Misamis University

COLLEGE OF LAW

In Partial Fulfillment

of the

Requirements

in

Legal Research
(LWC115)

Submitted to:

Atty. Marcelino S. Marata

Professor

Submitted by:

Arnold N. Amboang, Jr. (L)

Aldenleigh Udal
Louwella Ibabao
Michelle Quilo
Althea Capirig
Group 7 - JD1C
Q1. Whether or not the Hawaii Collections are considered ill-gotten wealth and be
forfeited in favor of the Philippine Government?

FACTS:
On February 25, 1986, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos escaped from the Philippines
to Honolulu, Hawaii using the US military plane. Among the possessions that they brought
with them are jewelries that cost millions of dollar that were seized by the US customs
upon their arrival at Honolulu, Hawaii. Those jewelries were called the “Hawaii Collection”.
The 1991 Petition sought the recovery of the assets and properties pertaining to
the Marcoses, who acquired them directly or indirectly through, or as a result of, the
improper or illegal use of funds or properties owned by the government.[12] The
properties, subject of other pending forfeiture cases before the Sandiganbayan, were
excluded; and the properties, subject of the 1991 Petition, were specifically listed and
accordingly clustered into 18 categories.
Some of the properties listed in the 1991 Petition were already adjudged as ill-
gotten wealth and consequently forfeited in favor of the government.
The present consolidated petitions emanated from the same Civil Case No. 0141,
when the Republic filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment[19] dated 24 June 2009
with respect to another property listed in the 1991 Petition. By way of that motion, the
Republic asked the Sandiganbayan to render judgment declaring the pieces of jewelry,
known as the Malacañang Collection and specifically mentioned under paragraph 9 (6)
of the 1991 Petition, as ill-gotten; and to subsequently cause this collection of jewelry to
be declared forfeited in favor of the Republic.[20] The latter categorized the pieces of
jewelry recovered from the Marcoses into three collections and singled out the
Malacañang Collection as the object of the motion
Hawaii Collection & Roumeliotes Collection
Based on the 1991 valuation of auction house Christie, Manson and Woods
International, Inc., the Roumeliotes, Malacañang and Hawaii collections were worth
between US$5,313.575 (low estimate) to US$7,112,879 (high estimate), at the time of
the filing of the petition. (ANNEX "D")[27] The value of the Malacañang collection by itself
was US$110,055 (low estimate) to US$153,089 (high estimate).
In support of the motion, the Republic cited the letter[29] dated 25 May 2009 sent
to the PCGG by Imelda Marcos, through counsel, demanding "the immediate return of all
her pieces of jewelry (i) taken by PCGG from Malacañang Palace and (ii) those turned
over to PCGG by the U.S. Government."[30] The Republic argued that the letter proved
the claim of the Marcoses that they owned the Malacañang Collection, including the
Hawaii Collection.[31] It further argued that in the 1991 Petition, they were deemed to
have admitted the allegations regarding the pieces of jewelry... the Republic stated that
their lawful income amounting to USD 304,372.43 was grossly disproportionate to the
value of the pieces of jewelry in 1991. (G.R. No. 213027)
ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the Hawaii Collections are considered ill-gotten wealth and be
forfeited in favor of the Philippine Government?

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Sereno declared
that the Malacañang Collection and in the United States is subject to forfeiture as it is
considered ill-gotten wealth. The Court stated that “whenever any public officer or
employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly
out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful
income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be
presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired."

In a case, G.R. No. 189434 (entitled Marcos, Jr. vs Republic), the Supreme Court,
in a decision dated April 25, 2012, declared all the assets, properties, and funds of
Arelma,S.A., an entity created by the late Ferdinand Marcos, forfeited in favor of the
Republic. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s findings that the totality of
assets and properties acquired by the Marcos spouses was manifestly and grossly
disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials.

In the said case, Associate Justice M. Sereno stated, R.A. 1379 provides that
whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount
of property manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer and to his other
lawful income, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully
acquired.35 The elements that must concur for this prima facie presumption to apply are
the following: (1) the offender is a public officer or employee; (2) he must have acquired
a considerable amount of money or property during his incumbency; and (3) said amount
is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his
other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property. Thus, in determining
whether the presumption of ill-gotten wealth should be applied, the relevant period is
incumbency, or the period in which the public officer served in that position. The amount
of the public officer’s salary and lawful income is compared against any property or
amount acquired for that same period. In the Swiss Deposits Decision, the Court ruled
that petitioner Republic was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets
and properties acquired by the Marcoses "were manifestly and patently disproportionate
to their aggregate salaries as public officials.
Q2. Whether or not Ferdinand Marcos committed a crime of money laundering under the
Philippine penal laws by the introduction of the crates of money in Honolulu Hawaii?

