Republic of The Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan
Republic of The Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan
Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 104768 | 2003-07-21
Facts: Immediately upon her assumption to office following the successful EDSA Revolution,
then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 creating the Presidential
Commission on Good Government. 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.
The AFP Board investigated reports of unexplained wealth of Major General Ramas, the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army until 1986 (with the rank of Major General) and
filed a petition for forfeiture against him and his office clerk and alleged mistress, Elizabeth
Dimaano. During the trial, respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the PCGG
does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere
position held. Moreover, during the raid conducted on Dimaano’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.
Petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search applies only beginning
2 February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contends that all
rights under the Bill of Rights had already reverted to its embryonic stage at the time of the
search. Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and items taken from Dimaano and
use the same in evidence against her since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not
enjoy any constitutional right.
Issue: Whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained in effect during
the interregnum.
Ruling: Yes. 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.
Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the
Covenant and the Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973
Constitution. The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government,
assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the
Philippines is a signatory.
The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that
“no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Although the signatories to the
Declaration did not intend 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
and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under
international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.
The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the
interregnum. The Court considers the Declaration as part of customary international law, and that
Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down in the
Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the
Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the
revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance
with its treaty obligations under international law.
The search warrant issued during the interregnum was valid. However, the seizure of the items
not included in the warrant was void.