SC junks PCGG’s P51-B claims vs. Marcos, cronies’ ill-gotten wealth

  • The SC has junked the PCCG claims against the Marcos family and cronies
  • The ill-gotten wealth claim was worth P51-B in a case filed in 1987
  • Named respondents in the case are Imelda Marcos, Ongpin and several others

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has rejected the P51-B ill-gotten wealth claims by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) against the Marcos family and the late strongman’s cronies.

In a 28-page decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam, the High Court has affirmed an early decision by the Sandiganbayan in 2010 rejecting the PCGG claim against the Marcoses “for reconveyance, reversion, restitution and damages.”

“Juxtaposing the specific allegations in the complaint with the Republic’s documentary and testimonial evidence and as against the respondents’ documentary and testimonial evidence,” said the SC ruling.

“The Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan that the weight of evidence fails to preponderate in the Republic’s favor,” it added.

The case was filed by PCGG in July 1987 which accuses Marcos and his cronies of engaging in “schemes, devices or stratagems” to acquire ill-gotten wealth.

Imelda’s jewelry| Image capture from video by ABS-CBN news via You Tube

Named respondents in the complaint were former first lady Imelda Marcos; former businessman Rodolfo Cuenca and his son Roberto Cuenca; former Philippine National Bank (PNB) president Panfilo Domingo; former trade minister Roberto Ongpin; former Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) officer Don Ferry; and 11 other individuals.

In its decision, SC said that for it to determine the veracity of the PCGG’s main contention that it has established a prima facie case against respondents through its documentary and testimonial evidence, reassessment and reexamination of the evidence is necessary.

“Unfortunately, the limited and discretionary judicial review allowed under Rule 45 does not envision a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which respondent court’s action was predicated,” it added.