionary government bound by no interregnum would render void all sequestration
constitution or legal limitations except treaty orders issued by the PCGG before the adoption
obligations that the revolutionary government, of the Freedom Constitution.—To hold that the
as thede jure government in the Philippines, Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution
assumed under international law. remained operative during the interregnum
would render void all sequestration orders almost the same rights found in the Bill of
issued by the Philippine Commission on Good Rights of the 1973 Constitution.—Thus, to rule
Government (“PCGG”) before the adoption of that the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution
the Freedom Constitution. The sequestration remained in force during the interregnum,
orders, which direct the freezing and even the absent a constitutional provision excepting
take-over of private property by mere executive sequestration orders from such Bill of Rights,
issuance without judicial action, would violate would clearly render all sequestration orders
the due process and search and seizure clauses void during the interregnum. Nevertheless,
of the Bill of Rights. During the interregnum, even during the interregnum the Filipino people
the government in power was concededly a continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the
revolutionary government bound by no Declaration, almost the same rights found in
constitution. No one could validly question the the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The
sequestration orders as violative of the Bill of revolutionary government, after installing itself
Rights because there was no Bill of Rights as the de jure government, assumed
during responsibility for the State’s good faith
compliance with the Covenant to which the
15 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
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 15 rightsrecognized in the present Covenant.”
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the
revolutionary government had the duty to
insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to
the interregnum. However, upon the adoption of arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
the Freedom Constitution, the sequestered privacy, family, home or correspondence.” The
companies assailed the sequestration orders as Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a
contrary to the Bill of Rights of the Freedom signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that “[n]o
Constitution. one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
Same; Same; Same; International Law; property.” Although the signatories to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Declaration did not intend it as a legally
Rights (“Covenant”); Universal Declaration of binding document, being only a declaration, the
Human Rights (“Declaration”); Even during the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of
interregnum the Filipino people continued to the generally accepted principles of
enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, international law and binding on the State.
Thus, the revolutionary government was also compliance with its treaty obligations under
obligated under international law to observe the international law.
rights of individuals under the Declaration. Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It was
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The only upon the adoption of the Provisional
Declaration is part of customary international Constitution on 25 March 1986 that the
law, and that Filipinos as human beings are directives and orders of the revolutionary
proper subjects of the rules of international law government became subject to a higher
laid down in the Covenant.—The revolutionary municipal law that, if contravened, rendered
government did not repudiate the Covenant or such directives and orders void.—It was only
the Declaration during the interregnum. upon the adoption of the Provisional
Whether the revolutionary government could Constitution on 25 March 1986 that the
have repudiated all its obligations under the directives and orders of the revolutionary
Covenant or the Declaration is another matter government became subject to a higher
and is not the issue here. Suffice it to say that municipal law that, if contravened, rendered
the Court considers the Declaration as part of such directives and orders void. The Provisional
customary international law, and that Filipinos Constitution adopted verbatim the Bill of
as human beings are proper subjects of the Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The Provisional
rules of international law laid down in the Constitution served as a self-limitation by the
Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary revolutionary government to avoid abuses of the
government did not repudiate the Covenant or absolute powers entrusted to it by the people.
the Declaration in the same way it repudiated Searches and Seizures; Search Warrants; A
the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure raiding team exceeds its authority when it seizes
government, the revolu- items not included in the search warrant unless
contraband per se.—It is obvious from the
16
testimony of Captain Sebastian that the
warrant did not include the monies,
communications equipment, jewelry and land
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS titles that the raiding team confiscated. The
ANNOTATED search warrant did not particularly describe
these items and the raiding team confiscated
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan them on its own authority. The raiding team
had no legal basis to seize these items without
tionary government could not escape showing that these items could be the subject of
responsibility for the State’s good faith warrantless search and seizure. Clearly, the
raiding team exceeded its authority when it

seized these items. The seizure of these items 17
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 VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 17
that such person is the lawful owner of these Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
items, merely that the search and seizure
warrant could not be used as basis to seize and
(immediately before the adoption of the
withhold these items from the possessor. We
Freedom Constitution).”The majority holds that
thus hold that these items should be returned
the Bill of Rights was not operative, thus
immediately to Dimaano.
private respondent Dimaano cannot invoke the
PUNO, J., Separate Opinion: right against unreasonable search and seizure
and the exclusionary right as her house was
Political Law; Constitutional Law; Legal searched and her properties were seized during
Philosophy; Revolutionary Governments; The the interregnum or on March 3, 1986. My
question of whether the Filipinos were bereft of disagreement is not with the ruling that the Bill
fundamental rights during the one month of Rights was not operative at that time, but
interregnum between February 26 and March with the conclusion that the private respondent
24, 1986 is not as perplexing as the question of has lost and cannot invoke the right against
whether the world was without a God in the unreasonable search and seizure and the
three days that God the Son descended into the exclusionary right. Using a different lens in
dead before He rose to life.—While I concur in viewing the problem at hand, I respectfully
the result of the ponencia of Mr. Justice Carpio, submit that the crucial issue for resolution is
the ruling on whether or not private respondent whether she can invoke these rights in the
Dimaano could invoke her rights against absence of a constitution under the
unreasonable search and seizure and to the extraordinary circumstances after the 1986
exclusion of evidence resulting therefrom EDSA Revolution. The question boggles the
compels this humble opinion. The ponencia intellect, and is interesting, to say the least,
states that “(t)he correct issue is whether the perhaps even to those not half-interested in the
Bill of Rights was operative during the law. But the question of whether the Filipinos
interregnum from February 26, 1986 (the day were bereft of fundamental rights during the
Corazon C. Aquino took her oath as President) one month interregnum is not as perplexing as
to March 24, 1986 the question of whether the world was without
a God in the three days that God the Son some natural right pre-existing in the
descended into the dead before He rose to life. individual, but to the enjoyment of which his
Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the law. individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently
Same; Same; Same; Natural Law; With the competent.”
establishment of civil government and a Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and
constitution, there arises a conceptual Phrases; The distinction between natural and
distinction between natural rights and civil civil rights is “between that class of natural
rights, difficult though to define their scope and rights which man retains after entering into
delineation.—With the establishment of civil society, and those which he throws into the
government and a constitution, there arises a common stock as a member of society.”—The
conceptual distinction between natural rights distinction between
and civil rights,difficult though to define their
scope and delineation. It has been proposed that 18
natural rights are those rights that “appertain
to man in right of his existence.” These were
fundamental rights endowed by God upon
human beings, “all those rights of acting as an 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
individual for his own comfort and happiness,
which are not injurious to the natural rights of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
others.” On the other hand, civil rights are
those that “appertain to man in right of his
natural and civil rights is “between that class of
being a member of society.” These rights,
natural rights which man retains after entering
however, are derived from the natural rights of
into society, and those which he throws into the
individuals since: “Man did not enter into
common stock as a member of society.” The
society to become worse off than he was before,
natural rights retained by the individuals after
nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but
entering civil society were “all the intellectual
to have those rights better secured. His natural
rights, or rights of the mind,” i.e., the rights to
rights are the foundation of all his rights.” Civil
freedom of thought, to freedom of religious
rights, in this sense, were those natural rights
belief and to freedom of expression in its
—particularly rights to security and protection
various forms. The individual could exercise
—which by themselves, individuals could not
these rights without government assistance, but
safeguard, rather requiring the collective
government has the role of protecting these
support of civil society and government, Thus, it
natural rights from interference by others and
is said: “Every civil right has for its foundation,
of desisting from itself infringing such rights.
Government should also enable individuals to which can only exist under civil government. In
exercise more effectively the natural rights they his Constitutional Law,Black states that
had exchanged for civil rights—like the rights natural rights may be used to describe those
to security and protection—when they entered rights which belong to man by virtue of his
into civil society. nature and depend upon his personality. “His
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; “Natural existence as an individual human being, clothed
Rights” and “Civil Rights,” Distinguished.— with certain attributes, invested with certain
American natural law scholars in the 1780s and capacities, adapted to certain kind of life, and
early 1790s occasionally specified which rights possessing a certain moral and physical nature,
were natural and which were not. On the entitles him, without the aid of law, to such
Lockean assumption that the state of nature rights as are necessary to enable him to
was a condition in which all humans were continue his existence, develop his faculties,
equally free from subjugation to one another pursue and achieve his destiny.” An example of
and had no common superior, American a natural right is the right to life. In an
scholars tended to agree that natural liberty organized society, natural rights must be
was the freedom of individuals in the state of protected by law, “and although they owe to the
nature. Natural rights were understood to be law neither their existence nor their sacredness,
simply a portion of this undifferentiated natural yet they are effective only when recognized and
liberty and were often broadly categorized as sanctioned by law.”Civil rights include natural
the rights to life, liberty, and property; or life, rights as they are taken into the sphere of law.
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. More However, there are civil rights which are not
specifically, they identified as natural rights the natural rights such as the right of trial by jury.
free exercise of religion, freedom of conscience, This right is not founded in the nature of man,
freedom of speech and press, right to self- nor
defense, right to bear arms, right to assemble
19
and right to one’s reputation. In contrast,
certain other rights, such as habeas corpus and
jury rights, do not exist in the state of
nature,but exist only under the laws of civil VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 19
government or the constitution because they are
essential for restraining government. They are Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
called civil rights not only in the sense that they
are protected by constitutions or other laws, but does it depend on personality, but it falls under
also in the sense that they are acquired rights the definition of civil rights which are the rights
secured by the constitution to all its citizens or human rights might be considered fundamental
inhabitants not connected with the organization in some countries, but not in others. For
or administration of government which belong example, trial by jury which we have earlier
to the domain of political rights. “Natural rights cited as an example of a civil right which is not
are the same all the world over, though they a natural right, is a basic human right in the
may not be given the fullest recognition under United States protected by its constitution, but
all governments. Civil rights which are not not so in Philippine jurisdiction. Similar to
natural rights will vary in different states or natural rights, the definition of human rights is
countries.” derived from human nature, thus
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Similar to understandably not exact. The definition that it
natural rights and civil rights, human rights as is a “right which inheres in persons from the
the refurbished idea of natural right in the fact of their humanity,” however, can serve as a
1940s, eludes definition—the usual definition guideline to identify human rights. It seems
that is the right which inheres in persons from though that the concept of human rights is
the fact of their humanity seemingly begs the broadest as it encompasses a human person’s
question.—Similar to natural rights and civil natural rights (e.g., religious freedom) and civil
rights, human rights as the refurbished idea of rights created by law (e.g. right to trial by jury).
natural right in the 1940s, eludes definition. Same; Same; Same; Bill of Rights; Though
The usual definition that it is the right which the Tydings-McDuffie law mandated a
inheres in persons from the fact of their republican constitution and the inclusion of a
humanity seemingly begs the question. Without Bill of Rights, with or without such mandate,
doubt, there are certain rights and freedoms so the Constitution would have nevertheless been
fundamental as to be inherent and natural such republican because the Filipinos were satisfied
as the integrity of the person and equality of with their experience of a republican government
persons before the law which should be —a Bill of Rights would have nonetheless been
guaranteed by all constitutions of all civilized also included because the people had been
countries and effectively protected by their accustomed to the role of a Bill of Rights in the
laws. It is nearly universally agreed that some past organic acts.—Aside from the heavy
of those rights are religious toleration, a general American influence, the Constitution also bore
right to dissent, and freedom from arbitrary traces of the Malolos Constitution, the German
punishment. It is not necessarily the case, Constitution, the Constitution of the Republic of
however, that what the law guarantees as a Spain, the Mexican Constitution, and the
human right in one country should also be Constitutions of several South American
guaranteed by law in all other countries. Some countries, and

