Download - Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
1/45
Report on Important Decisionsin Recent Years
By Hon. Consuelo Ynares-SantiagoAssociate Justice
Supreme Court of the PhilippinesFifth Conference of Asian Constitutional Court Judges
Standards for Constitutional Review in Safeguarding Civil,Political and Socio-Economic Rights
9-11 October 2007Seoul, Republic of Korea
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
2/45
1
CHAVEZ v. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY
(G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152)J. Antonio Carpio, ponente.
The Philippine Supreme Court in this case, voided the multi-billion peso reclamation contract between the Philippine Estates
Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corp., a privatecorporation, for blatantly violating provisions of the Constitution
expressly prohibiting the alienation of lands of the public domain.
FACTS:
In 1977, the Public Estates Authority (PEA) was created thru
P.D. No. 1084 issued by the late Philippine president Ferdinand
Marcos and was tasked with the reclamation and development of
foreshore and submerged areas of the Manila Bay. In 1995, PEA
entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with AMARI, a
private corporation, to develop the Freedom Islands, the parcels of
land so reclaimed under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and
Reclamation Project (MCCRRP) which were titled under PEAs
name. The JVA also required the reclamation of additional portions
surrounding these islands to complete their plan.
Although the parties entered into the JVA without public
bidding then President Fidel V. Ramos confirmed the same. After
former Senator Ernesto Maceda denounced the JVA as the
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
3/45
2
grandmother of all scams, a senate investigation on the matter
was conducted. The investigation found out that the reclaimed
lands PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI under the JVA are lands of
the public domain which the government has not classified as
alienable lands making the JVA illegal.
The Legal Task Force created by President Ramos
subsequently upheld the validity of the JVA contrary to the
conclusions reached by the Senate. In 1999, PEA and AMARI
signed an Amended JVA which was subsequently approved during
the subsequent term of President Joseph Estrada.
Petitioner Frank Chavez, as a taxpayer, filed this instant
petition for Mandamus with prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction and a temporary restraining order seeking to compel
PEA to disclose all facts on its renegotiations with AMARI to and to
enjoin it from signing a new agreement with AMARI involving such
reclamation.
ISSUES:
1.) Does the constitutional right to information include officialinformation on on-going negotiations before a final
agreement? YES.
2.) Does the Amended JVA violate the 1987 Constitution? YES.
RULINGS:
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
4/45
3
1.) The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains a provisionon the Filipino peoples right to information on matters of public
concern. The State policy of full transparency in all transactions
involving public interest reinforces this right and these two
provisions seek to promote transparency in policy-making and in
the operations of the government as well as provide the people
enough information to effectively exercise their other constitutional
rights. Contrary to AMARIs contention, the right to information
includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final
contract. A consummated contract is not a requirement for the
exercise of the right to information otherwise the people can never
exercise the right if no contract is consummated. And if one is
consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its
defects. The information, however, must constitute definite
propositions by the government and should not cover recognized
exceptions like privileged information, military and diplomatic
secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public
order.
2.) The 1987 Philippine Constitution like the 1935 and the
1973 Constitutions before it, has adopted the Regalian doctrine
and declares that all natural resources are owned by the State,
and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain,
natural resources cannot be alienated. The present Philippine
Charter continues the State policy banning private corporationsfrom acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domainand
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
5/45
4
allows private corporations to hold alienable land of the public
domain only through lease. A private corporation, even one that
undertakes the physical reclamation of a government BOT project,
cannot acquire reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain in
view of the constitutional ban. The Philippine Supreme Court found
the Amended JVA to have glaringly violated provisions of the 1987
Constitution and consequently declared it null and void ab initio.
AGAN JR., et al. v. PIATCO et al.
(G.R. Nos. 155001, 155547 and 155661, May 5, 2003, 402 SCRA
612)CJ. Reynato Puno, ponente.
In this case, the Supreme Court has nullified the $650 millioncontracts entered into between the Philippine government and the
Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (PIATCO) to buildand operate Terminal-3 of Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Voting 10-3-1, the high court declared the contracts contrary topublic policy.
FACTS:
In August 1989, the Philippine Department of
Transportation and Communication (DOTC) engaged the services
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
6/45
5
of Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of
the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) to determine
whether it can cope with the traffic development up to 2010.
Thereafter, six Filipino business leaders formed Asias Emerging
Dragon Corp. (AEDC) and submitted an unsolicited proposal to
the government for the development of the NAIA Terminal 3
under the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) arrangement pursuant
to the BOT Law(RA 6957 as amended by RA 7718).
A consortium composed of Paircargo, PAGS and Security
Bank (PAIRCARGO) submitted its comparative proposal to AEDCs
bid to the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC).
Both bidders offered to build Terminal 3 for at least $350M at no
cost to the government. Under both bids, each bidder will pay the
government a share in the gross revenues for the duration of the
operation. AEDC offered to pay the government a total of P135M
as guaranteed payment for 27 years while PAIRCARGO offered to
pay a total of P17.75B for the same period. PBAC accepted
PAIRCARGOs proposal and gave AEDC 30 days within which to
match the said bid.
The project was awarded to PAIRCARGO upon AEDCs failure
to match its bid. PAIRCARGO was subsequently incorporated into
PIATCO. Consequently, the Concession Agreement for Terminal 3
was executed between PIATCO and the government. Amendments
to the said contracts followed thereafter. The workers of the
international airline service providers, claiming that they stand tolose their employment upon the implementation of the questioned
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
7/45
6
agreements, filed a petition to enjoin its enforcement before the
Philippine Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
1.) Is PIATCO a qualified bidder? NO.2.) Is the 1997 Concession Agreement valid? NO.
