Facts:

Upon her assumption to office following the EDSA Revolution, then President
Aquinoissued Executive Order No. 1 creating the PresidentialCommission on Good
Government (PCGG). Pursuant to its mandate to recover all ill-gotten wealth of former
President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,subordinates and close associates,
PCGG created an AFP Anti-Graft Board to investigate corrupt practices by AFP personnel,
whether in the active service or retired.

The AFPBoard investigated reports of unexplained wealth of Major General Ramas, the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army until 1986 (with the rank ofMajor General)
and filed a petition for forfeiture against him and his office clerk and alleged mistress,
ElizabethDimaano.

During the trial, respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the PCGGdoes
not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere
position held without showing that they are"subordinates" of former President Marcos.

Moreover,during the raid conducted onDimaano’s residence, there were items seized
that were not included in the search warrant. Respondents therefore seek these items to
be excluded from evidence for being illegally seized.

Notably, the search and seizure was conducted onMarch 3, 1986 or five days after the
EDSA revolution. According to the Republic, the items seized are admissible since at the
time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any constitutional right. What
was in place at the time of the seizure was a revolutionary government and it effectively
withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which was the basis of respondents’
exclusionary right.

ISSUE:
1. WON PCGG has jurisdiction over the case
2. WON the seizure was legal under the revolutionary government.

Held:

PCGG Jurisdiction
1. PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate and cause the filing of a forfeiture
petition against Ramas and Dimaano for unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379.
a. Ramas is not a subordinate’ as the term is contemplated under EO No. 1.
b. Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a
"subordinate"as this term is used in EO No.1 absent a showing that he enjoyed close
association with former President Marcos.
c. There must be a prima facie showing that Ramas unlawfully accumulated wealth by
virtue of his close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife.
d. Such close association is manifested either by Ramas' complicity with former
PresidentMarcos in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by the deposed President or
former President Marcos' acquiescence in Ramas' own accumulation of ill-gotten wealth
if any.
2. The proper government agencies, and not the PCGG, should investigate and
prosecute forfeiture petitions not falling under EO No. 1 and its amendments. The
preliminary investigation of unexplained wealth amassed on or before 25
February 1986 falls under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, while the authority
to file the corresponding forfeiture petition rests with the Solicitor General.
3. The right of the State to forfeit unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379 is not
subject to prescription, laches or estoppel

Rights under theRevolutionary Government (Legality of the seizure)

4. The Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum
a. The EDSA Revolution took place on February 23-25, 1986. The INTERREGNUM refers to
period after the actual and effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government
following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to March 24, 1986 --
immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution).
b. During the interregnum, a person could not invokeany exclusionary right under a Bill
of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights 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.

5. Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy,
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration), almost the same rights
found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.
a. The Declaration, to which the Philippines is a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2)
that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
b. Although the signatories to the Declaration did not attend it as a legally binding
document, being only a declaration, the Court Has interpreted the Declaration as part of
the ‘generally accepted principles of international law’ (customary international law)
and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under
international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.
6. After the EDSA Revolution, the resulting government was a revolutionary government
bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the
revolutionary government,as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under
international law.
7. The search warrant, issued during the interregnum, was valid. However, the
seizure of the items not included in the warrant was void, unless these items are
contraband per se, which they are not.