20 the wide-scale violation of human rights during

the dictatorship, the 1987 Constitution contains
a Bill of Rights which more jealously safeguards
the people’s “fundamental liberties in the
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS essence of a constitutional democracy,” in the
ANNOTATED
words of ConCom delegate Fr. Joaquin Bernas,
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan S.J. It declares in its state policies that “(t)he
state values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights.”
the English unwritten constitution. Though the
In addition, it has a separate Article on Social
Tydings-McDuffie law mandated a republican
Justice and Human Rights, under which, the
constitution and the inclusion of a Bill of
Commission on Human Rights was created.
Rights, with or without such mandate, the
Constitution would have nevertheless been Same; Same; Same; Same; Judgments;
republican because the Filipinos were satisfied Legal Research; Considering the American
with their experience of a republican model and origin of the Philippine constitution,
government; a Bill of Rights would have it is not surprising that Filipino jurist and legal
nonetheless been also included because the scholars define and explain the nature of the
people had been accustomed to the role of a Bill Philippine constitution in similar terms that
of Rights in the past organic acts. American constitutional law scholars explain
their constitution.—Considering the American
Same; Same; Same; Same; Because of the
model and origin of the Philippine constitution,
wide-scaled violation of human rights during
it is not surprising that Filipino jurists and
the dictatorship, the 1987 Constitution contains
legal scholars define and explain the nature of
of Bill of Rights which more jealously
the Philippine constitution in similar terms that
safeguards the people’s “fundamental liberties in
American constitutional law scholars explain
the essence of a constitutional democracy.”—
their constitution. Chief Justice Fernando,
Pursuant to the Freedom Constitution, the 1986
citing Laski, wrote about the basic purpose of a
Constitutional Commission drafted the 1987
civil society and government, viz.: “The basic
Constitution which was ratified and became
purpose of a State, namely to assure the
effective on February 2, 1987. As in the 1935
happiness and welfare of its citizens is kept
and 1973 Constitutions, it retained a republican
foremost in mind. To paraphrase Laski, it is not
system of government, but emphasized and
an end in itself but only a means to an end, the
created more channels for the exercise of the
individuals composing it in their separate and
sovereignty of the people through recall,
identifiable capacities having rights which must
initiative, referendum and plebiscite. Because of
be respected. It is their happiness then, and not manuscripts of his Institutes were seized and
its interest, that is the criterion by which its carried away as seditious and libelous
behavior is to be judged; and it is their welfare, publications.
and not the force at its command, that sets the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Right to
limits to the authority it is entitled to exercise.” Privacy; From Boyd vs. United States, 116 US
(emphasis supplied) 616, 625 (1885), it may be derived that our own
Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
21
searches and seizures, which is an almost exact
copy of the Fourth Amendment, seeks to protect
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 21 rights to security of person and property as well
as privacy in one’s home and possessions.—
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan When the Convention patterned the 1935
Constitution’s guarantee against unreasonable
Same; Same; Same; Same; Searches and searches and seizures after the Fourth
Seizures; The power to search in England was Amendment, the Convention made specific
first used as an instrument to oppress reference to the Boyd case and traced the
objectionable publications.—The power to history of the guarantee against unreasonable
search in England was first used as an search and seizure back to the issuance of
instrument to oppress objectionable general warrants and writs of assistance in
publications. Not too long after the printing England and the American colonies. From the
press was developed, seditious and libelous Boyd case, it may be derived that our own
publications became a concern of the Crown, Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
and a broad search and seizure power developed searches and seizures, which is an almost exact
to suppress these publications. General copy of the Fourth Amendment, seeks to protect
warrants were regularly issued that gave all rights to security of person and property as well
kinds of people the power to enter and seize at as privacy in one’s home and possessions.
their discretion under the authority of the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
Crown to enforce publication licensing statutes. While there has been a shift in focus of the
In 1634, the ultimate ignominy in the use of Fourth Amendment in American jurisdiction,
general warrants came when the early “great from protection of the individual from arbitrary
illuminary of the common law,” and most and oppressive conduct to protection of privacy
influential of the Crown’s opponents, Sir rather that property, the essence of his right in
Edward Coke, while on his death bed, was Philippine jurisdiction has consistently been
subjected to a ransacking search and the understood as respect for one’s personality,
property, home privacy.—In the United States, the essence of this right in Philippine
jurisprudence on the Fourth Amendment jurisdiction has consistently been understood as
continued to grow from the Boyd case. The respect for one’s personality, property, home,
United States Supreme Court has held that the and privacy.
focal concern of the Fourth Amendment is to Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
protect the individual from arbitrary and Exclusionary Rule; It is said that the
oppressive official conduct. It also protects the exclusionary rule has three purposes—the major
privacies of life and the sanctity of the person and the most often invoked is the deterrence of
from such interference. In later cases, there has unreasonable searches and seizures, the second
been a shift in focus: it has been held that the is the “imperative of judicial integrity,” and the
principal purpose of the guarantee is the third is the more recent purpose pronounced by
protection of privacy rather than property, “[f)or some members of the United States Supreme
the Fourth Amendment protects people, not Court which is that “of assuring the people—all
places.” The tests that have more recently been potential victims of unlawful government
formulated in interpreting the provision focus conduct—that the government would not profit
on privacy rather than intru- from its lawless behavior, thus minimizing the
risk of seriously undermining popular trust in
22
government.”—It is said that the exclusionary
rule has three purposes. The major and most
often invoked is the deterrence of unreasonable
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS searches and seizures as stated in Elkins v.
ANNOTATED United States and quoted in Mapp: “(t)he rule is
calculated to prevent, not repair. Its purpose is
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan to deter—to compel respect for constitutional
guaranty in the only effective available way—by
sion of property such as the “constitutionally removing the incentive to disregard it.” Second
protected area” test in the 1961 case of is the “imperative of judicial integrity,” i.e., that
Silverman v. United States and the “reasonable the courts do not become “accomplices in the
expectation of privacy” standard in Katz v. willful disobedience of a Constitution they are
United States which held that the privacy of sworn to uphold . . . by permitting unhindered
communication in a public telephone booth governmental use of the fruits of such
comes under the protection of the Fourth invasions. . . A ruling admitting evidence in a
Amendment. Despite the shift in focus of the criminal trial . . . has the necessary effect of
Fourth Amendment in American jurisdiction, legitimizing the conduct which produced the

evidence, while an application of the decision is a performative contradiction and

exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional thus self-defeating. Critics would point out that
imprimatur.” Third is the more recent purpose while the decision invokes natural law that
pronounced by some members of the United abhors arbitrariness, that same decision is
States Supreme Court which is that “of tainted with what it abhors as it stands on the
assuring the people—all potential victims of judge’s subjective and arbitrary choice of a
unlawful government conduct—that the school of legal thought. Just as one judge will
government would not profit from its lawless fight tooth and nail to defend the natural law
behavior, thus minimizing the risk of seriously philosophy, another judge will match his fervor
undermining popular trust in government.” The in defending a contrary philosophy he espouses.
focus of concern here is not the police but the However, invoking natural law because the
public. This third purpose is implicit in the history, tradition and moral fiber of a people
Mappdeclaration that “no man is to be indubitably show adherence to it is an
conceived on unconstitutional evidence.” altogether different story, for ultimately, in our
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; political and legal tradition, the people are the
Same; Invoking natural law because the history, source of all government authority, and the
tradition and moral fiber of a people indubitably courts are their creation. While it may be
show adherence to it is an altogether different argued that the choice of a school of legal
story, for ultimately, in our political and legal thought is a matter of opinion, history is a fact
tradition, the people are the source of all against which one cannot argue—and it would
government authority and the courts are their not be turning somersault with history to say
creation—while it may be argued that the choice that the American Declaration of Independence
of a school of legal thought is a matter of and the consequent adoption of a constitution
opinion, history is a fact against which one stood on a modern natural law theory
cannot argue.—In deciding a case, invoking foundation as this is “universally taken for
natural law as solely a matter of the judge’s granted by writers on government.”
personal preference, invites criticism that the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
Same; It could confidently be asserted that the
23
spirit and letter of the 1935 Constitution, at
least insofar as the system of government and
the Bill of Rights were concerned, still prevailed
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 23 at the time of the EDSA Revolution.—It is also
well-settled in Philippine history that the
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan American system of government and
constitution were adopted by our 1935 duty but itself violates the very rights it was
Constitutional Convention as a model of our established
own republican system of government and
constitution. In the words of Claro M. Recto, 24
President of the Convention, the 1935
Constitution is “frankly an imitation of the
American Constitution.” Undeniably therefore,
modern natural law theory, specifically Locke’s 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
natural rights theory, was used by the
Founding Fathers of the American Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
constitutional democracy and later also used by
the Filipinos. Although the 1935 Constitution
to protect, it forfeits its authority to demand
was revised in 1973, minimal modifications
obedience of the governed and could be replaced
were introduced in the 1973 Constitution which
with one to which the people consent, and this
was in force prior to the EDSA Revolution.
highest of rights the Filipino people exercised in
Therefore, it could confidently be asserted that
the EDSA Revolution of February 1986.—Two
the spirit and letter of the 1935 Constitution, at
facts are easily discernible from our
least insofar as the system of government and
constitutional history. First, the Filipinos are a
the Bill of Rights were concerned, still prevailed
freedom-loving race with high regard for their
at the time of the EDSA Revolution. Even the
fundamental and natural rights. No amount of
1987 Constitution ratified less than a year from
subjugation or suppression, by rulers with the
the EDSA Revolution retained the basic
same color as the Filipinos’ skin or otherwise,
provisions of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions
could obliterate their longing and aspiration to
on the system of government and the Bill of
enjoy these rights. Without the people’s consent
Rights, with the significant difference that it
to submit their natural rights to the ruler, these
emphasized respect for and protection of human
rights cannot forever be quelled, for like water,
rights and stressed that sovereignty resided in
seeking its own course and level, they will find
the people and all government authority
their place in the life of the individual and of
emanates from them.
the nation; natural right, as part of nature, will
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; take its own course. Thus, the Filipinos fought
Same; Although Filipinos have given democracy for and demanded these rights from the
its own Filipino face, it is undeniable that our Spanish and American colonizers, and in fairly
political and legal institutions are American in recent history, from an authoritarian ruler.
origin; When government not only defaults in its They wrote these rights in stone in every
constitution they crafted starting from the 1899 that the new government recognized and
Malolos Constitution. Second, although respected human rights.—I shall first deal with
Filipinos have given democracy its own Filipino the right against unreasonable search and
face, it is undeniable that our political and legal seizure. On February 25, 1986, the new
institutions are American in origin. The president, Corazon Aquino, issued Proclamation
Filipinos adopted the republican form of No. 1 where she declared that she and the vice
government that the Americans introduced and president were taking power in the name and
the Bill of Rights they extended to our islands, by the will of the Filipino people and pledged “to
and were the keystones that kept the body do justice to the numerous victims of human
politic intact. These institutions sat well with rights violations.” It is implicit from this pledge
the Filipinos who had long yearned for that the new government recognized and
participation in government and were jealous of respected human rights. Thus, at the time of
their fundamental and natural rights. the search on March 3, 1986, it may be asserted
Undergirding these institutions was the modern that the government had the duty, by its own
natural law theory which stressed natural pledge, to uphold human rights.
rights in free, independent and equal
individuals who banded together to form 25
government for the protection of their natural
rights to life, liberty and property. The sole
purpose of government is to promote, protect
and preserve these rights. And when VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 25
government not only defaults in its duty but Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
itself violates the very rights it was established
to protect, it forfeits its authority to demand
obedience of the governed and could be replaced This presidential issuance was what came
with one to which the people consent. The closest to a positive law guaranteeing human
Filipino people exercised this highest of rights rights without enumerating them.
in the EDSA Revolution of February 1986. Nevertheless, even in the absence of a positive
law granting private respondent Dimaano the
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; right against unreasonable search and seizure
Same; Revolutionary Governments; It is implicit at the time her house was raided, I respectfully
from the pledge in Proclamation No. 1 dated submit that she can invoke her natural right
February 25, 1986 that the president and the against unreasonable search and seizure.
vice president pledged “to do justice to the
numerous victims of human rights violations” Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
Same; The rights against unreasonable search
and seizure is a core right implicit in the includes the freedom to determine when and
natural right to life, liberty and property.—The how an individual will share the private part of
right against unreasonable search and seizure his beings and the extent of his sharing; Truly,
is a core right implicit in the natural right to the drapes of a man’s castle are but an extension
life, liberty and property. Our well-settled of the drapes on his body that cover the
jurisprudence that the right against essentials—in unreasonable searches and
unreasonable search and seizure protects the seizures, the prying eyes and the invasive hands
people’s rights to security of person and of the government prevent the individual from
property, to the sanctity of the home, and to enjoying his freedom to keep himself and to act
privacy is a recognition of this proposition. The undisturbed within his zone of privacy.—A
life to which each person has a right is not a life natural right to liberty indubitably includes the
lived in fear that his person and property may freedom to determine when and how an
be unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler. individual will share the private part of his
Rather, it is a life lived with the assurance that being and the extent of his sharing. And when
the government he established and consented he chooses to express himself, the natural right
to, will protect the security of his person and to liberty demands that he should be given the
property. The ideal of security in life and liberty to be truly himself with his family in his
property dates back even earlier than the home, his haven of refuge where he can “retreat
modern philosophers and the American and from the cares and pressures, even at times the
French revolutions, but pervades the whole oppressiveness of the outside world,” to borrow
history of man. It touches every aspect of man’s the memorable words of Chief Justice
existence, thus it has been described, viz.: “The Fernando. For truly, the drapes of a man’s
right to personal security emanates in a castle are but an extension of the drapes on his
person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of body that cover the essentials. In unreasonable
his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his searches and seizures, the prying eyes and the
reputation. It includes the right to exist, and
the right to enjoyment of life while existing, and 26
it is invaded not only by a deprivation of life but
also of those things which are necessary to the
enjoyment of life according to the nature,
temperament, and lawful desires of the 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
individual.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
Same; A natural right to liberty indubitably