RULINGS:
1.) Under the BOT Law, in case of build-operate-transferarrangement, the contract shall be awarded to the bidder who, in
addition to submitting the lowest bid and most favorable terms
also satisfies the minimum financial, technical, organizational and
legal standardsrequired by law.
PIATCO as the challenger to the unsolicited proposal of
AEDC has to show that it possesses the requisite financial
capability to undertake the project in the minimum amount of 30%
of the project cost which is roughly US$350M or
P9,183,650,000.00, thus PAIRCARGO has to show that it had the
ability to provide the minimum equity for the project in the amount
of P2,755,095,000.00. As computed however, its total net worth is
P558,384,871.55 or only 6.08% of the project cost. Thus the
award of the contract by the PBAC to PAIRCARGO is null and void.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
8/45
7
2.) The Concession Agreement is not valid considering that it
contains material and substantial amendments which had the
effect of converting it into an entirely different agreement from the
contract bidded upon.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
9/45
8
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES, et al. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS et al.,
(G.R. No. 159139, 13 January 2004, 419 SCRA 141)J. Artemio Panganiban, ponente.
Shortly before the May 2004 national elections, the Supreme
Court invalidated the P1.3-billion contract awarded by COMELEC toKorean firm-led consortium. Pointing to glaring irregularities that
attended the bidding process, the Court declared that COMELECand its officials concerned must bear full responsibility for thefailed bidding and award, and held accountable for the election
mess wrought by their grave abuse of discretion in theperformance of their functions.
FACTS:
In 1997, the Philippine Congress enacted Republic Act 8436
authorizing the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to use an
automated election system (AES) to aid in the counting and
canvassing of national and local election results and also
mandated the poll body to acquire automated counting machines
(ACMs) and other equipments as well as to adopt new electoral
forms and printing materials.
During the bidding process that ensued, the Bids and Awards
Committee (BAC) found Mega Pacific Consortium (MPC) and Total
Information Management Corporation (TIMC) eligible out of 57
bidders. Notwithstanding the failure of both bidders in the
technical evaluation conducted by the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST), the COMELEC awarded the project to MPC.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
10/45
9
Thereafter, petitioner Information Technology Foundation of the
Philippines (ITFP) along with several others wrote COMELEC
Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. protesting the award to MPC and
seeking re-bidding.
Chairman Abalos rejected the protest and declared that the
award would stand up to the strictest scrutiny, prompting
petitioner ITFP to seek redress before the Philippine Supreme
Court via a Petition for certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to void
the award; to enjoin the implementation of any further Contract
between COMELEC and MPC as well as to compel re-bidding for
the project.
ISSUE:
Did the COMELEC gravely abuse its discretion when it
awarded the contract to MPC? YES.
RULING:
The Philippine Supreme Court granted the petition and
nullified the COMELECs contract with MPC. The COMELEC
awarded the Contract to MPC, an entity that had not participated
in the bidding there being no proof that it was the real bidder. In
the documents submitted to the COMELEC during the bidding
process, there was no sign whatsoever of any joint ventureagreement, consortium agreement, memorandum of agreement,
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
11/45
10
or business plan executed among the members of the purported
Mega Pacific Consortium or MPC. It appears that the poll body
signed the actual automation Contract with Mega Pacific
eSolutions, Inc., (MPEI) a company that joined the bidding but
had not met the eligibility requirements.
Further, the COMELEC awarded the Contract with
inexplicable haste, without checking and observing mandatory
financial, technical and legal requirements accepting the computer
hardware and software even if, at the time of the award, they had
failed to pass critical requirements designed to safeguard the
integrity of elections. The software was nothing but a sample or
demo software, which would not be the actual one that would be
used during the elections. Keeping in mind that the Contract
involves the acquisition of not just the Automated Counting
Machines or the hardware, but also the software that would run
them, it is clear that the Contract was awarded without COMELEC
having seen, much less evaluated, the final product.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
12/45
11
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et. al. v. EDUARDO ERMITA(G.R. Nos.169777, 169659, 169660, 169667, 169834, 171246,April 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1)J. Carpio-Morales, ponente.
The Supreme Court in this case upheld the right of Congress
to compel executive officials to appear before inquiries, so long asthese hearings are done in aid of legislation. The Court, however,declared constitutional the presidents right to ban executive
officials from appearing during the question hour in Congresswhere the sole objective is to obtain information in pursuit of its
oversight function, and does not relate to specific legislation. Thehigh court ruled that Congress has a right of information from the
executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation.
FACTS:
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
13/45
12
Under the Philippine Constitution, Congress has the power to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation and may compel officials of
the Executive Department to appear before it and provide
information necessary for lawmaking.
In September 2005, the Senate as a whole invited various
officials of the Executive Department to appear as resource
speakers in a public hearing regarding the alleged overpricing and
unlawful provisions of the railway project of the North Luzon
Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and
Equipment Group. A Senate committee also issued invitations to
seven high-ranking officials of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing in
connection with the alleged wire-tapping of the Presidents phone
conversation with a Commission on Elections official during the
last elections. However, the invited officials asked for a
postponement of the above scheduled hearings due to various
reasons.
Shortly thereafter, the President issued Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 464 which required all heads of the Executive Branch
and other public officials, including officials of the AFP, to secure
the consent of the President prior to appearing before either
House of Congress. The President anchored this issuance on the
principle of executive privilege where certain sensitive information
may be validly withheld from Congress. Consequently, all theofficials previously invited to appear before the Senate invoked E.O.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
14/45
13
464 to decline such request on the ground that the President has
not given her consent to their appearing before the Senate.