FACTS:

On February 28, 1986, Ferdinand Marcos and family arrived in Honolulu, Hawaii
with planeload of millions of cash (nearly $1 million in Philippine currency), certificates of
deposits, deeds for US land holdings and a cache of weapons. 1

The Republic Act No. 9160 known as the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001”
was approved by President Arroyo on September 29, 2001.

Section 4 of the same Act defines Money Laundering Offense. Money laundering
is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making
them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:

(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents,
involves, or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to
transact said monetary instrument or property.

(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the
proceeds of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which
he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above.

(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under
this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails
to do so.

SEC. 14. Penal Provisions. — (a) Penalties for the Crime of Money Laundering.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from seven (7) to fourteen (14) years and a fine of
not less than Three million Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00) but not more than twice
the value of the monetary instrument or property involved in the offense, shall be imposed
upon a person convicted under Section 4(a) of this Act.

The penalty of imprisonment from four (4) to seven (7) years and a fine of not less
than One million five hundred thousand Philippine pesos (Php1,500,000.00) but not more
than Three million Philippine pesos (Php3,000,000.00), shall be imposed upon a person
convicted under Section 4(b) of this Act.

The penalty of imprisonment from six (6) months to four (4) years or a fine of not
less than One hundred thousand Philippine pesos (Php100,000.00) but not more than
Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos (Php500,000.00), or both, shall be imposed on
a person convicted under Section 4(c) of this Act.

1
https://apnews.com/article/b855ddf659298ca82c6a3c0a9b5e6c90
 (b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. The penalty of imprisonment from six
(6) months to one (1) year or a fine of not less than One hundred thousand Philippine
pesos (Php100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(Php500,000.00), or both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under Section 9(b) of
this Act.

(c) Malicious Reporting. Any person who, with malice, or in bad faith, report or files
a completely unwarranted or false information relative to money laundering transaction
against any person shall be subject to a penalty of six (6) months to four (4) years
imprisonment and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(Php100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(Php500,000.00), at the discretion of the court: Provided, That the offender is not entitled
to avail the benefits of the Probation Law.

If the offender is a corporation, association, partnership or any juridical person, the

penalty shall be imposed upon the responsible officers, as the case may be, who
participated in the commission of the crime or who shall have knowingly permitted or
failed to prevent its commission. If the offender is a juridical person, the court may
suspend or revoke its license. If the offender is an alien, he shall, in addition to the
penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further proceedings after serving the
penalties herein prescribed. If the offender is a public official or employee, he shall, in
addition to the penalties prescribed herein, suffer perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification from office, as the case may be.

Any public official or employee who is called upon to testify and refuses to do the
same or purposely fails to testify shall suffer the same penalties prescribed herein.

(d) Breach of Confidentiality. The punishment of imprisonment ranging from three

(3) to eight (8) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand Philippine pesos
(Php500,000.00) but not more than One million Philippine pesos (Php1,000,000.00), shall
be imposed on a person convicted for a violation under Section 9(c).

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Ferdinand Marcos committed a crime of money laundering under

the Philippine penal laws by the introduction of the crates of money in Honolulu
Hawaii?

RULING:

The introduction of the crates of money in Honolulu, Hawaii is a violation of

Philippine Penal Law. The export of large quantities of currency or gold without a license
is against Philippine law. In the 70-page decision, the anti-graft court found Mrs. Marcos
guilty beyond reasonable doubt in criminal case numbers 17287, 17288, 17289, 17290,
22867, 22868, and 22869 for violating Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act when she transferred around $200 million to seven Swiss foundations
during her term as governor of Metro Manila in 1975, member of the Batasang Pambansa,
and Minister of Human Settlement.

It is important to note though that RA 9160 (The Anti-Money Laundering Act of

2001), penalizing Money Laundering was enacted on 2001, and as a general rule, the
law cannot be applied retroactively, so technically, the Marcoses cannot be held liable for
the said crime.

Q3. Whether or not Marcos was guilty of killing, torture, disappearances and other human
rights violation during Martial Law?

