Republic of the Philippines vs Sandiganbayan - Corazon Aquino EO.No. 1 (Freedom Constitution)
LANDMARK CASE
Facts:
Immediately upon her assumption to office following the
successful EDSA Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive
Order No. 1 (“EO No. 1”) creating the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (“PCGG”). EO No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all
ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate
family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. EO No. 1 vested the
PCGG with the power “(a) to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order
to accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order” and the power “(h) to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
purpose of this order.” Accordingly, the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito
R. Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft Board (“AFP Board”) tasked to investigate
reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether
in the active service or retired.
Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various
reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q.
Ramas (“Ramas”). On 27 July 1987, the AFP Board issued a Resolution on
its findings and recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of Ramas.
Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner
of a house and lot located at 15-Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon City. He is
also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City. The lot has an
area of 3,327 square meters.
The value of the property located in Quezon City may be
estimated modestly at P700,000.00.
The
equipment/items and communication facilities which were found in the premises
of Elizabeth Dimaano and were confiscated by elements of the PC Command of
Batangas were all covered by invoice receipt in the name of CAPT. EFREN SALIDO,
RSO Command Coy, MSC, PA. These items could not have been in the
possession of Elizabeth Dimaano if not given for her use by respondent
Commanding General of the Philippine Army.
Aside from the military equipment/items and communications
equipment, the raiding team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of P2,870,000.00
and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano on 3 March 1986.
Affidavits of members of the Military Security Unit,
Military Security Command, Philippine Army, stationed at Camp Eldridge, Los
Baños, Laguna, disclosed that Elizabeth Dimaano is the mistress of
respondent. That respondent usually goes and stays and sleeps in the
alleged house of Elizabeth Dimaano in Barangay Tengga, Itaas, Batangas City and
when he arrives, Elizabeth Dimaano embraces and kisses respondent. That
on February 25, 1986, a person who rode in a car went to the residence of
Elizabeth Dimaano with four (4) attache cases filled with money and owned by
MGen Ramas.
Sworn statement in the record disclosed also that Elizabeth
Dimaano had no visible means of income and is supported by respondent for she
was formerly a mere secretary.
Taking in toto the evidence, Elizabeth Dimaano could
not have used the military equipment/items seized in her house on March 3, 1986
without the consent of respondent, he being the Commanding General of the
Philippine Army. It is also impossible for Elizabeth Dimaano to claim
that she owns the P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars for she had no
visible source of income.
This money was never declared in the Statement of Assets and
Liabilities of respondent. There was an intention to cover the existence of
these money because these are all ill-gotten and unexplained wealth. Were
it not for the affidavits of the members of the Military Security Unit assigned
at Camp Eldridge, Los Baños, Laguna, the existence and ownership of these money
would have never been known.
The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent were
also submitted for scrutiny and analysis by the Board’s consultant.
Although the amount of P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars were not
included, still it was disclosed that respondent has an unexplained wealth of P104,134.
60.
Issue: WON the bill of rights was operative at the time of
President Aquino issued E.O. 1
Ruling:
The EDSA Revolution took place
on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in President Aquino’s
Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was “done in
defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution.” The resulting government was indisputably 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.
The correct issues are: (1) whether the revolutionary
government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum,
that is, 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 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.
We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution
was not operative during the interregnum. 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.
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.
During the interregnum, the
government in power was concededly a revolutionary government bound by no
constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration orders as
violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of Rights during the
interregnum. However, upon the adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the
sequestered companies assailed the sequestration orders as contrary to the Bill
of Rights of the Freedom Constitution.