Petitioner Senate of the Philippines went to the Supreme
Court challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 464 on the ground
that it violates its constitutional power to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation. The other petitioners, in their capacity as citizens and
taxpayers, claimed that E.O. 464 violates their constitutional right
to information on matters of public concern.
ISSUES:
(1) Does E.O. 464 contravene Congresss power of inquiry inaid of legislation? YES.
(2) Does E.O. 464 violate the right of the people toinformation on matters of public concern? YES.
(3) Should E.O. 464 have been first published before itsimplementation? YES.
RULINGS:
(1) The specific provision in E.O. 464 which requiresofficials of the Executive Department, including officers of thePhilippine National Police and Armed Forces of the Philippines, to
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
15/45
14
first secure the Presidents consent before appearing in the Senate
or House of Representatives to give testimony or submit
documents constitute an implied claim of executive privilege.
Under Philippine jurisdiction executive privilege whether asserted
against Congress, the courts or the public, is recognized only in
relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character.
This would cover state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and
other national security matters as well as presidential
conversations, correspondences, and discussion in closed-door
Cabinet meetings.
The invocation of E.O. 464 as a justification for non-
appearance before the Senate impliedly means that the President
has made a prior determination that the matters which the official
will disclose are covered by the executive privilege. However, in
the case at bar, the implied claim of executive privilege is invalid
per se because it is not accompanied by any specific allegation of
the ground as basis thereof. Congress is left to speculate as to
what ground is being referred to by the President. A claim of
privilege, being a claim for exemption from an obligation to
disclose information, must be clearly asserted. The due respect for
a co-equal branch of government demands that a claim of
privilege clearly state the grounds therefor. Otherwise, the power
of inquiry of Congress would be severely frustrated. It should be
noted, however, that Congress must not require the President to
state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
16/45
15
disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to
protect.
The doctrine of executive privilege is premised on the fact
that certain informations must, as a matter of necessity, be kept
confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being,
by definition, an exemption from the obligation to disclose
information, in this case to Congress, the necessity must be of
such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing
that obligation in a particular case. In light of this highly
exceptional nature of the privilege, the Philippine Supreme Court
limited its exercise to the President only. The privilege being an
extraordinary power, it must be wielded only by the highest official
in the executive hierarchy. In other words, the President may not
authorize her subordinates to exercise such power.
It follows, therefore, that when an official is being
summoned by Congress on a matter which, in his own judgment,
might be covered by executive privilege, he must be afforded
reasonable time to inform the President or the Executive Secretary
of the possible need for invoking the privilege. This is necessary in
order to provide the President or the Executive Secretary with fair
opportunity to consider whether the matter indeed calls for a claim
of executive privilege. If, after the lapse of that reasonable time,
neither the President nor the Executive Secretary invokes the
privilege, Congress is no longer bound to respect the failure of the
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
17/45
16
official to appear before Congress and may then opt to avail of the
necessary legal means to compel his appearance.
(2) There are clear distinctions between the constitutionalright of Congress to information which underlies the power of
inquiry and the right of people to information on matters of public
concern. However, to the extent that investigations in aid of
legislation are generally conducted in public, any executive
issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in such
investigations necessarily deprives the people of information which
is presumed to be a matter of public concern. Thus, this kind of
impairment of the right of the people to information as a
consequence of E.O. 464 is just as direct a violation of the
legislatures power of inquiry.
(3) E.O. 464 should have first been published because ithas a direct effect on the right of people to information on matters
of public concern and is, thus, a matter of public interest which
members of the body politic may question before the Philippine
Supreme Court.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
18/45
17
BAYAN, et al. v. ERMITA(G.R. Nos. 169838, 169848 and 169881, 25 April 2006, 488 SCRA
226)J. Adolfo Azcuna, ponente.
The Philippine Supreme Court in this case held that B.P. No.880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction
that simply regulates the time, place and manner of theassemblies and directed the police force to exercise maximum
tolerance without fail.
FACTS:
Batas Pambansa No. 880 or The Public Act Assembly of 1985
is the Philippine law which regulates the constitutional right of the
Filipino people to peaceably assemble and petition the governmentfor redress of grievances. Under this law, a person or group of
persons is required to first secure a written permit if they intend to
organize and hold a public assembly in a public place. Without
such a permit, the rally can be peacefully dispersed by the police.
This is what is commonly known in the Philippines as the no
permit, no rally rule.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
19/45
18
The application for permit to rally shall state the time, place,
duration and purposes of the assembly, and shall be filed with the
office of the city or municipal mayor five (5) working days before
the scheduled assembly. If the mayor fails to act on the
application within two (2) working days, the application is deemed
granted. An application may be disapproved on the ground that
there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will
create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety,
public convenience, public morals or public health. If the
application is denied, the applicant may resort to the courts.
The law prescribes a policy of Maximum Tolerance in dealing
with rallyists so that police dispersals should be undertaken
peacefully with respect to rallies without permits. As regards rallies
with permits, police dispersals should be done only when the rally
has turned imminently or actually violent and unlawful; and using
only reasonable means through communication/negotiation with
the rally leaders, with the use of reasonable force as the means of
last resort. This law also mandates a city or municipality to
designate at least one suitable freedom park where
demonstrations and meetings may be held at any time without the
need of any prior permit within six (6) months from the effectivity
of the aforesaid law. However, almost all cities and municipalities
have failed to comply with this requirement of the law.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
20/45
19
On September 21, 2005, the Executive Department issued a
press release regarding unlawful mass actions or rallies without
permits. It stated that the policy of Calibrated Preemptive
Response (or more popularly known as CPR) shall now be in
force in lieu of the policy of Maximum Tolerance. As such, the
police shall take the necessary actions to stop rallyists from
committing acts inimical to public order and peace.