invasive hands of the government prevent the “appertain(ing) to man in right of his existence,”
individual from enjoying his freedom to keep to a right that “belongs to man by virtue of his
himself and to act undisturbed within his zone nature and depends upon his personality,” and
of privacy. Finally, indispensable to the natural not merely a civil right created and protected by
right to property is the right to one’s positive law. The right to protect oneself against
possessions. Property is a product of one’s toil unreasonable search and seizure, being a right
and might be considered an expression and indispensable to the right to life, liberty and
extension of oneself. It is what an individual property, may be derived as a conclusion from
deems necessary to the enjoyment of his life. what Aquinas identifies as man’s natural
With unreasonable searches and seizures, one’s inclination to self-preservation and self-
property stands in danger of being rummaged actualization. Man preserves himself by leading
through and taken away. In sum, as pointed out a secure life enjoying his liberty and actualizes
in De Los Reyes, persons are subjected to himself as a rational and social being in
indignity by an unreasonable search and choosing to freely express himself and associate
seizure because at bottom, it is a violation of a with others as well as by keeping to and
person’s natural right to life, liberty and knowing himself. For after all, a reflective grasp
property. It is this natural right which sets man of what it means to be human and how one
apart from other beings, which gives him the should go about performing the functions proper
dignity of a human being. to his human nature can only be done by the
rational person himself in the confines of his
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; private space. Only he himself in his own quiet
Same; A reflective grasp of what it means to be time can examine his life knowing that an
human and how one should go about performing unexamined life is not worth living.
the functions proper to his human nature can
only be done by the rational person himself in Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
the confines of his private space—only he Same; Revolutionary Governments; A revolution
himself in his own quiet time can examine his is staged only for the most fundamental of
life knowing that an unexamined life is not reasons—such as the violation of fundamental
worth living.—It is understandable why and natural rights—for prudence dictated that
Filipinos demanded that every organic law in “governments long established should not be
their history guarantee the protection of their changed for light and transient reasons.”—
natural right against unreasonable search and Every organic law the Filipinos established (the
seizure and why the UDHR treated this right as Malolos, 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions)
a human right. It is a right inherent in the right and embraced (the Instruction, Philippine Bill
to life, liberty and property; it is a right of 1902, and Jones Law) in the last century

included a provision guaranteeing the people’s constitution, individuals had a fundamental

right against unrea- and natural right against unreasonable search
and seizure under natural law.—Considering
27 that the right against unreasonable search and
seizure is a natural right, the government
cannot claim that private respondent Dimaano
is not entitled to the right for the reason alone
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 27 that there was no constitution granting the
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan right at the time the search was conducted. This
right of the private respondent precedes the
constitution, and does not depend on positive
sonable search and seizure because the people law. It is part of natural rights. A violation of
ranked this right as fundamental and natural. this right along with other rights stirred
Indeed, so fundamental and natural is this Filipinos to revolutions. It is the restoration of
right that the demand for it spurred the the Filipinos’ natural rights that justified the
American revolution against the English establishment of the Aquino government and
Crown. It resulted in the Declaration of the writing of the 1987 Constitution. I submit
Independence and the subsequent that even in the absence of a constitution,
establishment of the American Constitution private respondent Dimaano had a fundamental
about 200 years ago in 1789. A revolution is and natural right against unreasonable search
staged only for the most fundamental of reasons and seizure under natural law.
—such as the violation of fundamental arid
natural rights—for prudence dictates that Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
‘governments long established should not be Same; Same; The exclusionary rule is likewise a
changed for light and transient reasons.” natural right that can be invoked even in the
absence of a constitution guaranteeing such
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; right; To be sure, though, the status of the
Same; Same; Considering that the right against exclusionary right is a natural right is
unreasonable search and seizure is a natural admittedly not as indisputable as the right
right, the government cannot claim that a against unreasonable searches and seizures
person was not entitled to the right for the which is firmly supported by philosophy and
reason alone that there was no constitution deeply entrenched in history.—We now come to
granting the right at the time the search was the right to the exclusion of evidence illegally
conducted—this right precedes the constitution seized. From Stonehill quoting Mapp, we can
and does not depend on positive law since it is distill that the exclusionary rule in both the
part of natural rights; Even in the absence of the
Philippine and American jurisdictions is a Amendment rights generally through its

freedom “implicit in the concept of ordered deterrent effect, rather than a personal
liberty” for it is a necessary part of the constitutional right of the party aggrieved.”
guarantee against unreasonable searches and Along the same line, others contend that the
seizures, which in turn is “an essential part of right against unreasonable search and seizure
the right to privacy” that the Constitution merely requires some effective remedy, and
protects. If the exclusionary rule were not thus Congress may abolish or limit the
adopted, it would be to “grant the right (against exclusionary right if it could replace it with
unreasonable search and seizure) but in reality other remedies of a comparable or greater
to withhold its privilege and enjoyment.” Thus, deterrent effect. But these contentions have
the inevitable conclusion is that the merit only if it is conceded that the exclusionary
exclusionary rule is likewise a rule is merely an optional remedy for the
purpose of deterrence.
28
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
Same; Same; Without the strength of history and
with philosophy alone left as a leg to stand on,
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS the exclusionary right’s status as a fundamental
ANNOTATED and natural right stands on unstable ground—
the conclusion that it can be invoked even in the
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan absence of a constitution also rests on shifting
sands.—Unlike in the right against
natural right that private respondent Dimaano unreasonable search and seizure, however,
can invoke even in the absence of a constitution history cannot come to the aid of the
guaranteeing such right. To be sure, the status exclusionary right. Compared to the right
of the exclusionary right as a natural right is against unreasonable search and seizure, the
admittedly not as indisputable as the right exclusionary right is still in its infancy stage in
against unreasonable searches and seizures Philippine jurisdiction, having been etched only
which is firmly supported by philosophy and in the 1973 Constitution after the 1967
deeply entrenched in history. On a lower tier, Stonehill ruling which finally laid to rest the
arguments have been raised on the debate on whether illegally seized evidence
constitutional status of the exclusionary right. should be excluded. In the United States, the
Some assert, on the basis of United States v. exclusionary right’s genesis dates back only to
Calandra,that it is only a “judicially-created the 1885 Boyd case on the federal level, and to
remedy designed to safeguard Fourth the 1961 Mapp case in the state level. The long

period of non-recognition of the exclusionary Ramas’ unexplained wealth only on July 27,
right has not caused an upheaval, much less a 1987. The PCGG’s petition for forfeiture against
revolution, in both the Philippine and American Ramas was filed on August 1, 1987 and was
jurisdictions. Likewise, the UDHR, a response later amended to name the Republic of the
to violation of human rights in a particular Philippines as plaintiff and to add private
period in world history, did not include the respondent Dimaano as co-defendant. Following
exclusionary right. It cannot confidently be the petitioner’s stance upheld by the majority
asserted therefore that history can attest to its that the exclusionary right is a creation of the
natural right status. Without the strength of Constitution, then it could be invoked as a
history and with philosophy alone left as a leg constitutional right on or after the Freedom
to stand on, the exclusionary right’s status as a Constitution took effect on March 25, 1986 and
fundamental and natural right stands on later, when the 1987 Constitution took effect on
unstable ground. Thus, the conclusion that it February 2, 1987.
can be invoked even in the absence of a
constitution also rests on shifting sands. Same; Same; Same; Revolutionary
Governments; I cannot believe and so hold that
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; the Filipinos during the one month from
Same; Same; The exclusionary right is available February 25 to March 24, 1986 were stripped
to someone who invoked it when it was already naked of all their rights, including their natural
guaranteed by the Freedom Constitution and the rights as human beings—with the extraordinary
1987 Constitution.—Be that as it may, the circumstances before, during and after the
exclusionary right is available to private EDSA Revolution, the Filipinos simply found
respondent Dimaano as she invoked it when it themselves without a constitution, but certainly
was already guaranteed by the Freedom Consti- not without fundamental rights.—The Filipino
people have fought revolutions, by the power of
29
the pen, the strength of the sword and the
might of prayer to claim and reclaim their
fundamental rights. They set these rights in
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 29 stone in every constitution they established. I
cannot believe and so hold that the Filipinos
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan during that one month from February 25 to
March 24, 1986 were stripped naked of all their
tution and the 1987 Constitution. The AFP Board
issued its resolution on rights, including their natural rights as human
beings. With the extraordinary circumstances
before, during and after the EDSA Revolution,
the Filipinos simply found themselves without a 30

constitution, but certainly not without
fundamental rights. In that brief one month,
they retrieved their liberties and enjoyed them
in their rawest essence, having just been freed 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
from the claws of an authoritarian regime. They
walked through history with bare feet, unshod Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
by a constitution, but with an armor of rights
guaranteed by the philosophy and history of
perhaps even in the history of this planet.
their constitutional tradition. Those natural
Fittingly, this separate opinion is the first of its
rights inhere in man and need not be granted
kind in this Court, where history and
by a piece of paper.
philosophy are invoked not as aids in the
Same; Same; Same; Same; The 1986 EDSA interpretation of a positive law, but to recognize
Revolution was extraordinary, one that borders a right not written in a papyrus but inheres in
the miraculous—it was the first revolution of its man as man. The unnaturalness of the 1986
kind in Philippine history, and perhaps even in EDSA revolution cannot dilute nor defeat the
the history of this planet—and fittingly, this natural rights of man, rights that antedate
separate opinion is the first of its kind in this constitutions, rights that have been the beacon
Court, where history and philosophy are invoked lights of the law since the Greek civilization.
not as aids in the interpretation of a positive Without respect for natural rights, man cannot
law, but to recognize a right not written in a rise to the full height of his humanity.
papyrus but inheres in man as man.—I wish to
stress that I am not making the duty of the VITUG, J., Separate Opinion:
Court unbearably difficult by taking it to task
every time a right is claimed before it to Political Law: Revolutionary Governments;
determine whether it is a natural right which Words and Phrases; A revolution results in a
the government cannot diminish or defeat by complete overthrow of established government
any kind of positive law or action. The Court and of the existing legal order; A rebellion or
need not always twice measure a law or action, insurrection may change policies, leadership,
first utilizing the constitution and second using and the political institution, but not the social
natural law as a yardstick. However, the 1986 structure and prevailing values; A coup d’etat in
EDSA Revolution was extraordinary, one that itself changes leadership and perhaps policies
borders the miraculous. It was the first but not necessarily more extensive and intensive
revolution of its kind in Philippine history, and than that; A war of independence is a struggle of
one community against the rule by an alien preserve the provisions of the 1973 Constitution
community and does not have to involve changes on individual rights. Proclamation No. 1, dated
in the social structure of either community.—A 25 February 1986, has maintained that
revolution is defined by Western political “sovereignty resides in the people and all
scholars as being a “rapid fundamental and government authority emanates from them.” It
violent domestic change in the dominant values has expressed that the government would be
and myths of a society in its political “dedicated to uphold justice, morality and
institutions, social structure, leadership, and decency in government, freedom and
government activity and policies.” A revolution democracy.” In lifting the suspension of the
results in a complete overthrow of established privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
government and of the existing legal order.
Notable examples would be the French, 31
Chinese, Mexican, Russian, and Cuban
revolutions. Revolution, it is pointed out, is to
be distinguished from rebellion, insurrection,
revolt, coup, and war of independence. A VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 31
rebellion or insurrection may change policies, Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
leadership, and the political institution, but not
the social structure and prevailing values.
Acoup d’etat in itself changes leadership and throughout the Philippines, for, among other
perhaps policies but not necessarily more reasons, the “Filipino people have established a
extensive and intensive than that. A war of new government bound to the ideals of genuine
independence is a struggle of one community liberty and freedom for all,” Proclamation No. 2
against the rule by an alien community and of March 1986, has declared: “Now, therefore, I,
does not have to involve changes in the social Corazon C. Aquino, President of the
structure of either community. Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me
by the Constitution and the Filipino people, do
Same; Same; Proclamation No. 3 is an hereby x x x lift the suspension of the privilege
acknowledgment by the Aquino government of of the writ of habeas corpus x x x.” What
the continued existence, subject to its exclusions, Constitution could the proclamation have been
of the 1973 Charter.—The proclamations issued, referring to? It could not have been the
as well as the Provisional Constitution enacted Provisional Constitution, adopted only later on
by the Aquino administration shortly after 25 March 1986 under Proclamation No. 3
being installed, have revealed the new which, in fact, contains and attests to the new
government’s recognition of and its intention to government’s commitment to the “restoration of
democracy” and “protection of basic rights,” mutual relations and to individuals in their
announcing that the “the provisions of Article I relations with states. The individual as the end
(National Territory), Article III (Citizenship), of the community of nations is a member of the
Article IV (Bill ofRights), Article V (Duties and community, and a member has status and is not
Obligations of Citizens), and Article VI a mere object. It is no longer correct to state
(Suffrage) of the 1973 Constitution, as that the State could only be the medium
amended, (shall) remain in force and effect,” between international law and its own
(emphasis supplied), superseding only the nationals, for the law has often fractured this
articles on “The Batasang Pambansa,” “The link as and when it fails in its purpose. Thus, in
Prime Minister and the Cabinet,” the areas of black and white slavery, human
“Amendments,” and “Transitory Provisions.” rights and protection of minorities, and a score
Verily, Proclamation No. 3 is an of other concerns over individuals, international
acknowledgment by the Aquino government of law has seen such individuals, being members
the continued existence, subject to its of the international community, as capable of
exclusions, of the 1973 Charter. invoking rights and duties even against the
Same; Public International Law; It is no nation State. At bottom, the Bill of Rights
longer correct to state that the State could only (under the 1973 Constitution), during the
be the medium between international law and interregnum from 26 February to 24 March
its own nationals, for the law has often fractured 1986 remained in force and effect not only
this link as and when it fails in its purpose; At because it was so recognized by the 1986 People
bottom, the Bill of Rights (under the 1973 Power but also because the new gov-
Constitution), during the interregnum from 26
32
February to 24 March 1986 remained in force
and effect not only because it was so recognized
by the 1986 People Power but also because the
new government was bound by international law 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
to respect the Universal Declaration of Human ANNOTATED
Rights.—It might then be asked whether an
individual is a proper subject of international Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
law and whether he can invoke a provision of
international law against his own nation state. ernment was bound by international law to
International law, also often referred to as the respect the Universal Declaration of Human
law of nations, has in recent times been defined Rights.
as that law which is applicable to states in their

