G.R. No.

75885 May 27, 1987

BATAAN SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING CO., INC. (BASECO), petitioner,

vs.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, CHAIRMAN JOVITO
SALONGA, COMMISSIONER MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA, COMMISSIONER
RAMON DIAZ, COMMISSIONER RAUL R. DAZA, COMMISSIONER QUINTIN S.
DOROMAL, CAPT. JORGE B. SIACUNCO, et al., respondents.

Apostol, Bernas, Gumaru, Ona and Associates for petitioner.

Vicente G. Sison for intervenor A.T. Abesamis.

FACTS:

During President Marcos's administration, the corporation known as BASECO

was allegedly either owned or controlled by him through intermediaries, using his
position and influence to his advantage. It is claimed that BASECO also took over the
operations and assets of the National Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc., as well as
other government-controlled entities, employing similar methods.

Following President Marcos's sudden departure from office, certificates

representing over ninety-five percent (95%) of all outstanding BASECO shares were
discovered in Malacañang. These certificates were found to be endorsed in blank, along
with deeds of assignment for almost all outstanding shares of the three mentioned
corporations, which collectively hold 95.82% of BASECO stock. Although the petitioner's
legal counsel promptly contested this assertion, stating that BASECO stockholders still
possessed their respective certificates and had not endorsed them in blank or to any
other party, this denial contradicts his previous and subsequent documented
statements. It appears to be more of a defiant gesture than a substantiated factual
statement.

Following Executive Orders Numbered 1 and 2 issued by President Corazon

Aquino, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) - through its
commissioners and agents - issued orders for the sequestration, takeover, and other
provisional measures affecting BASECO. Commissioner Diaz invoked the provisions of
Section 3 (c) of Executive Order No. 1, granting the Commission authority to
provisionally take over business enterprises and properties acquired by the Marcos
Administration or by entities or individuals closely associated with former President
Marcos, in the public interest or to prevent their disposal or dissipation, until the
transactions leading to such acquisition can be resolved by the appropriate authorities.

ISSUE:
1. Is the constitutionality of the provisional remedies at issue in this case in question?

2. Have the actions of PCGG and its Commissioners exceeded their powers or
demonstrated grave abuse of discretion?

3. Did the situation involve a breach of the right against self-incrimination and
unreasonable searches and seizures?

HELD:

1. Disagree. The Provisional or "Freedom" Constitution affirms the President's

authority and obligation to implement measures aimed at recovering ill-gotten properties
amassed by the leaders and supporters of the Marcos regime. This includes issuing
orders for sequestration or freezing of assets or accounts. Furthermore, Section 26,
Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution validates the power to issue such orders under
Proclamation No. 3. These interim measures are based on the State's inherent police
power, which entails regulating the use of liberty and property to promote public welfare.

2. No, the main role of the PCGG is to conduct investigations to gather evidence
establishing instances of ill-gotten wealth. It also has the authority to issue
sequestration orders and take necessary steps to safeguard and preserve the assets
under its control, preventing their disappearance, loss, or dissipation. Ultimately, the
PCGG is responsible for filing and prosecuting cases in the appropriate court based on
its findings. However, it lacks the authority to conclusively determine cases involving the
critical question of whether property should be forfeited and transferred to the State due
to being ill-gotten as defined by the Constitution and executive orders.

3. No. The right against self-incrimination does not apply to juridical persons or
corporations. While an individual can lawfully decline to answer questions that may
incriminate them unless protected by an immunity statute, this privilege does not extend
to a corporation. As a legal entity granted specific privileges and franchises, a
corporation cannot refuse to disclose information when accused of abusing those
privileges.