Petitioners consist of three groups which conducted several
protest rallies against various policies of the Philippine Government
on September 26, October 4, 5, and 6, 2005. They claim that the
police preempted and violently dispersed their mass actions on
aforesaid dates. Thus, they filed a petition before the Philippine
Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of The Public
Assembly of 1985. They claim that the law violates their
constitutional right to peaceably assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances (as well as the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights
treaties signed by the Philippine Government) because the law is a
content-based regulation aimed at stifling political dissent and the
clear and present danger standard is too broad and an
unreasonable limitation on their right to peaceably assemble. In
addition, they claim that the policy of CPR is void because it
contravenes the policy of Maximum Tolerance under the Public
Assembly Act of 1985and that the policy of CPR has been used by
the police to justify taking a more aggressive stance againstrallyists.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
21/45
20
ISSUES:
(4) Is the Public Assembly Act of 1985unconstitutional? NO.(5) Is the policy of CPR valid? NO.
RULINGS:
1.) The right to peaceably assemble and petition forredress of grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of
expression, and of the press, a right that enjoys primacy in the
realm of constitutional protection. However, while such right is
sacrosanct, it is not absolute. The right cannot be abrogated
through prior restraint except on a showing, as is the case with
freedom of expression, of a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil that the state has a right to prevent. The clear
and present danger standard embodied in The Public Assembly
Act of 1985 is a well-recognized exception in Philippine
jurisprudence as well as by international treaties. The Public
Assembly Act of 1985 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies
but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner
of the assemblies. It is a content-neutral regulation of the time,
place, and manner of holding public assemblies.
2.) Respondents belatedly claim that the CPR means thesame thing as the policy of Maximum Tolerance and was notintended to replace the latter. At any rate, in view of the Maximum
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
22/45
21
Tolerance mandated by The Public Assembly of 1985, CPR serves
no valid purpose if it means the same thing as Maximum Tolerance
and is illegal if it means something else. Accordingly, what is to be
followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself, namely,
Maximum Tolerance, as specifically defined under the law. The so-
called CPR policy has no place in Philippine legal firmament and
must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It
merely confuses the Filipino People and is used by some police
agents to justify abuses.
The Philippine Supreme Court goes even one step further in
safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30
days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided
under The Public Act Assembly of 1985. If, after that period, no
such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the
law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city
concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior
permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly
therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police
and the mayors office to allow proper coordination and orderly
activities.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
23/45
22
PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, et. al. v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO, as President and Commander-In-Chief, et al.
(G.R. Nos. 171396, 171409, 171485, 171483, 171400, 171489,
171424, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160)J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, ponente.
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyos power to declare a state of emergency butruled that acts committed by government authorities under
Proclamation No. 1017 were illegal. Voting 11-3, the Court saidthat while PP 1017 was constitutional, insofar as it constituted a
call by Arroyo for the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawlessviolence, the warrantless arrests and search of the Daily Tribuneoffice were in violation of the law.
FACTS:
On February 24, 2006, as the Philippines celebrated the 20th
Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017
declaring a state of national emergency. This proclamation was
precipitated by alleged intelligence reports that the political
opposition consisting of the Extreme Left (communist rebels) and
the Extreme Right (military adventurists) had conspired to
overthrow the Arroyo Administration through violent and unlawful
means. Thus, the President, pursuant to her constitutional powers
as Commander-in-Chief, called out the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) to maintain law and order throughout the
Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as
well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce
obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
24/45
23
promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as
provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby
declare a State of National Emergency. To implement this
proclamation, the President issued General Order No. 5 which
directed the military to pursue the aforementioned objectives and,
in addition, required them to suppress acts of terrorism.
Thereafter, the Office of the President announced that all
permits to rally originally granted by the cities or municipalities are
revoked. The Presidential Chief of Staff announced that
warrantless arrests and take-over of facilities, including media, can
already be implemented. Undeterred by the announcements that
rallies and public assemblies would not be allowed, groups of
protesters, including some of the herein petitioners, marched from
various parts of Metro Manila with the intention of converging at
the EDSA shrine. Those who were already near the EDSA site
were violently dispersed by huge clusters of anti-riot police. In
particular, petitioner Prof. Randy David, a professor at the
University of the Philippines and a newspaper columnist, and his
companion were arrested without a warrant but later released due
to insufficiency of evidence to criminally charge them.
At around 12:20 in the early morning of February 25, 2006,
police operatives, on the basis of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5, raided
the Daily Tribune offices (a newspaper outfit) in Manila. The
raiding team confiscated news stories by reporters, documents,pictures, and mock-ups of the Saturday issue. The raid, according
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
25/45
24
to the Presidential Chief of Staff, was meant to show a strong
presence, to tell media outlets not to connive or do anything that
would help the rebels in bringing down the government.The police
also warned that it would takeover any media organization that
would not follow the standards set by the government during the
state of national emergency.