FACTS:

The 14-year period of in the Philippine history is remembered for the

administration’s record of human rights abuses, particularly targeting political opponents,
student activists, journalists, religious workers, farmers, and others who fought against
the Marcos dictatorship. Based on the documentation of Amnesty International, Task
Force Detainees of the Philippines, and similar human rights monitoring entities,
historians believe that the Marcos dictatorship was marked by 3, 257 known extra judicial
killings, 35,000 documented tortures, 77 “disappeared” and 70,000 incarcerations.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Marcos was guilty of killing, torture, disappearances and other
human rights violation during Martial Law?

RULING:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the district court properly held
Marcos liable for human rights abuses which occurred and which he knew about and
failed to use his power to prevent. The jury instructions on the Torture Victim Protection
Act and on proximate cause were not erroneous. The award of exemplary damages
against the Estate was allowed under Philippine law and the Estate’s due-process rights
were not violated in either the determination of those damages or of compensatory
damages. (Maximo Hilao vs Estate of Ferdinand Marcos (In re Estate of Ferdinand
Marcos Human Rights Litigation), 94 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 1996)
Q4. Whether or not the Philippine Government was obligated to compensate the victims
of human rights violation?

FACTS:

The dictatorship of the Philippine President E. Marcos in the 1970’s and 80’s is
historically remembered for its record of human rights abuses, particularly targeting
political opponents, student activists, journalists, religious workers, farmers, and others
who fought against the Marcos dictatorship. Based on the documentation of Amnesty
International, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, and similar human rights
monitoring entities, historians believe that the Marcos dictatorship was marked by 3, 257
known extrajudicial killings, 35,000 documented tortures, 77 disappeared, and 70,000
incarcerations. Since 2, 520 of the 3, 257 murder victims were tortured and mutilated
before their bodies were dumped in various places for the public to discover – a tactic
meant to sow fear among the public, which came to be known as “salvaging”. Some
bodies were even cannibalized.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the Philippine Government was obligated to compensate the

victims of human rights violation?

RULING:

Yes. The Philippine Government is obligated to compensate the victims of Human

Rights violation. Legally, victims of serious human rights violations have a right to
reparations from the State and from perpetrators for the harms they suffered. Similarly, it
is the obligation of the State to acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted upon
persons whose properties or businesses were forcibly taken over, sequestered or used,
or those whose professions were damaged and/or impaired, or those whose freedom of
movement was restricted, and/or such other victims of the violations of the Bill of Rights.

By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution adopting generally accepted

principles of international law as part of the law of the land, the Philippines adheres to
international human rights laws and conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
Convention Against Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment which imposes on each State party the obligation to enact domestic
legislation to give effect to the rights recognized therein and to ensure that any person
whose rights or freedoms have been violated shall have an effective remedy, even if the
violation is committed by persons acting in an official capacity. In fact, the right to a
remedy is itself guaranteed under existing human rights treaties and/or customary
international law, being peremptory in character (jus cogens) and as such has been
recognized as non-derogable.
 As stated in the provisions of Section 11 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, “the State values the dignity of every human, person and
guarantees full respect for human rights. Section 12 of Article III of the Constitution
prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which
vitiate the free will and mandate the compensation and rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practice and their families.

In accordance of the above mentioned Articles, Republic Act No. 10368 also
known as Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013 which focused
on the identification of human rights victims during martial law to be compensated of their
“heroism and sacrifices.” (RA 10368)

Q5. Whether or not the claim of Marcos that he was a World War II hero was true?

RELIABLE REPORT:

No, the claim of Marcos that he was a World War II hero was not true, based on
the National Historical Commission of the Philippines study which demonstrates that:

1. Mr. Marcos lied about receiving U.S. medals: Distinguished Service Cross,
Silver Star, and Order of the Purple Heart, which he claimed as early as about
1945.
2.His guerilla unit, the Ang Mga Maharlika, was never officially recognized and
neither was his leadership of it.
3.U.S. officials did not recognize Mr. Marcos’ rank promotion from Major in 1944
to Lt. Col. By 1947.
4. Some of Mr. Marcos’ actions as a soldier were officially called into question by
upper echelons of the U.S. military, such as his command over the Allas
Intelligence Unit, his commissioning of officers (without authority), his
abandonment of USAFIP-NL presumably to build an airfield for Gen. Roxas, his
collection of money for the airfield, and his listing of his name on the roster of
different units.i

Mr. Marcos’ military record is fraught with myths, factual inconsistencies, and lies. The
rule in history is that when a claim is disproven, such as Mr. Marcos’ claims about his
medals, rank, and guerilla unit, it is simply dismissed.

-o0o-

i
http://martiallawchroniclesproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/National-Historical-Commission-of-the-
Philippines-Report-on-Marcos-Medals.pdf