TINGA, J., Separate Opinion: accorded retroactive application pursuant to the

Freedom Constitution.
Political Law; Revolutionary Governments; Same; Same; It was unmistakable thrust of
The Freedom Constitution made the Bill of the Freedom Constitution to bestow
Rights in the 1973 Constitution operable from uninterrupted operability to the Bill of Rights in
the incipiency of the Aquino government.—Going the 1973 Constitution.—But the more precise
back to the specific question as to the juridical statement is that it was the unmistakable thrust
basis for the nullification of the questioned of the Freedom Constitution to bestow
confiscation, I respectfully maintain that it is no uninterrupted operability to the Bill of Rights in
less than the Freedom Constitution since it made the 1973 Constitution. For one thing, the title
the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution itself of Proclamation No. 3 which ordained the
operable from the incipiency of the Aquino Freedom Constitution, as well as one of the
government. In the well-publicized so-called vital premises or whereas clauses thereof,
“OIC cases,” this Court issued an en bane adverts to the “protection of the basic rights” of
resolution dismissing the petitions and the people. For another, the Freedom
upholding the validity of the removal of the Constitution in Article 1, Section 1 mandates
petitioners who were all elected and whose that the Bill of Rights and other provisions of
terms of office under the 1973 Constitution the Freedom Constitution specified therein
were to expire on June 30, 1986, on the basis of “remain in force and effect and are hereby
Article III, Section 2 of the Freedom adopted in toto as part of this Provisional
Constitution, which reads: SEC. 2. All elective Constitution.”
and appointive officials and employees under
Same; Same; Even if it is supposed that the
the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office
Freedom Constitution had no retroactive effect
until otherwise provided by proclamation or
or it did not extend the effectivity of the Bill of
executive order or upon the designation or
Rights in the 1973 Constitution, still there
appointment and qualification of their
would be no void in the municipal or domestic
successors, if such appointment is made within
law at the time as far as the observance of the
a period of one year from February 25, 1986.
fundamental right is concerned—the Bill of
This Court perforce extended retroactive effect
Rights in the 1973 Constitution would still be in
to the above-quoted provision as the petitions
force, independently of the Freedom
except one were filed before the adoption of the
Constitution, or at least the pro-
Freedom Constitution on March 25, 1986. That
being the case, with greater reason should the
33
Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution be

PETITION for review on certiorari of the

VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 33 resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
visions thereof proscribing unreasonable search
Luisito Baluyut for Ramas.
and seizure and excluding evidence in violation
Armando S. Banaag for respondent
of the proscription.—Of course, even if it is
Dimaano.
supposed that the Freedom Constitution had no
retroactive effect or it did not extend the CARPIO, J.:
effectivity of the Bill of Rights in the 1973
Constitution, still there would be no void in the
municipal or domestic law at the time as far as
the observance of fundamental rights is The Case
concerned. The Bill of Rights in the 1973
Before this Court is a petition for review on
Constitution would still be in force,
certiorari seeking to set aside the
independently of the Freedom Constitution, or
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan (First
at least the provisions thereof proscribing 1
Division) dated 18 November 1991 and 25
unreasonable search and seizure and excluding
March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037. The
evidence in violation of the proscription.
first Resolution dismissed petitioner’s
Markedly departing from the typical, the
Amended Complaint and ordered the
revolutionary government installed by
return of the confiscated items to
President Aquino was a benign government. It
respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, while the
had chosen to observe prevailing constitutional
second Resolution denied petitioner’s
restraints. An eloquent proof was the fact that
Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner
through the defunct Philippine Constabulary, it
prays for the grant of the reliefs sought in
applied for a search warrant and conducted the
its Amended Complaint, or in the
questioned search and seizure only after
alternative, for the remand of this case to
obtaining the warrant. Furthermore, President
the Sandiganbayan (First Divi-
Aquino definitely pledged in her oath of office to
uphold and defend the Constitution, which
undoubtedly was the 1973 Constitution, _______________
including the Bill of Rights thereof. 1 Composed of Justices Regino Hermosisima, Jr.,
Francis Garchitorena and Cipriano del Rosario.
34 unexplained wealth and corrupt practices

by AFP personnel, 2
whether in the active
service or retired.
Based on its mandate, the AFP Board
ANNOTATED
investigated various reports of alleged
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan unexplained wealth of respondent Major
General Josephus Q. Ramas (“Ramas”). On
sion) for further proceedings allowing 27 July 1987, the AFP Board issued a
petitioner to complete the presentation of Resolution on its findings and
its evidence. recommendation on the reported
unexplained wealth of Ramas. The
relevant part of the Resolution reads:
Antecedent Facts
III. FINDINGS and EVALUATION:
Immediately upon her assumption to office
following the successful EDSA Revolution, Evidence in the record showed that respondent
then President Corazon C. Aquino issued is the owner of a house and lot located at 15-
Executive Order No. 1 (“EO No. 1”) Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon City. He is also the
creating the Presidential Commission on owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City.
Good Government (“PCGG”). EO No. 1 The lot has an area of 3,327 square meters.
primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all The value of the property located in Quezon
ill-gotten wealth of former President City may be estimated modestly at P700,000.00.
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate The equipment/items and communication
family, relatives, subordinates and close facilities which were found in the premises of
associates. EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with Elizabeth Dimaano and were confiscated by
the power “(a) to conduct investigation as elements of the PC Command of Batangas were
may be necessary in order to accomplish all covered by invoice receipt in the name of
and carry out the purposes of this order” CAPT. EFREN SALHDO, RSO Command Coy,
and the power “(b) to promulgate such MSC, PA. These
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 2 Republic v. Migrino, G.R. No. 89483, 30 August 1990,
AFP Anti-Graft Board (“AFP Board”) 189 SCRA 289.
tasked to investigate reports of
35 equipment/items seized in her house on March

3, 1986 without the consent of respondent, he
being the Commanding General of the
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 35
Philippine Army. It is also impossible for
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Elizabeth Dimaano to claim that she owns the
P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars for she
items could not have been in the possession of had no visible source of income.
Elizabeth Dimaano if not given for her use by This money was never declared in the
respondent Commanding General of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of
Philippine Army. respondent. There was an intention to cover the
Aside from the military equipment/items and existence of these money because these are all
communications equipment, the raiding team ill-gotten and unexplained wealth. Were it not
was also able to confiscate money in the amount for the affidavits of the members of the Military
of P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the Security Unit assigned at Camp Eldridge, Los
house of Elizabeth Dimaano on 3 March 1986. Baños, Laguna, the existence and ownership of
Affidavits of members of the Military these money would have never been known.
Security Unit, Military Security Command, The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of
Philippine Army, stationed at Camp Eldridge, respondent were also submitted for scrutiny
Los Baños, Laguna, disclosed that Elizabeth and analysis by the Board’s consultant.
Dimaano is the mistress of respondent. That Although the amount of P2,870,000.00 and
respondent usually goes and stays and sleeps in $50,000 US Dollars were not included, still it
the alleged house of Elizabeth Dimaano in was disclosed that respondent has an
Barangay Tengga, Itaas, Batangas City and unexplained wealth of P104,134.60.
when he arrives, Elizabeth Dimaano embraces
and kisses respondent. That on February 25, IV. CONCLUSION:
1986, a person who rode in a car went to the
residence of Elizabeth Dimaano with four (4) In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that
attache cases filled with money and owned by a prima facie case exists against respondent for
MGen Ramas. ill-gotten and unexplained wealth in the
Sworn statement in the record disclosed also amount of P2,974,134.00 and $50,000 US
that Elizabeth Dimaano had no visible means of Dollars.
income and is supported by respondent for she
36
was formerly a mere secretary.
Taking in toto the evidence, Elizabeth
Dimaano could not have used the military 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED of proportion to his salary as an army

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan officer and his other income from
legitimately acquired property by taking
undue advantage of his public office and/or
V. RECOMMENDATION:
using his power, authority and influence as
such officer of the Armed Forces of the
Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen.
Philippines and as a subordinate and close
Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and
associate of the5 deposed President
tried for violation of RA 3019, as amended,
Ferdinand Marcos.”
otherwise known as “Anti-Graft and Corrupt
The Amended Complaint also alleged
Practices Act” and RA 1379, as amended,
that the AFP Board, after a previous
otherwise known as “The Act for 3the Forfeiture
inquiry, found reasonable ground to believe
of Unlawfully Acquired Property.”
that 6respondents have violated RA No.
Thus, on 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a 1379. The Amended Complaint prayed for,
petition for forfeiture under Republic Act among others, the forfeiture of
4
No. 1379 (“RA No. 1379”) against Ramas. respondents’ properties, funds and
Before Ramas could answer the petition, equipment in favor of the State.
then Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez Ramas filed an Answer with Special
filed an Amended Complaint naming the and/or Affirmative Defenses and
Republic of the Philippines (“petitioner”), Compulsory Counterclaim to the Amended
represented by the PCGG, as plaintiff and Complaint.
Ramas as defendant. The Amended
Complaint also impleaded Elizabeth _______________
Dimaano (“Dimaano”) as co-defendant.
3 Records of the Sandiganbayan [hereinafter
The Amended Complaint alleged that
Records], pp. 53-55.
Ramas was the Commanding General of
4 “An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State
the Philippine Army until 1986. On the
Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully
other hand, Dimaano was a confidential
Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and
agent of the Military Security Unit,
Providing for the Proceedings Therefor.”
Philippine Army, assigned as a clerk-typist
5 Records, p. 14.
at the office of Ramas from 1 January 1978
6 Ibid., p. 16.
to February 1979. The Amended Complaint
further alleged that Ramas “acquired 37
funds, assets and properties manifestly out
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 37 with being subject to forfeiture as having
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan been unlawfully acquired
8
by defendant
Dimaano alone x x x.”
Nevertheless, in an order dated 17 April
In his Answer, Ramas contended that his 1989, the Sandiganba-yan proceeded with
property consisted only of a residential petitioner’s presentation of evidence on the
house at La Vista Subdivision, Quezon ground that the motion for leave to amend
City, valued at P700,000, which was not complaint did not state when petitioner
out of proportion to his salary and other would file the amended complaint. The
legitimate income. He denied ownership of Sandiganbayan further stated that the
any mansion in Cebu City and the cash, subject matter of the amended complaint
communications equipment and other was on its face vague and not related to the
items confiscated from the house of existing complaint. The Sandiganbayan
Dimaano. also held that due to the time that the case
Dimaano filed her own Answer to the had been pending in court, petitioner
Amended Complaint. Admitting her should proceed to present its evidence.
employment as a clerk-typist in the office After presenting only three witnesses,
of Ramas from January-November 1978 petitioner asked for a postponement of the
only, Dimaano claimed ownership of the trial.
monies, communications equipment, On 28 September 1989, during the
jewelry and land titles taken from her continuation of the trial, petitioner
house by the Philippine Constabulary manifested its inability to proceed to trial
raiding team. 7 because of the absence of other witnesses
After termination of the pre-trial, the or lack of further evidence to present.
court set the case for trial on the merits on Instead, petitioner reiterated its motion to
9-11 November 1988. amend the complaint to
On 9 November 1988, petitioner asked
for a deferment of the hearing due to its
_______________
lack of preparation for trial and the
absence of witnesses and vital documents 7 Ibid., p.166.
to support its case. The court reset the 8 Ibid.,p. 286.
hearing to 17 and 18 April 1989.
On 13 April 1989, petitioner filed a 38
motion for leave to amend the complaint in
order “to charge the delinquent properties
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS days within which to file an appropriate