Petitioners went to the Supreme Court to challenge the
constitutionality of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 on the grounds that: (1)
the President exceeded her commander-in-chief powers as there
was no factual bases to justify the calling out of the military, (2)
the issuances are a usurpation of legislative powers by the
President, (3) the issuances violated petitioners rights to
peaceably assemble and freedom of the press, and (4) the
President cannot takeover privately-owned utilities or businesses
affected with public interest during a state of emergency without
authority from Congress.
On March 3, 2006, exactly one week after the declaration of
a state of national emergency and after all these petitions had
been filed, the President lifted PP 1017.
ISSUES:
(6) Was the Presidents exercise of her calling out powersbereft of factual bases? NO.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
26/45
25
(7) Do portions of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 usurp legislativepowers and are thus, unconstitutional? YES.
(8) Was the implementation of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5through warrantless arrests, and warrantless searches
and seizures unconstitutional? YES.
(9) Can the President takeover privately-owned utilitiesand businesses affected with public interest during a
state of national emergency without Congressional
authority? NO.
RULINGS:
(4) Under Section 18, Article VII of the PhilippineConstitution, the President may call out the armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection or rebellion.
However, the 1987 Constitution has granted the Supreme Court an
expanded jurisdiction to determine whether such exercise of power
was done with grave abuse of discretion prescinding from the sad
experiences during the martial law years where the Court hid
behind the political question doctrine in cases of this nature. In the
case at bar, petitioners failed to prove that PP 1017 was without
factual bases as the same was supported by intelligence reports
submitted by the counsel for the government.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
27/45
26
(5) PP 1017s extraneous provisions giving the Presidentexpress or implied power to issue decrees and to direct the AFP to
enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless
violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President are
unconstitutional because only Congress may enact laws. A decree,
within the context of the martial law years, had the same force
and effect as laws. As regards G.O. No. 5, the words acts of
terrorism have not been legally defined and made punishable by
Congress and should thus be deemed deleted from the said G.O.
While terrorism has been denounced generally in media, no law
has been enacted to guide the military, and eventually the courts,
to determine the limits of the AFPs authority in carrying out this
portion of G.O. No. 5 which makes a fertile ground for abuse.
(6) The warrantless arrest of petitioners Randolf S. Davidand Ronald Llamas; the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless
arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members; the imposition of
standards on media or any prior restraint on the press; and the
warrantless search of the Daily Tribuneoffices and the whimsical
seizures of some articles for publication and other materials, are
not authorized by the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence.
Not even by the valid provisions of PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5. These
acts are declared unconstitutional without prejudice to prosecuting
the individuals responsible therefor.
(7)
Finally, the President, in the absence of legislation,cannot take over privately-owned utilities and business affected
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
28/45
27
with public interest during a state of national emergency as a
reasonable reading of the text of the Constitution reveal.
GREATER METROPOLITAN MANILA SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE and the METROPOLITANMANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JANCOM
ENVIRONMENT CORPORATION and JANCOM
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PTY. LIMITED
OF AUSTRALIA
(G.R. No. 163663, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 280)J. Carpio-Morales, ponente.
THE Supreme Court in this case nullified the P390-billionsolid waste management contract signed between the Metropolitan
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
29/45
28
Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and Australian firm JancomEnvironmental Corporation to operate the San Mateo Waste
Disposal Site in the Rizal province which would have disposed of
about 8.000 tons of Metro Manila garbage daily. The contractcannot be executed due to lack of approval from President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo.
FACTS:
Pursuant to Presidential Memorandum Order No. 202
creating the Greater Metropolitan Manila Solid Waste Management
Committee (petitioner GMSWMC) to oversee and develop waste
disposal sites in Rizal and Cavite under the Build-Operate-Transfer
(BOT) scheme, the Philippine government through the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) entered into a
BOT contract for the creation of a waste disposal site in San Mateo,
Rizal with respondent JANCOM Environmental Corporation
(JANCOM), the sole complying bidder.
Prior to the Presidents approval of the contract, the
government ordered the landfills closure due to the clamor of the
residents of Rizal. Thereafter, petitioner GMSWMC adopted a
resolution not to pursue the contract with JANCOM citing as
reasons the passage of RA 8749 otherwise known as the Clean Air
Act of 1999, the non-availability of the landfill site and costly
tipping fees.
JANCOM filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional TrialCourt of Pasig City (RTC) to declare such resolution void and to
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
30/45
29
enjoin the MMDA from entering into new waste management
contracts with third parties. The RTC granted JANCOMs petition.
On appeal before the Court of Appeals, the said decision was
affirmed in toto. By Decision of January 30, 2002 and Resolution of
April 10, 2002, the Philippine Supreme Court affirmed the decision
of the Court of Appeals and declared the contract valid and
perfected, albeit ineffective and unimplementable pending
approval by the President.
JANCOM and the MMDA later purportedly modified the
contract and came up with an unsigned draft Amended Agreement
dated June 2002. JANCOM then filed an Omnibus Motion before
Branch 68 of RTC-Pasig seeking to compel MMDA to cease from
entering into any contract with third parties relative to waste
management and disposal; the immediate submission of said
Amended Agreement to the President; and to compel MMDA to
comply with its contractual obligations.
The trial court granted the same in an Order and directed
the MMDA to cease from entering into any contract with third
parties in violation of JANCOMs contractual rights; to submit the
Amended Agreement to the President for his signature and
approval and to comply with their obligations as provided in the
contract. Alias writs of execution implementing said Order was
subsequently issued by the RTC.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
31/45
30
Petitioners sought recourse before the Court of Appeals
which in turn affirmed the trial courts Order having found it to be
proper. Petitioners then raised the matter to the Philippine
Supreme Court alleging that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in
upholding the assailed Order.
