Republic of the Philippines v.

 Sandiganbayan, Major General

Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano
G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003, EN BANC, (Carpio,J)

What is the dispute about, RTC Decision, CA Decision, SC Decision

Relevance to the subject
THESIS STATEMENT

 Petition for review on certiorari - to set aside the Resolutions of the

Sandiganbayan
 1st resolution (of sandiganbayan) - dismissed petitioners Amended Complaint
and ordered the return of the confiscated items to Elizabeth Dimaano
 Second Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration

FACTS

 Corazon  Aquino tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates
and close associates to
- Conduct investigation and promulgate rule and regulation to carry out the
purpose
- Created AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board) to investigate unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel (in service or retired)

 Unexplained wealth of Major General Josephus Q. Ramas

- House and lot QC (P700,000) and Cebu City (3,327sqm )

 Il-gotten wealth of Elizabeth Dimaano - Mistress of Ramas ; No visible means

of income
- Confiscated
o Equipment/items and communication facilities (given Ramas)
o Money in the amount of P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in
the house – not declared in SALN
 CONCLUSION –Guilty of ill-gotten and unexplained wealth

1ST TRIAL

RESPONDENTS

 Ramas
- owned the house in QC which was not out of his salary
- did not own the Mansion in Cebu, the cash, Equipment/items and
communication facilities
  Dimaano - claimed ownership of the monies, communications equipment,
jewelry and land titles taken from her house 

PETITIONER

 asked for a deferment of the hearing due to its lack of preparation for trial and the
absence of witnesses and vital documents to support its case
 filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint (subject matter was face vague
and not related to the existing complaint)
 manifested its inability to proceed to trial because of the absence of other
witnesses or lack of further evidence to present
 motion to amend the complain
 admitted its inability to present further evidence
 expressed its inability to proceed to trial because it had no further evidence to
present (granted 60 days to file proper pleading)

HELD: Amended complaint dismissed and ordered the return of the confiscated
items to Elizabeth Dimaano

ISSUES

1. WON the bill of rights was operative during interregnum – the period the period took
oath to the period before the adaptation of freedom constitution. After the actual and
effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of
resistance by loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of
the Provisional Constitution); and

2. Whether or not the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(Declaration) remained in effect during the interregnum.

RULING

Petition for certiorari DISMISSED.

The court held that the bill of rights under the 1973 constitution was not
operative, however, the protection accorded to individuals under the universal
declaration of human right and international covenant on civil and political rights
remained in effect during the interregnum. There was no constitution or bill of right,
only the directives and orders issued by the government officer is valid so long as these
did not exceed the authority granted by the revolutionary army, or these did not violate
the declaration and covenant. In the instant case, the government officer were
directed to search and confiscate the firearms only, not the money,
communication equipment, land title, and jewelry. Hence, these items shall be
returned to the respondent. . However, we do not declare that such person is the lawful
owner of these items, merely that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as
basis to seize and withhold these items from the possessor.

Under the declaration and covenant, a person shall not be arbitrarily deprived of his
right to his property and shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy.

Justice Puno concur with the result of the ponencia. He did not disagree with the
ruling that the bill of rights is inoperative during the interregnum, but disagree with the
conclusion that the respondent has lost or cannot invoke rights against
unreasonable search and seizure. It is his view, under the natural right which includes
the right to life, health, liberty, and property, the respondent can invoke the same rights
against unreasonable search and seizure.

We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed,
directives and orders issued by government officers were valid so long as these officers
did not exceed the authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The
directives and orders should not have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. In
this case, the revolutionary government presumptively sanctioned the warrant since the
revolutionary government did not repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a judge upon
proper application, specified the items to be searched and seized. The warrant is thus
valid with respect to the items specifically described in the warrant

during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the
Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973
Constitution.According to the majority, during the interregnum the Filipino people continued
to enjoy, under the auspices of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Universal
Declaration") - one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights ("International Covenant"), no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence."

1. However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the
Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. During the interregnum, the
directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no
constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal
law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during
the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights
because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum

2. Petition DISMISSED. The Supreme Court supported the prior decision of the
Sandiganbayan, for the reason; the plaintiffs only showed the enumeration of the properties
Ramas allegedly owned, but did no showed Ramas’ close association with the late president
Ferdinand Marcos. And the president did not single out Ramas to be investigated by the
PCGG. The Supreme Court also pointed out the illegal seizure of the money and jewelries of
Dimaano, as used by the plaintiffs as one of their evidences. Capt. Rodolfo Sebastian, the
head of the raiding team that searched the house of Dimaano admitted in the stand that they
were just given a search warrant to only confiscate the firearms and not the money and
 jewelries which was also used as evidence by the petitioners. The plaintiff deemed that the
search on the house of dimaano coincides with the 1973 constitution as the search occurred in
3 March 1986. But the Supreme Court said that with the people toppling the previous
administration, they as well toppled the ruling constitution. During these times the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is in effect, for the reason the Philippines is one of the
signatory of the Covenant and Declaration.
Justice Puno: - the 22nd chief justice of the SC of the Philippines from 2007-2010

While I concur in the result of the ponencia of Mr. Justice Carpio, the ruling on whether or not private
respondent Dimaano could invoke her rights against unreasonable search and seizure and to the
exclusion of evidence resulting therefrom compels this humble opinion. 

The majority holds that the Bill of Rights was not operative, thus private respondent Dimaano cannot
invoke the right against unreasonable search and seizure and the exclusionary right as her house
was searched and her properties were seized during the interregnum or on March 3, 1986. My
disagreement is not with the ruling that the Bill of Rights was not operative at that time, but with the
conclusion that the private respondent has lost and cannot invoke the right against unreasonable
search and seizure and the exclusionary right. Using a different lens in viewing the problem at hand,
I respectfully submit that the crucial issue for resolution is whether she can invoke these rights in the
absence of a constitution under the extraordinary circumstances after the 1986 EDSA Revolution.
The question boggles the intellect, and is interesting, to say the least, perhaps even to those not
half-interested in the law. But the question of whether the Filipinos were bereft of fundamental rights
during the one month interregnum is not as perplexing as the question of whether the world was
without a God in the three days that God the Son descended into the dead before He rose to life.
Nature abhors a vacuum and so does the law. It is my considered view that under this same natural
law, private respondent Dimaano has a right against unreasonable search and seizure and to
exclude evidence obtained as a consequence of such illegal act.  I respectfully submit that she can
invoke her natural right against unreasonable search and seizure. 

The rights to life, health, liberty and property are natural rights (means it is inherent to every
person), hence each individual has a right to be free from violent death, from arbitrary restrictions of
his person and from theft of his property.  In addition, every individual has a natural right to defend
oneself from and punish those who violate the law of nature.

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

The unnaturalness of the 1986 EDSA revolution cannot dilute nor defeat the natural rights of
man, rights that antedate constitutions, rights that have been the beacon lights of the law since
the Greek civilization. Without respect for natural rights, man cannot rise to the full height of his
humanity.

1
"A Constitution is not the beginning of a community, nor the origin of private rights; it is not the
fountain of law, nor the incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but consequence, of
personal and political freedom; it grants no rights to the people, but is the creature of their power, the
instrument of their convenience. Designed for their protection in the enjoyment of the rights and
powers which they possessed before the Constitution was made, it is but the framework of the
political government, and necessarily based upon the preexisting condition of laws, rights, habits and
modes of thought. There is nothing primitive in it; it is all derived from a known source. It
presupposes an organized society, law, order, propriety, personal freedom, a love of political liberty,
and enough of cultivated intelligence to know how to guard against the encroachments of
tyranny."[76] (emphasis supplied)