ANNOTATED pleading. The Sandiganbayan, however,
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan warned petitioner that failure to act would
constrain the court to take drastic action.
Private respondents then filed their
conform to the evidence already presented
motions to dismiss based on Republic
or to change the averments to show that 9
v.Migrino, The Court held in Migrino that
Dimaano alone unlawfully acquired the
the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to
monies or properties subject of the
investigate and prosecute military officers
forfeiture.
by reason of mere position held without a
The Sandiganbayan noted that
showing that they are “subordinates” of
petitioner had already delayed the case for
former President Marcos.
over a year mainly because of its many
On 18 November 1991, the
postponements. Moreover, petitioner would
Sandiganbayan rendered a resolution, the
want the case to revert to its preliminary
dispositive portion of which states:
stage when in fact the case had long been
ready for trial. The Sandiganbayan ordered “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
petitioner to prepare for presentation of its dismissing the Amended Complaint, without
additional evidence, if any. pronouncement as to costs. The counter-claims
During the trial on 23 March 1990, are likewise dismissed for lack of merit, but the
petitioner again admitted its inability to confiscated sum of money, communications
present further evidence. Giving petitioner equipment, jewelry and land titles are ordered
one more chance to present further returned to Elizabeth Dimaano.
evidence or to amend the complaint to The records of this case are hereby remanded
conform to its evidence, the and referred to the Hon. Ombudsman, who has
Sandiganbayan reset the trial to 18 May primary jurisdiction over the forfeiture cases
1990. The Sandiganbayan, however, hinted under R.A. No. 1379, for such appropriate
that the re-setting was without prejudice action as the evidence warrants.
to any action that private respondents
might take under the circumstances. _______________
However, on 18 May 1990, petitioner
again expressed its inability to proceed to 9 Supra,note 2.
trial because it had no further evidence to

39
present. Again, in the interest of justice,
the Sandiganbayan granted petitioner 60
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 39 criminal cases was conducted

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan against Ramas and Dimaano.
(3.) The evidence adduced against
This case is also referred to the Commissioner Ramas does not constitute a prima
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a facie case against him.
determination of any tax liability of respondent (4.) There was an illegal search and
Elizabeth Dimaano in connection herewith. seizure of the items confiscated.
SO ORDERED.”
On 4 December 1991, petitioner filed its

Motion for Reconsideration. The Issues
In answer to the Motion for
Reconsideration, private respondents filed Petitioner raises the following issues:
a Joint Comment/Opposition to which
A. RESPONDENT COURT
petitioner filed its Reply on 10 January
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
1992.
CONCLUDING THAT
On 25 March 1992, the Sandiganbayan
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
rendered a Resolution denying the Motion
CANNOT MAKE A CASE FOR
for Reconsideration.
FORFEITURE AND THAT THERE
WAS NO SHOWING OF
Ruling of the Sandiganbayan CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION OR
RELATIONSHIP BY
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY
Amended Complaint on the following BY AND BETWEEN
grounds: RESPONDENT RAMAS AND
RESPONDENT DIMAANO
(1.) The actions taken by the PCGG are
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT
not in accordance with the rulings
THAT SUCH CONCLUSIONS
of the Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr.
10 WERE CLEARLY UNFOUNDED
v.Sandiganbayan and Republic
11 AND PREMATURE,
v.Migrino which involve the same
issues.
(2.) No previous inquiry similar to _______________
preliminary investigations in
10 G.R. No. 94595, 26 February 1991, 194 SCRA Republic v. Migrino, supra,are
474. clearly not applicable to this case;
11 Supra, note 2. 2. Any procedural defect in the
institution of the complaint in Civil
40
Case No. 0037 was cured and/or
waived by respondents with the
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS filing of their respective answers
ANNOTATED with counterclaim; and
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan 3. The separate motions to dismiss
were evidently improper
HAVING BEEN RENDERED considering that they were filed
PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION after commencement of the
OF THE PRESENTATION OF presentation of the evidence of the
THE EVIDENCE OF THE petitioner and even before the
PETITIONER. latter was allowed to formally offer
its evidence and rest its case;
B. RESPONDENT COURT
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
C. RESPONDENT COURT
HOLDING THAT THE ACTIONS
SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER,
HOLDING THAT THE ARTICLES
INCLUDING THE FILING OF
AND THINGS SUCH AS SUMS
THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
OF MONEY, COMMUNICATIONS
AND THE AMENDED
EQUIPMENT, JEWELRY AND
COMPLAINT, SHOULD BE
LAND TITLES CONFISCATED
STRUCK OUT IN LINE WITH
FROM THE HOUSE OF
THE RULINGS OF THE
RESPONDENT DIMAANO WERE
SUPREME COURT IN CRUZ, JR.
ILLEGALLY SEIZED AND
v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 194 SCRA
THEREFORE EXCLUDED AS
474 AND REPUBLIC v. MIGRINO, 12
EVIDENCE.
189 SCRA 289,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT
THAT:
The Court’s Ruling
1. The cases of Cruz, Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, supra,and
the necessary recommendations to

appropriate government agencies on the
First Issue: PCGG’s Jurisdiction to action to be taken based on its findings.
16
Investigate Private Respondents

The PCGG gave this task to the AFP Board
This case involves a revisiting of an old pursuant to the PCGG’s power under
issue already decided by 13this Court in Section 3 ofEO No. 1 “to conduct
Cruz, Jr. v.14 Sandiganbayan and Republic investigation as may be necessary in order
v. Migrino. to accomplish and to carry out the
The primary issue for resolution is purposes of this order.” EO No. 1 gave the
whether the PCGG has the jurisdiction to PCGG specific responsibilities, to wit:
investigate and cause the filing of a SEC. 2. The Commission shall be charged with
forfeiture petition against Ramas and the task of assisting the President in regard to
Dimaano for unexplained wealth under RA the following matters:
No. 1379.
We hold that PCGG has no such (a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth
jurisdiction. accumulated by former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate
_______________ family, relatives, subordinates and close
associates, whether located in the
12 Rollo, p. 21. Philippines or abroad, including the
13 Supra, note 10. takeover and sequestration of all
14 Supra,note 2. business enterprises and entities owned
or controlled by them, during his
41
administration, directly or through
nominees, by taking undue advantage of
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 41 their public office and/or using their
powers, authority, influence,
connections or relationship.
(b) The investigation of such cases of graft
The PCGG created the AFP Board to
and corruption as the President may
investigate the unexplained wealth and
assign to the Commission from time to
corrupt practices of AFP personnel, 15 time.
whether in the active service or retired.
x x x.
The PCGG tasked the AFP Board to make

The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can under the first category of AFP personnel
only investigate the unexplained wealth before the PCGG could exercise its
and corrupt practices of AFP personnel jurisdiction over him. Petitioner argues
who fall under either of the two categories that Ramas was undoubtedly a
mentioned in Section 2 of EO No. 1. These subordinate of former President Marcos
are: (1) AFP personnel who have because of his position as the Commanding
accumulated illgotten wealth during the General of the Philippine Army. Petitioner
administration of former President Marcos claims that Ramas’ position enabled him to
by being the latter’s immediate family, receive orders directly from his
relative, subordinate or close associate, commander-in-chief, undeniably making
taking undue advantage of their public him a subordinate of former President
office
17
or using their powers, influence x x Marcos.
x; or (2) AFP personnel involved in other We hold that Ramas was not a
cases of graft and corruption provided the “subordinate” of former President Marcos
President
18
assigns their cases to the in the sense contemplated under EO No. 1
PCGG. and its amendments.
Mere position held by a military officer
_______________ does not automatically make him a
“subordinate” as this term is used in EO
15 Republic v. Migrino, supra,note 2. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing
16 Supra,note 2. that he enjoyed close association with
17 Republic v. Migrino, supra,note 2. former President Marcos. Migrino
18 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 115906, 29 discussed this issue in this wise:
September 1994, 237 SCRA 242.
A close reading of EO No. 1 and related
42 executive orders will readily show what is
contemplated within the term ‘subordinate.’ The
Whereas Clauses of EO No. 1 express the
urgent need to recover the ill-gotten wealth
ANNOTATED
amassed by former President Ferdinand E.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and
close associates both here and abroad.
Petitioner, however, does not claim that EO No. 2 freezes ‘all assets and properties in
the President assigned Ramas’ case to the the Philippines in which former President
PCGG. Therefore, Ramas’ case should fall Marcos and/or his wife, Mrs. Imelda Marcos,
their close relatives, subordinates, business showing that the respondent unlawfully
associates, dummies, agents, or nominees have accumulated wealth by virtue of his close
any interest or participation.’ association or relation with former Pres. Marcos
Applying the rule in statutory construction and/or his wife. (Emphasis supplied)
known as ejusdem generis that is—
Ramas’ position alone as Commanding
‘[W]here general words follow an enumeration of General of the Philippine19
Army with the
persons or things by words of a particular and rank of Major General does not suffice to
specific meaning, such general words are not to be make him a “subordinate” of former
construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as President Marcos for purposes of EO No. 1
applying only to persons or things of the same kind and its amendments. The PCGG has to
or class as those specifically mentioned [Smith, Bell provide a prima facie showing that Ramas
& Co., Ltd. vs. Register of Deeds of Davao, 96 Phil. was a close associate of former President
53, 58, citing Black on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd Marcos, in the same manner that business
Ed., 203].’ associates, dummies, agents or nominees of
former President Marcos were close to him.
[T]he term “subordinate” as used in EO Nos.
Such close association is manifested either
1 & 2 refers to one who enjoys a close
by Ramas’ complicity with former
association with former President Marcos
President Marcos in the accumulation of
and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family
ill-gotten wealth by the deposed President
member, relative, and close associate in EO No.
or by former President Marcos’
1 and the close relative, business associate,
acquiescence in Ramas’ own accumulation
dummy, agent, or nominee in EO No. 2.
of ill-gotten wealth if any.
xxx
This, the PCGG failed to do.
43 Petitioner’s attempt to differentiate the
instant case from Migrino does not
convince us. Petitioner argues that unlike
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 43 in Migrino,the AFP Board Resolution in
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan the instant case states that the AFP Board
conducted the investigation pursuant to
It does not suffice, as in this case, that the EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A in relation to RA
respondent is or was a government official or No. 1379. Petitioner asserts that there is a
employee during the administration of former presumption that the PCGG was acting
President Marcos. There must be a prima facie within its jurisdiction of investigating
crony-related cases of graft and corruption
and that Ramas was truly a subordinate of otherwise known as “The Act for 20the Forfeiture
the former President. However, the same of Unlawfully Acquired Property.”
AFP Board Resolution belies this
contention. Although the Resolution begins Thus, although the PCGG sought to
with such statement, it ends with the investigate and prosecute private
following recommendation: respondents under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
A, the result yielded a finding of violation
of Republic Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379
_______________
without any relation to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14
19 Presidential Decree No. 1769 “Amending PD 360 and 14-A. This absence of relation to EO
dated December 30, 1973 adjusting the authorized No. 1 and its amendments proves fatal to
grades in the command and staff structure of the peti-tioner’s case. EO No. 1 created the
AFP” dated 12 January 1981. The ranking is as PCGG for a specific and limited purpose,
follows: and necessarily its powers must be
construed to address such specific and
Chief of Staff, AFP General (0-10)
limited purpose.
Vice Chief of Staff, AFP Lt. General (0-9) Moreover, the resolution of the AFP
Commander of Major Services, Maj. General (0- Board and even the Amended Complaint
AFP 8)
do not show that the properties Ramas
x x x.
allegedly owned were accumulated by him
in his capacity as a “subordinate” of his
44
commander-in-chief. Petitioner merely
enumerated the properties Ramas
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS allegedly owned and suggested that these
ANNOTATED properties were disproportionate to his
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan salary and other legitimate income without
showing that Ramas amassed them
because of his close association with former
V. RECOMMENDATION:
President Marcos. Petitioner, in fact,
Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen. admits that the AFP Board resolution does
Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and not contain a finding that Ramas
tried for violation of RA 3019, as amended, accumulated his wealth because of his
otherwise known as “Anti-Graft and Corrupt close association with former President
Practices Act” and RA 1379, as amended, Marcos, thus:

10. While it is true that the resolution of the on the urgent need to recover all ill-gotten
Anti-Graft Board of the New Armed Forces of wealth amassed by former President
the Philippines did not categorically find a Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,
prima facie evidence showing that respondent subordinates and close associates.
Ramas unlawfully accumulated wealth by Therefore, to say that such omission was
virtue of his close association or relation with not fatal is clearly contrary to the intent
former President Marcos and/or his wife, it is behind the creation of the PCGG. 23
submitted that such omission was not fatal. The In Cruz, Jr. v.Sandiganbayan, the
resolution of the Anti-Graft Board should be Court outlined the cases that fall under the
read in the context of the law creating the same jurisdiction
24
of25 the PCGG
26
pursuant to EO
and the objective of the investigation which Nos. 1, 2, 14, 14-A;
was, as stated in the above, pursuant to
Republic Act Nos. 3019 and 1379 in relation to A careful reading of Sections 2(a) and 3 of
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-a;
21
Executive Order No. 1 in relation with Sections
(Emphasis supplied) 1, 2 and 3 of Executive Order No. 14, shows
what the authority of the respondent PCGG to
Such omission is fatal. Petitioner forgets investigate and prosecute covers:
that it is precisely a prima facie showing
that the ill-gotten wealth was accumulated (a) the investigation and prosecution of the
by civil action for the recovery of ill-gotten
wealth under Republic Act No. 1379,
accumulated by former President
_______________
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,
20 Records, pp. 54-55. subordinates and close associates,
21 Rollo, p. 27. whether located in the Philippines or
abroad, including the take-over or
45 sequestration of all business enterprises
and entities owned or controlled by
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 45 them, during his administration,
directly or through his nominees, by
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan taking undue advantage of their public
office and/orusing their powers,
a “subordinate” of former President Marcos22
authority and influence, connections or
that vests jurisdiction on PCGG. EO No. 1 relationships; and
clearly premises the creation of the PCGG
(b) the investigation and prosecution of ANNOTATED

such offenses committed in the
acquisition of said ill-gotten wealth as
contemplated under Section 2(a) of
However, other violations of the Anti-Graft and
Executive Order No. 1.
Corrupt Practices Act not otherwise falling
under the foregoing categories, require a
_______________ previous authority of the President for the
respondent PCGG to investigate and prosecute
22 “WHEREAS, vast resources of the government
in accordance with Section 2 (b) of Executive
have been amassed by former President Ferdinand E.
Order No. 1. Otherwise, jurisdiction over such
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and close
cases is vested in the Ombudsman and other
associates both here and abroad;
duly authorized investigating agencies such as
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to recover all ill-gotten the provincial and city prosecutors, their
wealth; assistants, the Chief State Prosecutor and his
x x x” assistants and the state prosecutors. (Emphasis
supplied)
23 Supra,note 10.
24 “Regarding the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and The proper government agencies, and not
Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by the PCGG, should investigate and
Former President Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Marcos, their prosecute forfeiture petitions not falling
Close Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates, under EO No. 1 and its amendments. The
Dummies, Agents or Nominees” dated 12 March 1986. preliminary investigation of unexplained
25 “Defining the Jurisdiction over Cases Involving wealth amassed on or before 25 February
the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former President 1986 falls under the jurisdiction of the
FerdinandE.Marcos, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Ombudsman, while the authority to file the
Members of their Immediate Family, Close Relatives, corresponding forfeiture
27
petition rests with
Subordinates, and/or Business Associates, Dummies, the Solicitor General. The Ombudsman
Agents and Nominees” dated 7 May 1986. Act or Republic Act No. 6770 (“RA No.
26 “Amending Executive Order No. 14” dated 18 6770”) vests in the Ombudsman the power
August 1986. to conduct preliminary investigation and to
file forfeiture proceedings involving
46
unexplained wealth
28
amassed after 25
February 1986.
After the pronouncements of the Court 28 Section 15 (11), RA No. 6770.

in Cruz,the PCGG still pursued this case
47
despite the absence of a prima facie finding
that Ramas was a “subordinate” of former
President Marcos. The petition for VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 47
forfeiture filed with the Sandiganbayan
should be dismissed for lack of authority by
the PCGG to investigate respondents since
there is no prima facie showing that EO Petitioner’s argument that private
No. 1 and its amendments apply to respondents have waived any defect in the
respondents. The AFP Board Resolution filing of the forfeiture petition by
and even the Amended Complaint state submitting their respective Answers with
that there are violations of RA Nos. 3019 counterclaim deserves no merit as well.
and 1379. Thus, the PCGG should have Petitioner has no jurisdiction over
recommended Ramas’ case to the private respondents. Thus, there is no
Ombudsman who has jurisdiction to jurisdiction to waive in the first place. The
conduct the preliminary investigation of PCGG cannot exercise investigative or
ordinary unexplained wealth and graft prosecutorial powers never granted to it.
cases. As stated in Migrino: PCGG’s powers are specific and limited.
Unless given additional assignment by the
[But] in view of the patent lack of authority of President, PCGG’s sole task is only to
the PCGG to investigate and cause the recover the ill-gotten wealth of the 29
prosecution of private respondent for violation Marcoses, their relatives and cronies.
of Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379, the PCGG Without these elements, the PCGG cannot
must also be enjoined from proceeding with the claim jurisdiction over a case.
case, without prejudice to any action that may Private respondents questioned the
be taken by the proper prosecutory agency. The authority and jurisdiction of the PCGG to
rule of law mandates that an agency of investigate and prosecute their cases by
government be allowed to exercise only the filing their Motion to Dismiss as soon as
powers granted to it. they learned of the pronouncement of the
Court in Migrino. This case was decided on
_______________ 30 August 1990, which explains why
private respondents only filed their Motion
27 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90529, 16 to Dismiss on 8 October 1990.
August 1991, 200 SCRA 667. Nevertheless, we have held that the
parties may raise lack of jurisdiction

30
at any ANNOTATED
stage of the proceeding. Thus, we hold Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
that there was no waiver of jurisdiction in
this case. Jurisdiction is vested31 by law and
not by the parties to an action.
Consequently, the petition should be Second Issue: Propriety of Dismissal of
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Case Before
PCGG to conduct the preliminary Completion
of Presentation of
investigation. The Ombudsman may still Evidence
conduct the proper preliminary
investigation for violation of RA No. 1379, Petitioner also contends that the
and if warranted, the Solicitor General Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the
may file the forfeiture petition with the case before completion of the presentation
32
Sandiganbayan. The right of the State to of petitioner’s evidence.
forfeit unexplained wealth under RA No. We disagree.
1379 is not33subject to prescription, laches Based on the findings of the
or estoppel. Sandiganbayan and the records of this
case, we find that petitioner has only itself
to blame for non-completion of the
_______________
presentation of its evidence. First, this case
29 Republic v. Migrino, supra,note 2. has been pending for four years before the
30 Cudia v. Court of Appeals, 348 Phil. 190; 248 Sandiganbayan dismissed it. Petitioner
SCRA 173 (1998). filed its Amended Complaint on 11 August
31 Monsanto v. Zerna, G.R. No. 142501, 7 December 1987, and only began to present its
2001, 371 SCRA 664; Republic v. Estipular, G.R. No. evidence on 17 April 1989. Petitioner had
136588, 20 July 2000, 336 SCRA 333. almost two years to prepare its evidence.
32 Republic v. Migrino, supra,note 2. However, despite this sufficient time,
33 Cojuangco, Jr. v. Presidential Commission on petitioner still delayed the presentation of
Good Gov’t., G.R. Nos. 92319-20, 2 October 1990, 190 the rest of its evidence by filing numerous
SCRA 226.
motions for postponements and extensions.
Even before the date set for the
48 presentation of its evidence, petitioner
filed, on 13 April 1989, a Motion
34
for Leave
to Amend the Complaint. The motion
sought “to charge the delinquent properties
(which comprise most of petitioner’s 49

evidence) with being subject to forfeiture
as having been unlawfully acquired by VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 49
defendant Dimaano alone x x x.”
The Sandiganbayan, however, refused Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
to defer the presentation of petitioner’s
evidence since petitioner did not state failure to move cases such as this one beyond
when it would file the amended complaint. the preliminary stage, when, in view of the
On 18 April 1989, the Sandiganbayan set developments such as those of today, this Court
the continuation of the presentation of is now faced with a situation where a case
evidence on 28-29 September and 9-11 already in progress will revert back to the
October 1989, giving petitioner ample time preliminary stage, despite a five-month pause
to prepare its evidence. Still, on 28 where appropriate action could have 35
been
September 1989, petitioner manifested its undertaken by the plaintiff Republic.
inability to proceed with the presentation
On 9 October 1989, the PCGG manifested
of its evidence. The Sandiganbayan issued
in court that it was conducting a
an Order expressing its view on the
preliminary investigation on the
matter, to wit:
unexplained wealth of private36respondents
The Court has gone through extended inquiry as mandated by RA No. 1379. The PCGG
and a narration of the above events because this prayed for an additional four months to
case has been ready for trial for over a year and conduct the preliminary investigation. The
much of the delay hereon has been due to the Sandiganbayan granted this request and
inability of the government to produce on scheduled the presentation of evidence on
scheduled dates for pre-trial and for trial 26-29 March 1990. However, on the
documents and witnesses, allegedly upon the scheduled date, petitioner failed to inform
failure of the military to supply them for the the court of the result of the preliminary
preparation of the presentation of evidence investigation the PCGG supposedly
thereon. Of equal interest is the fact that this conducted. Again, the Sandiganbayan gave
Court has been held to task in public about its petitioner until 18 May 1990 to continue
alleged with the presentation of its evidence and to
inform the court of “what lies ahead insofar
_______________
as 37the status of the case is concerned x x
x.” Still on the date set, petitioner failed
34 Records, p. 285. to present its evidence. Finally, on 11 July
1990, petitioner
38
filed its ReAmended 50
Complaint. The Sandiganbayan correctly
observed that a case already pending for
years would revert to its preliminary stage
ANNOTATED
if the court were to accept the Re-Amended
Complaint. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
Based on these circumstances, obviously
petitioner has only itself to blame for Thus, we hold, that the Sandiganbayan did
failure to complete the presentation of its not err in dismissing the case before
evidence. The Sandiganbayan gave completion of the presentation of
petitioner more than sufficient time to petitioner’s evidence.
finish the presentation of its evidence. The
Sandiganbayan overlooked petitioner’s
delays and yet petitioner ended the long- Third Issue: Legality of the Search and
Seizure
string of delays with the filing of a Re-
Amended Complaint, which would only Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan
prolong even more the disposition of the erred in declaring the properties
case. confiscated from Dimaano’s house as
Moreover, the pronouncements of the illegally seized and therefore inadmissible
Court in Migrino and Cruz prompted the in evidence. This issue bears a significant
Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case since effect on petitioner’s case since these
the PCGG has no jurisdiction to properties comprise most of petitioner’s
investigate and prosecute the case against evidence against private respondents.
private respondents. This alone would Petitioner will not have much evidence to
have been sufficient legal basis for the support its case against private
Sandiganbayan to dismiss the forfeiture respondents if these properties are
case against private respondents. inadmissible in evidence.
On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary
_______________ raiding team served at Dimaano’s
residence a search warrant captioned
35 Records, p. 347.
“Illegal Possession of Firearms and
36 Ibid.,p. 346.
Ammunition.” Dimaano was not present
37 Ibid.,p. 395.
during the raid but Dimaano’s cousins
38 Ibid., p. 422.
witnessed the raid. The raiding team
seized the items detailed in the seizure 39 Rollo, p. 34.