ISSUE:
Did the Court of Appeals act with grave abuse of discretion
in affirming the trial courts Order? YES.
RULING:
The Supreme Courts January 30, 2002 Decision and April 10,
2002 Resolution held that although the contract between the
government and JANCOM is a perfected contract, it is still
ineffective or unimplementable until and unless it is approved by
the President providing that such approval is necessary for its
effectivity.
Since the contract provides that it shall become effective
only upon approval by the President, the trial court improperly
issued the alias writs of execution, for in doing so, it had, in effect,
ordered the enforcement of the contract despite the Supreme
Courts unequivocal pronouncements. Also, the Amended
Agreement was unsigned by the parties and as such was merely a
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
32/45
31
draft document containing the proposals of JANCOM subject to the
approval of the MMDA.
LAMBINO v. COMELEC
(G.R. No. 174153 and 174299, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160)
J. Antonio Carpio, ponente.
In this case, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the
petition of charter change advocates seeking to revise the 1987Constitution via a peoples initiative. By a hairline vote of 8-7, the
high court ruled that the Commission on Elections did not commitgrave abuse of discretion when it denied the pleas of charterchange advocates for revision.
FACTS:
In August 2006, petitioners Raul Lambino and Erico
Aumentado, invoking their constitutional right to propose
amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution by way of
peoples initiative, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) submitting the following proposition:1
1It appears, however, that this proposition differs from the one submitted to the people and which was
in the abstract of the petition which states: Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of
the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to aunicameral-parliamentary system of government in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity andeconomy in government; and providing Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the orderly shift
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
33/45
32
Do you approve the amendment of Articles
VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing theform of government from the present bicameral-
presidential to a unicameral-parliamentarysystem and providing Article XVIII as TransitoryProvisions for the orderly shift from one system
to another?
Several groups and individuals opposed the petition, citing
Santiago v. COMELEC (270 SCRA 106), they argued that the
COMELEC has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition because of
the permanent injunction of the Supreme Court in the case. They
alleged that RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act) is deficient
and inadequate to implement a peoples initiative on amendments
to the Constitution and that the signature campaign was
orchestrated by the government and thus, not truly reflective of
the Filipino peoples will. Moreover, even if there were a law, the
changes sought are not amendments but revisions which may not
be effected through an initiative.
The COMELEC dismissed the petition but did not rule on
whether the petition was correct in substance and in form. It also
refrained from ruling on the authenticity of the 6 million signatures
that purportedly backed the petition. However, it stated in its
decision that the petition appeared to meet the required number
of registered voters
from one system to another? Petitioners later filed an Amended Petition together with a Manifestationciting corrections on the text of the proposed amendments.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
34/45
33
Petitioners subsequently filed a petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus before the Supreme Court praying that the COMELECs
resolution be set aside on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
and further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
ordering the COMELEC to entertain the Petition for Initiative and
Referendum, to comply with the Constitution, and to set the date
of the plebiscite pursuant to its ministerial duty as provided by law.
ISSUE:
Did the petition for initiative comply with the Constitutional
requirements on amendments through peoples initiative? NO.
RULING:
The petition on initiative miserably failed to comply with the
requirements of the Constitution for conducting a peoples
initiative. The draft of the proposed constitutional amendment
should be ready and shown to the people before they sign such
proposal the essence of the amendments directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition is that the entire proposal
on its face is a petition by the people.
Thus, an amendment is directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition only if the people sign on apetition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
35/45
34
The admissions petitioners made during the oral argument for this
case established beyond any doubt that they failed to show the full
text of the proposed changes to the great majority of the people
who signed the signature sheets that they circulated and
subsequently submitted to the COMELEC. The result is a grand
deception on the supposed 6.3M signatories who are left in the
dark to fathom the nature and effect of the proposed changes.
In the words of the ponente of this case, J. Antonio Carpio,
the Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the
Constitution, cannot shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure
compliance with the clear command of the Constitution- that a
peoples initiative may only amend, never revise, the Constitution.
ESTRADA v. DESIERTO
(G.R. Nos. 146710-15 and 146738, March 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452)J. Reynato Puno, ponente.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled on the validity of thePresidency assumed by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo after declaring
that former president Estrada resigned from the presidency afterhis ouster by People Power during EDSA 2.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
36/45
35
FACTS:
On the line in the case at bar is the Office of the President of
the Philippines. Petitioner Joseph Estrada was the duly elected
President in the May 1998 elections where Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo won as Vice-President. Both were to serve a 6-year term
beginning in June 1998. Although elected with an overwhelming
mandate of 10M votes, Estradas term was plagued by controversy
which all came to a heed on October 2000 after his long time
friend and provincial Governor Luis Chavit Singson came out on
television and said that the former president pocketed bribes from
illegal gambling operators in the provinces.
The Senate trial for Estradas impeachment which ensued in
December 2000 was aborted when a majority of senator-judges
voted to reject evidence linking Estrada to millions of dollars in ill-
acquired wealth. The vote spurred a walk-out by the prosecution
panel and massive anti-Estrada protests leading to eventual ouster.
Estrada left Malacanang Palace at around 2:30 in the afternoon on
January 20, 2001 amid the resignation of cabinet members and
key military and police officials. Earlier at noon on the same day,
Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide administered
the oath to respondent Arroyo.
Several cases previously filed against Estrada before thegraft court were set in motion. A criminal case for plunder, graft
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
37/45
36
and corruption was also filed against him and his co-accused.
