Consequently, the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the PCGG to conduct the

preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman may still conduct the proper preliminary investigation for
violation of RA No. 1379, and if warranted, the Solicitor General may file the forfeiture petition with
the Sandiganbayan.

we find that petitioner has only itself to blame for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence.
First, this case has been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it. Petitioner
filed its Amended Complaint on 11 August 1987, and only began to present its evidence on 17 April
1989. Petitioner had almost two years to prepare its evidence. However, despite this sufficient time,
petitioner still delayed the presentation of the rest of its evidence by filing numerous motions for
postponements and extensions.

On 9 October 1989, the PCGG manifested in court that it was conducting a preliminary investigation
on the unexplained wealth of private respondents as mandated by RA No. 1379. The PCGG prayed
36 

for an additional four months to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan granted
this request and scheduled the presentation of evidence on 26-29 March 1990. However, on the
scheduled date, petitioner failed to inform the court of the result of the preliminary investigation the
PCGG supposedly conducted. Again, the Sandiganbayan gave petitioner until 18 May 1990 to
continue with the presentation of its evidence and to inform the court of "what lies ahead insofar as
the status of the case is concerned x x x." Still on the date set, petitioner failed to present its
37 

evidence. Finally, on 11 July 1990, petitioner filed its Re-Amended Complaint. The Sandiganbayan
38 

correctly observed that a case already pending for years would revert to its preliminary stage if the
court were to accept the Re-Amended Complaint.

Third Issue: Legality of the Search and Seizure

Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team conducted the search and
seizure "on March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution." Petitioner argues that
39 

a revolutionary government was operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation No. 1 announcing
that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel were "taking power in the name and by the will of
the Filipino people." Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the
40 

operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’ exclusionary right.

petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search applies only beginning 2
February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contends that all rights
under the Bill of Rights had already reverted to its embryonic stage at the time of the search.
Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and items taken from Dimaano and use the
same in evidence against her since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy
any constitutional right.

It is widely known that Mrs. Aquino’s rise to the presidency was not due to constitutional
processes; in fact, it was achieved in violation of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution as a
Batasang Pambansa resolution had earlier declared Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986
presidential election. Thus it can be said that the organization of Mrs. Aquino’s Government which
was met by little resistance and her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet
and other key officers of the administration, the departure of the Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of
the Judiciary and the Military signaled the point where the legal system then in effect, had
ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino. (Emphasis supplied)

Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that under natural law, the right of revolution is an inherent right of
the people. Thus, we justified the creation of a new legal order after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, viz:

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and
everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.

Then, natural law. This consists of principles of eternal law which are specific to human beings as
rational creatures. Aquinas explains that law, as a rule and measure, can be in a person in two
ways: in one way, it can be in him that rules and measures; and in another way, in that which is ruled
and measured since a thing is ruled and measured in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure.

In a few words, the "natural law is a rule of reason, promulgated by God in man’s nature, whereby
man can discern how he should ac

natural law being an unwritten code of moral conduct,

The first self-evident principle of natural law is that "good is to be pursued and done, and evil is to be
avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this, so that whatever the practical
reason naturally apprehends as man’s good (or evil) belongs to the precept of the natural law as
something to be done or avoided.

divine law which is given by God, i.e., the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is necessary
to direct human life for four reasons. 

In other words, through reason, with which human beings arrive at the law of nature prescribing
certain moral conduct, each person can realize that he has a natural right and duty to ensure his
own survival and well-being in the world and a related duty to respect the same right in others, and
preserve mankind