receipt together with other items not 40 Ibid.
included in the search warrant. The
51
raiding team seized these items: one baby
armalite rifle with two magazines; 40
rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol, VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 51
caliber .45; communications equipment,
cash consisting of P2,870,000 and
US$50,000, jewelry, and land titles.
Petitioner wants the Court to take embryonic stage at the time of the search.
judicial notice that the raiding team Therefore, the government may confiscate
conducted the search and seizure “on the monies and items taken from Dimaano
March 3, 1986 or five days after the and use the same in evidence against her
39
successful EDSA revolution.” Petitioner since at that time of their seizure, private
argues that a revolutionary government respondents did not enjoy any
was operative at that time by virtue of constitutional right.
Proclamation No. 1 announcing that Petitioner is partly right in its
President Aquino and Vice President arguments.
Laurel were “taking power in the name The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-
40
and by the will of the Filipino people.” 25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in
Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary President Aquino’s Proclamation No. 3
government effectively withheld the dated 25 March 1986, the EDSA
operation of the 1973 Constitution which Revolution was “done in defiance of 41
the
guaranteed private respondents’ provisions of the 1973 Constitution.” The
exclusionary right. resulting government was indisputably a
Moreover, petitioner argues that the revolutionary government bound by no
exclusionary right arising from an illegal constitution or legal limitations except
search applies only beginning 2 February treaty obligations that the revolutionary
1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 government, as the de jure government in
Constitution. Petitioner contends that all the Philippines, assumed under
rights under the Bill of Rights had already international law.
reverted to its The correct issues are: (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 Mun. of San Juan, Metro Manila v. Court of Appeals,
the revolutionary government following the 345 Phil. 220; 279 SCRA 711 (1997).
cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up
52
to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the
adoption of the Provisional Constitution);
and (2) whether the protection accorded to 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
individuals under the International ANNOTATED
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(“Covenant”) and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
(“Declaration”) remained in effect during During the interregnum, the directives and
the interregnum. orders of the revolutionary government
We hold that the Bill of Rights under were the supreme law because no
the 1973 Constitution was not operative constitution limited the extent and scope of
during the interregnum. However, we rule such directives and orders. With the
that the protection accorded to individuals abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the
under the Covenant and the Declaration successful revolution, there was no
remained in effect during the interregnum. municipal law higher than the directives
and orders of the revolutionary
government. Thus, during the
_______________
interregnum, a person could not invoke
41 Proclamation No. 3, “Provisional Constitution of any exclusionary right under a Bill of
the Republic of the Philippines,” provides: Rights because there was neither a
constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the
WHEREAS, the new government under President Corazon
interregnum. As the Court explained in
C. Aquino was installed through a direct exercise of the
Letter42 of Associate Justice Reynato S.
power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New
Puno:
Armed Forces of the Philippines;
WHEREAS, the heroic action of the people was done in A revolution has been defined as “the complete
defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution,as overthrow of the established government in any
amended; country or state by those who were previously
x x x. (Emphasis supplied) subject to it” or as “a sudden, radical and
fundamental change in the government or
See also Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15
political system, usually effected with violence
and G.R. No. 146738, 3 April 2001, 356 SCRA 108;
or at least some acts of violence.” In Kelsen’s
book, General Theory of Law and State, it is which was met by little resistance and her
defined as that which “occurs whenever the control of the state evidenced by the
legal order of a community is nullified and appointment of the Cabinet and other key
replaced by a new order . . . a way not officers of the administration, the departure of
prescribed by the first order itself.” the Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of
It was through the February 1986 revolution,
a relatively peaceful one, and more popularly _______________
known as the “people power revolution” that the
42 A.M. No. 90-11-2697-CA, 29 June 1992, 210 SCRA 589.
Filipino people tore themselves away from an
existing regime. This revolution also saw the
53
unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino
government.
From the natural law point of view, the right VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 53
of revolution has been defined as “an inherent Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
right of a people to cast out their rulers, change
their policy or effect radical reforms in their the Judiciary and the Military signaled the
system of government or institutions by force or point where the legal system then in effect, had
a general uprising when the legal and ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino. (Emphasis
constitutional methods of making such change supplied)
have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as
to be unavailable.” It has been said that “the To hold that the Bill of Rights under the
locus of positive law-making power lies with the 1973 Constitution remained operative
people of the state” and from there is derived during the interregnum would render void
“the right of the people to abolish, to reform and all sequestration orders issued by the
to alter any existing form of government Philippine Commission on Good
without regard to the existing constitution.” Government (“PCGG”) before the adoption
xxx of the Freedom Constitution. The
It is widely known that Mrs. Aquino’s rise to sequestration orders, which direct the
the presidency was not due to constitutional freezing and even the take-over of private
processes; in fact, it was achieved in violation of property by mere executive issuance
the provisions of the 1973 Constitution as a without judicial action, would violate the
Batasang Pambansa resolution had earlier due process and search and seizure clauses
declared Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986 of the Bill of Rights.
presidential election. Thus it can be said that During the interregnum, the
the organization of Mrs. Aquino’s Government government in power was concededly a
revolutionary government bound by no leaders and supporters of the previous regime

constitution. No one could validly question and protect the interest of the people through
the sequestration orders as violative of the orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or
Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of accounts.” And as also already adverted to,
Rights during the interregnum. However, Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987
upon the adoption of the Freedom Constitution treats of, and ratifies the
Constitution, the sequestered companies “authority to issue sequestration or freeze
assailed the sequestration orders as orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March
contrary to the Bill of Rights of the 25, 1986.”
Freedom Constitution.
In Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co., _______________
Inc. vs. Presidential
43
Commission on Good
Government, petitioner Baseco, while 43 No. L-75885, 27 May 1987, 150 SCRA 181.
conceding there was no Bill of Rights
54
during the interregnum, questioned the
continued validity of the sequestration
orders upon adoption of the Freedom 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Constitution in view of the due process ANNOTATED
clause in its Bill of Rights. The Court ruled Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
that the Freedom Constitution, and later
the 1987 Constitution, expressly recognized
The framers of both the Freedom
the validity of sequestration orders, thus:
Constitution and the 1987 Constitution
If any doubt should still persist in the face of were fully aware that the sequestration
the foregoing considerations as to the validity orders would clash with the Bill of Rights.
and propriety of sequestration, freeze and Thus, the framers of both constitutions had
takeover orders, it should be dispelled by the to include specific language recognizing the
fact that these particular remedies and the validity of the sequestration orders. The
authority of the PCGG to issue them have following discourse by Commissioner
received constitutional approbation and Joaquin G. Bernas during the deliberations
sanction. As already mentioned, the Provisional of the Constitutional Commission is
or “Freedom” Constitution recognizes the power instructive:
and duty of the President to enact “measures to
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, there is
achieve the mandate of the people to . . .
something schizophrenic about the arguments
(r)ecover ill-gotten properties amassed by the
in defense of the present amendment. constitutionalism. That would be hypocritical;

For instance, I have carefully studied that would be a repetition of Marcosian
Minister Salonga’s lecture in the Gregorio protestation of due process and rule of law. The
Araneta University Foundation, of which all of New Society word for that is “backsliding.” It is
us have been given a copy. On the one hand, he tragic when we begin to backslide even before
argues that everything the Commission is doing we get there.
is traditionally legal. This is repeated by Second, this is really a corollary of the first.
Commissioner Romulo also. Minister Salonga Habits tend to become ingrained. The
spends a major portion of his lecture developing committee report asks for extraordinary
that argument. On the other hand, almost as an exceptions from the Bill of Rights for six months
afterthought, he says that in the end what after the convening of Congress, and Congress
matters are the results and not the legal may even extend this longer.
niceties, thus suggesting that the PCGG should Good deeds repeated ripen into virtue; bad
be allowed to make some legal shortcuts, deeds repeated become vice. What the
another word for niceties or exceptions. committee report is asking for is that we should
Now, if everything the PCGG is doing is allow the new government to acquire the vice of
legal, why is it asking the CONCOM for special disregarding the Bill of Rights.
protection? The answer is clear. What they are
doing will not stand the test of ordinary due 55
process, hence they are asking for protection, for

exceptions. Grandes malos, grandes remedios, VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 55
fine, as the saying stands, but let us not say
grandes malos, grande y malos remedios. That
is not an allowable extrapolation. Hence, we
should not give the exceptions asked for, and let Vices, once they become ingrained, become
me elaborate and give three reasons: difficult to shed. The practitioners of the vice
First, the whole point of the February begin to think that they have a vested right to
Revolution and of the work of the CONCOM is its practice, and they will fight tooth and nail to
to hasten constitutional normalization. Very keep the franchise. That would be an unhealthy
much at the heart of the constitutional way of consolidating the gains of a democratic
normalization is the full effectivity of the Bill of revolution.
Rights. We cannot, in one breath, ask for Third, the argument that what matters are
constitutional normalization and at the same the results and not the legal niceties is an
time ask for a temporary halt to the full argument that is very disturbing. When it
functioning of what is at the heart of comes from a staunch Christian like
Commissioner Salonga, a Minister, and Section 8. If not sustained, however, the PCGG
repeated verbatim by another staunch has only one honorable option, it must bow to
Christian like Commissioner Tingson, it the majesty of the Bill of Rights.
becomes doubly disturbing and even The PCGG extrapolation of the law is
discombobulating. The argument makes the defended by staunch Christians. Let me
PCGG an auctioneer, placing the Bill of Rights conclude with what another Christian replied
on the auction block. If the price is right, the when asked to toy around with the law. From
search and seizure clause will be sold. “Open his prison cell, Thomas More said, “I’ll give the
your Swiss bank account to us and we will devil benefit of law for my nation’s safety sake.”
award you the search and seizure clause. You I ask the Commission to give the devil benefit of
can keep it in your private safe.” law for our nation’s sake. And we should delete
Alternatively, the argument looks on the Section 8.
present government as hostage to the hoarders Thank you, Madam President. (Emphasis
of hidden wealth. The hoarders will release the supplied)
hidden health if the ransom price is paid and
the ransom price is the Bill of Rights, Despite the impassioned plea by
specifically the due process in the search and Commissioner Bernas against the
seizure clauses. So, there is something amendment excepting sequestration orders
positively revolving about either argument. The from the Bill of
Bill of Rights is not for sale to the highest 56
bidder nor can it be used to ransom captive
dollars. This nation will survive and grow
strong, only if it would become convinced of the 56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
values enshrined in the Constitution of a price ANNOTATED
that is beyond monetary estimation. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
For these reasons, the honorable course for
the Constitutional Commission is to delete all of
Rights, the Constitutional Commission still
Section 8 of the committee report and allow the 44
adopted the amendment as Section 26,
new Constitution to take effect in full vigor. If
Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. The
Section 8 is deleted, the PCGG has two options.
framers of the Constitution were fully
First, it can pursue the Salonga and the Romulo
aware that absent Section 26,
argument—that what the PCGG has been doing
sequestration orders would not stand the
has been completely within the pale of the law.
test of due process under the Bill of Rights.
If sustained, the PCGG can go on and should be
able to go on, even without the support of
Thus, to rule that the Bill of Rights of interest, as certified by the President, the Congress may
the 1973 Constitution remained in force extend said period.
during the interregnum, absent a A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon
constitutional provision excepting showing ofa prima facie case. The order and the list of the
sequestration orders from such Bill of sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be
Rights, would clearly render all registered with the proper court. For orders issued before
sequestration orders void during the the ratification of this Constitution, the corresponding
interregnum. Nevertheless, even during judicial action or proceeding shall be filed within six months
the interregnum the Filipino people from its ratification. For those issued after such ratification,
continued to enjoy, under the Covenant thejudicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within
and the Declaration, almost the same sixmonths from the issuance thereof.
rights found in the Bill of Rights of the The sequestration or freeze order is deemed
1973 Constitution. automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is
The revolutionary government, after commenced as herein provided.
installing itself as the de juregovernment,
45 Among the rights of individuals recognized in
assumed responsibility for the State’s good
the Covenant are: (1) No one shall be arbitrarily
faith compliance with the Covenant to
deprived of his life [Article 6(1)]; (2) No one shall be
which the Philippines is a signatory.
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each
treatment or punishment. [Article 7]; (3) Everyone
signatory State “to respect and to ensure to
has the right to liberty and secu-
all individuals within its territory and 45
subject to its jurisdiction the rights 57
recognized in the present
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 57

_______________
44 Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987
Constitution provides:
Covenant.” Under Article 17(1) of the
Sec. 26. The authority to issue sequestration or freeze Covenant, the revolutionary government
orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986 in had the duty to insure that “[n]o one shall
relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
operative for not more than eighteen months after the interference with his privacy, family, home
ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national or correspondence.”