Estrada subsequently sought recourse before the Supreme Court
insisting that he never resigned as president and was merely on
leave making Arroyos presidency unconstitutional. And because
he is still sitting president, he is immune from suit.
ISSUES:
1.)Does the petition present a justiciable controversy? YES.2.)Did Estrada resign as President? YES.3.)Is conviction in the impeachment proceedings a condition
precedent for the criminal prosecution of Estrada? NO.
Assuming that he is still President, is he immune from
criminal prosecution? NO.
RULINGS:
1.) The cases at bar present pose legal and not political
questions since the principal issues for resolution require the
proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution
as well as a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit.
2.) The totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior
facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on
the issue shows that Estrada resigned as President. His resignation
cannot be doubted. It was confirmed by his leaving Malacanangfor the sake of peace and in order to begin the healing process of
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
38/45
37
the nation and not due to any inability. In the press release
containing his final statement, he acknowledged the oath taking of
Arroyo as President albeit with reservation about its legality. He
expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve
them, this without doubt referred topast opportunitygiven him to
serve the people as President. All these point to the inescapable
conclusion that his presidency is now in the past tense.
3.) Estradas argument that he cannot be prosecuted for
the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment
proceedings lacks merit. Considering the peculiar circumstance
that the impeachment process against him has been aborted and
thereafter he lost the Presidency, Estrada cannot demand as a
condition sine qua non to his criminal prosecution before the
Ombudsman that he be convicted in the impeachment proceedings.
The cases filed against Estrada are criminal in character.
They involve plunder, bribery, graft and corruption. By no stretch
of the imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which
carries the death penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of
immunity of a non-sitting president.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
39/45
38
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOSEPH EJERCITO
ESTRADA, JOSE JINGGOY ESTRADA, CHARLIE ATONG
TIU HAY SI ANG, EDWARD S. SERAPIO, YOLANDA T.
RICAFORTE, ALMA ALFARO, JOHN DOE aka ELEUTERIO
RAMOS TAN or MR. UY, JANE DOE akaDELIA RAJAS, JOHNDOES and JANE DOES
(Criminal Case No. 26558, for: PLUNDER, September 12, 2007)
Republic Act No. 70802 penalizes public officers who amassimmense wealth through a series or combination of overt or
criminal acts in violation of the public trust. The reason behind thelaw was explained in the Explanatory Note of Senate Bill No. 733quoted in the case ofEstrada v. Sandiganbayan3as follows:
Plunder xxx punishes the use of high office for personal
enrichment, committed through aseries of actsdone not in thepublic eye but in stealth and secrecy over a period of time, thatmay involve so many persons, here and abroad, and which touch
so many states and territorial units. The acts and/or omissionssought to be penalized do not involve simple cases of
malversation of public funds, bribery, extortion, theft and
graft but constitute plunder of an entire nation resulting inmaterial damage to the national economy.
The present case is the first of its kind to be filed charging
the highest official of the Philippines, a former President, amongothers, of the offense of plunder. The resolution of this case will
set significant historical and legal precedents.
2
Otherwise known as the Anti-Plunder Law, approved on July 12, 1991.3G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377 SCRA 538, 555.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
40/45
39
FACTS:
In April 2001, the prosecution filed an Amended Information
against the accused charging them with the crime of PLUNDER
committed as follows:
a.) by receiving money in the sum of FIVE HUNDREDFORTY-FIVE MILLION PESOS (P545,000,000.00)from illegal gambling in connivance with co-accused
Charlie Atong Ang, Jose Jinggoy Estrada,Yolanda T. Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, and John
Does and Jane Does in consideration of tolerationor protection of illegal gambling;
b.) by diverting public funds amounting to ONEHUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PESOS
(P130,000,000.00) representing a portion of the
TWO HUNDRED MILLION PESOS (P200,000,000.00)tobacco excise tax share allocated for the Province
of Ilocos Sur under RA No. 7171, in connivancewith co-accused Charlie Atong Ang, Alma Alfaro,
John Doe a.k.a. Eleuterio Tan or Eleuterio RamosTan or Mr. Uy, and Jane Doe a.k.a. Delia Rajas, andother John Does and Jane Does;
c.) by directing the GSIS and the SSS to purchaseshares of stocks of the BELLE CORPORATION in thetotal amount of ONE BILLION EIGHT HUNDRED
FORTY SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTYEIGHT THOUSAND FIFTY SEVEN PESOS AND FIFTYCENTAVOS (P1,874,578,057.50); for which he
received commissions in the amount of ONEHUNDRED EIGHTY NINE MILLION SEVEN
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P189, 700,000.00),which became part of the deposit in the Equitable-
PCI BANK under the account name JOSEVELARDE;
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
41/45
40
d.) by unjustly enriching himself in connivance with
John Does and Jane Does, in the amount of more
or less THREE BILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTYTHREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND
AND ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE PESOS ANDSEVENTEEN CENTAVOS (P3,233,104,173.17) and
depositing the same under his account name JOSEVELARDE at the Equitable-PCI BANK.
After the issuance of the arrest warrants against them the
Estradas (FPres. Estrada and his son Jinggoy) and Serapio
surrendered to the authorities and were subsequently arraigned
where a plea of not guilty was entered for them. FPres. Estrada
was eventually placed under house arrest in his residence in Tanay,
Rizal while Jinggoy and Serapio were granted bail. Accused Charlie
Atong Ang (Ang) was extradited from the United States. Having
executed a Plea Bargaining Agreement with the prosecution, Ang
pleaded guilty and was convicted for the lesser offense of
Corruption of Public Officials. He is currently under probation.