The Declaration, to which the (6) Everyone charged with a criminal offense shall
Philippines is also a signatory, provides in have the right to be presumed innocent until proved
its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be guilty according to law [Article 14(2)]; (7) Everyone
arbitrarily deprived of his property.” shall have the right of freedom of thought, conscience
Although the signatories to the Declaration and religion [Article 18(1)]; (8) Everyone shall have
did not intend it as a legally binding the right to hold opinions without interference.
document, being only a declaration, the Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
Court has interpreted the Declaration as expression [Article 19(1 & 2)]; (9) The right of peaceful
part of the generally accepted principles of assembly shall be recognized [Article 21]; (10)
international
46
law and binding on the Everyone shall have the right of freedom of
State. Thus, the revolutionary association with others [Article 22(1)]; (11) All persons
government was also obligated under 47
are equal before the law and are entitled without any
international law to observe the rights of discrimination to the equal protection of the law
individuals under the Declaration. [Article 26].
46 Andreu v. Commissioner of Immigration, 90 Phil.
_______________ 347 (1951); Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration,

90 Phil. 256 (1951); Borovsky v. Commissioner of
rity of person. No one shall be subjected to Immigration, 90 Phil. 107 (1951); Mejoff v. Director of
arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived Prisons, 90 Phil. 70 (1951).
of his liberty except on such grounds and in 47 Among the rights enshrined in the Declaration
accordance with such procedures as are established by
are: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone
law. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge
or in association with others [Article 17(1)]; (2)
shall be brought promptly before a judge or other
Everyone has the right to take part in the government
officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power
of his
and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time
or to release [Article 9(1 & 3)] (4) Anyone who is 58
arrested shall be informed, at the time of the arrest,
of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly
informed of the charges against him [Article 9(2)]; (5)
ANNOTATED
Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State
shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
movement and freedom to choose his residence.
Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including The revolutionary government did not
his own. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration
right to enter his own country (Article 12 (1, 2 & 3)]; during the interregnum. Whether the
revolutionary government could have did not exceed the authority granted them
repudiated all its obligations under the by the revolutionary government. The
Covenant or the Declaration is another directives and orders should not have also
matter and is not the issue here. Suffice it violated the Covenant or the Declaration.
to say that the Court considers the In this case, the revolutionary government
Declaration as part of customary presumptively sanctioned the warrant
international law, and that Filipinos as since the revolutionary government did not
human beings are proper subjects of the repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a
rules of international law laid down in the judge upon proper application, specified
Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary the items to be searched and seized. The
government did not repudiate the warrant is thus valid with respect to the
Covenant or the Declaration in the same items specifically described in the warrant.
way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution.
As the de jure government, the _______________
revolutionary government could not escape
responsibility for the State’s good faith country, directly or through freely chosen
compliance with its treaty obligations representatives [Article 21(1)]; (3) Everyone has the
under international law. right to work, to free choice of employment, to just
It was only upon the adoption of the and favorable conditions of work and to protection
Provisional Constitution on 25 March 1986 against unemployment [Article 23(1)].
that the directives and orders of the 48 Section 1, Article I of the Provisional
revolutionary government became subject Constitution provides: “The provisions of x x x
to a higher municipal law that, if ARTICLE IV (Bill of Rights) x x x of the 1973
contravened, rendered such directives and Constitution, as amended, remain in force and effect
orders void. The Provisional Constitution and are hereby adopted in toto as part of this
adopted verbatim the48 Bill of Rights of the provisional Constitution.” (Emphasis supplied)
1973 Constitution. The Provisional
59
Constitution served as a self-limitation by
the revolutionary government to avoid
abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 59
it by the people.
During the interregnum when no
constitution or Bill of Rights existed,
directives and orders issued by government However, the Constabulary raiding team
officers were valid so long as these officers seized items not included in the warrant.
As admitted by petitioner’s witnesses, the xxx

raiding team confiscated items not Q. You said you found money instead of
included in the warrant, thus: weapons, do you know the reason why
your team seized this money instead of
Direct Examination of Capt. Rodolfo
weapons?
Sebastian
A. I think the overall team leader and the
AJ AMORES
other two officers assisting him decided
Q. According to the search warrant, you to bring along also the money because
are supposed to seize only for weapons. at that time it was already dark and
What else, aside from the weapons, they felt most secured if they will bring
were seized from the house of Miss that because they might be suspected
Elizabeth Dimaano? also of taking money49
out of those
items, your Honor.
A. The communications equipment,
money in Philippine currency and US Cross-examination
dollars, some jewelries, land titles, sir.
Atty. Banaag
Q. Now, the search warrant speaks only
Q. Were you present when the search
of weapons to be seized from the house
warrant in connection with this case
of Elizabeth Dimaano. Do you know
was applied before the Municipal Trial
the reason why your team also seized
Court of Batangas, Branch 1?
other properties not mentioned in said
search warrant? A Yes, sir.
A. During the conversation right after the Q. And the search warrant applied for by
conduct of said raid, I was informed you was for the search and seizure of
that the reason why they also brought five (5) baby armalite rifles M-16 and
the other items not included in the five (5) boxes of ammunition?
search warrant was because the money A. Yes, sir.
and other jewelries 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
49 TSN, 18 April 1989, pp. 115-117.
safes were containing firearms, they
60
forced open these containers only to
find out that they contained money.
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS have not established concrete evid ence

ANNOTATED about that. So when . . .
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Q. So that when you applied for search
warrant, you had reason to believe that
xxx only weapons were in the house of Miss
Elizabeth Dimaano?
AJ AMORES 50
A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. Before you applied for a search
warrant, did you conductsur-veillance xxx
in the house of Miss Elizabeth Q. You stated that a .45 caliber pistol was
Dimaano? seized along with one armalite rifle M-
A. The Intelligence Operatives conducted 16 and how many ammunition?
surveillance together with the MSU A. Forty, sir.
elements, your Honor.
Q. And this became the subject of your
Q. And this party believed there were complaint with the issuing Court, with
weapons deposited in the house of Miss the fiscal’s office who charged
Elizabeth Dimaano? Elizabeth Dimaano for Illegal
A. Yes, your Honor. Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition?
Q. And they so swore before the
Municipal Trial Judge? A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes, your Honor. Q. Do you know what happened to that

case?
Q. But they did not mention to you, the
applicant for the search warrant, any A. I think it was dismissed, sir.
other properties or contraband which Q. In the fiscal’s office?
could be found in the residence of Miss
A. Yes, sir.
Elizabeth Dimaano?
Q. Because the armalite rifle you seized,
A. They just gave us still unconfirmed
as well as the .45 caliber pistol had a
report about some hidden items, for
Memorandum Receipt in the name of
instance, the communications
Felino Melegrito, is that not correct?
equipment and money. However, I did
not include that in the application for A. I think that was the reason, sir.
search warrant considering that we

_______________ turned out to be money. So the team

leader also decided to take this
50 Ibid.,pp.136-138. considering that they believed that if
they will just leave the money behind,
61
it might get lost also.
Q. That holds true also with respect to the
VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 61 other articles that were seized by your
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan raiding team, like Transfer Certificates
of Title of lands?
Q. There were other articles seized which A. Yes, sir. I think they were contained
51
in
were not included in the search one of the vaults that were opened.
warrant, like for instance, jewelries.
Why did you seize the jewelries? It is obvious from the testimony of Captain
A. I think it was the decision of the Sebastian that the warrant did not include
overall team leader and his assistant the monies, communications equipment,
to bring along also the jewelries and jewelry and land titles that the raiding
other items, sir, I do not really know team confiscated. The search warrant did
where it was taken but they brought not particularly describe these items and
along also these articles. I do not really the raiding team confiscated them on its
know their reason for bringing the own authority. The raiding team had no
same, but I just learned that these legal basis to seize these items without
were taken because they might get lost showing that these items could be the
if they will just leave this behind. subject of warrantless search and seizure.
52
xxx Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its

authority when it seized these items.
Q. How about the money seized by your
raiding team, they were not also
included in the search warrant? _______________
A. Yes sir, but I believe they were also 51 Ibid., pp. 144-146.
taken considering that the money was 52 Five generally accepted exceptions to the rule
discovered to be contained in attaché
against warrantless search and seizure have been
cases. These attaché cases were
judicially formulated as follows: (1) search incidental
suspected to be containing pistols or
to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3)
other high powered firearms, but in the
seizure of evidence in plain view, (4) customs
course of the search the contents
searches, and (5) waiver by the accused themselves of liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano,
their right against unreasonable search and seizure. are AFFIRMED.
(People v. Que Ming Kha, G.R. No. 133265, 31 May SO ORDERED.
2002, 382 SCRA 480; Caballes
Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez,
62 Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr. and
Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., (C.J.), In the result. I
concur with Mr. Justice Vitug in his
ANNOTATED
concurring opinion.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan Puno, J., Please see Separate
Opinion.
The seizure of these items was therefore Vitug, J., Please see Separate
void, and unless 53
these items are Opinion.
contraband per se, and they are not, they Panganiban, J., In the result.
must be returned to the person from whom Quisumbing and Sandoval-
the raiding seized them. However, we do Gutierrez, JJ., On Official Leave.
not declare that such person is the lawful Ynares-Santiago, J., In the result. I
owner of these items, merely that the concur in the separate opinion of J.
search and seizure warrant could not be Reynato Puno.
used as basis to seize and withhold these Tinga, J., Separate Opinion
items from the possessor. We thus hold reserved.
that these items should be returned
immediately to Dimaano. _______________
WHEREFORE, the petition for
certiorari is DISMISSED. The questioned v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, 15 January
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated 18 2002, 373 SCRA 221; People v. Lacerna, G.R. No.
November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil 109250, 5 September 1997, 278 SCRA 561.
Case No. 0037, remanding the records of 53 People v. Lim, G.R. No. 141699, 7 August 2002,
this case to the Ombudsman for such 386 SCRA 581; Del Rosario v. People, G.R. No.
appropriate action as the evidence may 142295, 31 May 2001, 358 SCRA 373.
warrant, and referring this case to the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal 63
Revenue for a determination of any tax

VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 63

Republic v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v. Sandiganbayan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407 8/10/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 407

can only investigate the unexplained wealth

“subordinate” of former Pres. Marcos that vests

gotten wealth was accumulated by a

raiding team exceeded its authority when it

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/284

20 the wide-scale violation of human rights during

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 27/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 28/284

evidence, while an application of the decision is a performative contradiction and

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 35/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 36/284

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 37/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 38/284

included a provision guaranteeing the people’s constitution, individuals had a fundamental

Philippine and American jurisdictions is a Amendment rights generally through its

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 41/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 42/284

the Filipinos simply found themselves without a 30

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 49/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 50/284

TINGA, J., Separate Opinion: accorded retroactive application pursuant to the

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 51/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 52/284

PETITION for review on certiorari of the

34 unexplained wealth and corrupt practices

35 equipment/items seized in her house on March

ANNOTATED of proportion to his salary as an army

38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS days within which to file an appropriate

trial because it had no further evidence to

VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 39 criminal cases was conducted

On 4 December 1991, petitioner filed its

the necessary recommendations to

Investigate Private Respondents

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 69/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 70/284

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 75/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 76/284

(b) the investigation and prosecution of ANNOTATED

After the pronouncements of the Court 28 Section 15 (11), RA No. 6770.

parties may raise lack of jurisdiction

(which comprise most of petitioner’s 49

seized the items detailed in the seizure 39 Rollo, p. 34.

revolutionary government bound by no leaders and supporters of the previous regime

in defense of the present amendment. constitutionalism. That would be hypocritical;

process, hence they are asking for protection, for

VOL. 407, JULY 21, 2003 57

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 101/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 102/284

_______________ 347 (1951); Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration,

As admitted by petitioner’s witnesses, the xxx

60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS have not established concrete evid ence

A. Yes, your Honor. Q. Do you know what happened to that

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 109/284 https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b300379f7561a0876000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 110/284

_______________ turned out to be money. So the team

xxx Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its

Revenue for a determination of any tax

You might also like