Prosecution star witness, former Ilocos Sur Governor Luis
Chavit C. Singson (Chavit) testified to the systematic collection
and delivery to FPres. Estrada of jueteng protection money in the
amount of P5M every 15 days which was methodically recorded in
two sets of ledgers covering the period November 1998-July 1999
and August 1999-August 2000. Sometime in July 1999, FPres.
Estrada instructed Chavit to turn over 123M in jueteng money to
Estradas accountant Yolanda T. Ricaforte (Ricaforte) to bedeposited in the latters accounts. Bank officers from several
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
42/45
41
branches of Equitable-PCI Bank subsequently testified to the
existence of Ricafortes active accounts involving staggering
amounts of money. In early 2000, FPres. Estrada directed Chavit
to transfer 200M of jueteng money to Serapio. Bank officers of
Equitable- PCI Bank later testified to the existence of the accounts
of the ERAP Muslim Youth Foundation in the sum of 200M which
were deposited through several checks issued by Serapio.
Chavit and FPres. Estrada subsequently had a falling out
when the franchise of the government sanctioned numbers game
called Bingo 2 Ball in Ilocos Sur was awarded to Eric Singson,
Chavits political rival. Fearing that his life was in danger, Chavit
gathered evidence and came out with this expose.
In his defense, FPres. Estrada stated that he did not receive
a single centavo from any form of illegal gambling. He even sought
to legalize jueteng so that the government can earn money to help
provide essential services for the poor. He stated that he met
Serapio in 1999 and was impressed by the latters credentials so
he appointed him as Presidential Assistant on Political Affairs.
FPres. Estrada claimed that he started the ERAP Muslim Youth
Foundation on seed money from his salary as well as with the
funds raised from a golf tournament. He denied that he ordered
Chavit to give jueteng money in the amount of 200M to Serapio
for the ERAP Muslim Youth Foundation stating that Serapio told
him that an anonymous donor thru Chavit gave said amount to thefoundation. FPres. Estrada maintained that Chavit is accusing him
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
43/45
42
with these unfounded allegations out of desperation. He stated
that Chavit sought his help with the Commission on Audit (COA)
because he was unable to liquidate his cash advance from the
tobacco excise tax share of Ilocos Sur under R.A. 7171. FPres.
Estrada refused because COA is an independent constitutional
body.
FPres. Estrada likewise vehemently denied Chavits
allegations with respect to the diversion of the excise taxes for the
province of Ilocos Sur under Republic Act No. 7171. Chavit claimed
that FPres. Estrada approved his request for the release of said
funds in consideration of P130M which was credited into the
accounts of Alma Alfaro, Delia Rajas and Eleuterio Tan as shown
by bank documents presented by the prosecution.
FPres. Estrada also belied any knowledge pertaining to the
purchase of Government Social Insurance System (GSIS) and
Social Security System (SSS) of shares in Belle Corporation despite
the testimony of its Vice-Chairman and Director Willy Ocier that
FPres. Estrada brokered the sale through Jaime Dichaves in
consideration of a commission in the amount of 189.7M. Ocier
stated that after the purchase was concluded, the corporation
issued a check in the amount of 189.7M and delivered it to
Dichaves who in turn deposited the same in his account with Far
East Bank and Trust Co. After some inter-bank transactions, the
check finally landed in the account under the name ofJose Velarde
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
44/45
43
which turned out to be FPres. Estradas account upon his own
admission that he signed under said alias upon Dichaves behest.
ISSUE:
Are the above-named accused guilty of Plunder as charged?
RULING OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN:
The SANDIGANBAYAN held that the prosecution has proven
beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Plunder as follows:
a.) The principal accused, FPres. Estrada, at the time of thecommission of the acts charged in the Amended
Information was the President of the Republic of thePhilippines;
b.) He acted in connivance with then Governor Luis ChavitSingson, who was granted immunity from suit by theOffice of the Ombudsman, and with the participation ofother persons, in amassing ill-gotten wealth as follows:
i. by a series of acts for receiving bi-monthlycollections from jueteng, from November 1998-
August 2000 in the total amount of
P545,291,000.00, P200M of which was depositedin the ERAP Muslim Youth Foundation; and
ii. by a series consisting of two acts of ordering theGSIS and the SSS to purchase shares of stock of
Belle Corporation and receiving commission from
the sales in the amount of P189,700,000.00which was deposited in the Jose Velardeaccount.
-
7/28/2019 Important Decisions Thirty Year Cut Off
45/45
44
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond
reasonable doubt the misappropriation of the excise tax share of
Ilocos Sur as charged and likewise failed to offer evidence on the
alleged illegal sources of the numerous deposits in the Jose
Velarde account which belongs to FPres. Estrada, except for the
commission received from the sale of Belle shares and the money
collected from illegal gambling.
FPres. Joseph Estrada was found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of PLUNDER. Jinggoy Estrada and Edward Serapio are
ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty imposable is RECLUSION
PERPETUA and the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and
perpetual absolute disqualification. The SANDIGANBAYAN also
declared the forfeiture in favor of the government of the following:
a. the total amount of P545,291,000.00 with interestand income earned, inclusive of the amount ofP200M deposited in the name and account of theERAP Muslim Youth Foundation;
b. the amount of P189,700,000.00, inclusive of interestsand income earned, deposited in the Jose Velarde
account;c. the real property consisting of a house and lot
dubbed as Boracay Mansion located at #100 11th St.New Manila, Quezon City.