Scribd
Upload
139 views18 pages

RP vs. Ramas

The Supreme Court ruled that while the 1973 Constitution was not in effect during the revolutionary period, the Philippines was still bound by its international treaty obligations, including respecting individuals' rights to privacy and property. As such, the search of Elizabeth Dimaano's home and seizure of her personal items without a valid warrant violated her natural and treaty-protected rights, even without a constitution in place. The Court upheld the return of the illegally seized items to Dimaano.

Uploaded by

Cyril Frias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
139 views18 pages

RP vs. Ramas

The Supreme Court ruled that while the 1973 Constitution was not in effect during the revolutionary period, the Philippines was still bound by its international treaty obligations, including respecting individuals' rights to privacy and property. As such, the search of Elizabeth Dimaano's home and seizure of her personal items without a valid warrant violated her natural and treaty-protected rights, even without a constitution in place. The Court upheld the return of the illegally seized items to Dimaano.

Uploaded by

Cyril Frias
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

Republic of the Philippines

(Petitioner) vs. Sandiganbayan,


Major General Josephus Ramas
and Elizabeth
Dimaano(Respondents)
July 21, 2003

By:
Jay Francis Nodado
Aldwin Leslie Muyuela
Ceridon Quilantang Jr.
OVERVIEW
• This case is a petition for review
on certiorari seeking to set aside the
Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan (First
Division) dated 18 November 1991 and 25
March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037.
• The first Resolution dismissed petitioner’s
Amended Complaint and ordered the return of
the confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth
Dimaano, while the second Resolution denied
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
FACTS
• After the EDSA Revolution, the newly appointed
President Cory Aquino issued Executive Order
No. 1 creating the Presidential Commission on
Good Governance (PCGG) tasked to recover all
“ill-gotten wealth” of former President
Ferdinand Marcos and all his associates .
• Accordingly in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) the AFP Anti-Graft Board was
created and tasked to investigate alleged
unexplained wealth and corruption of all AFP
Personnel both in active service or retired.
• One of the AFP Officers investigated for the
alleged unexplained wealth was the Respondent,
Major General Josephus Ramas.
• Evidences show that respondent is the owner of a
house and lot located in Quezon city with
estimated worth of 700,000 pesos and allegedly
owns another house and lot in Cebu City.
• The investigation revealed a lot more, so the
AFP board and the Philippine Constabulary
Command of Batangas conducted a raid on the
House of Elizabeth Dimaano, the mistress of
MGen. Ramas in Barangay Tengga, Itaas,
Batangas City in March 3, 1986.
• The following items were found and
confiscated in the premises of Respondent
Elizabeth Dimaano:
1. Several Military equipment and communication
devices not accessible for civilians if not given to
her by M.Gen Ramas, an officer of AFP.
2. Land titles and Jewelries that was owned by
Elizabeth Dimaano.
3. Money in the amount of ₱2,875,000 and
$50,000 (USD).
• 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 secretary, this makes it impossible
for her to claim that she owns ₱2,875,000 and
$50,000 along with the other items.
• The money was also not declared in the
Statement of Assets and Liabilities of the
respondents and there is an alleged cover-up for
the money is ill-gotten wealth.
• With the confiscated items, it presented a Prima
Facie case against the Respondents M.Gen Ramas
and Dimaano
• The PCGG then filed a petition in August 1987 under
Republic Act. No. 1379 “The Act for the Forfeiture of
Unlawfully Acquired Property” against the
Respondents M.Gen. Josephus Ramas and Elizabeth
Dimaano.
• However due to the repeated postponement of the
petitioner in the presentation of the evidences from
1988 to 1991, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case
on November 18, 1991 and allowed the return of the
items to Respondent Dimaano which brings this
petition for review on certiorari.
• Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in
declaring the properties confiscated from Dimaano’s
house as illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in
evidence adding that the Bill of Rights was not in effect
in 1986.
ISSUE

Was the search of Elizabeth


Dimaano’s home legal?
RULING
• The Petitioner asserts the following, to wit:
a. that the revolutionary government
effectively withheld the operation of the 1973
Constitution which guaranteed private
respondents’ exclusionary right;
b. that the exclusionary right arising from an
illegal search applies only beginning February
2, 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987
Constitution. That the government may
confiscate 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.
RULING
THE COURT RULED:
• No. The search of Elizabeth Dimaano’s home was
illegal.
• 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.
• “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.
RULING
• While it is true that the Bill of Rights under the 1973
Constitution was not operative during an interregnum
(any period during which a state has no ruler or only a
temporary executive) the country was still a signatory
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
• The revolutionary government did not repudiate the
Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it
repudiated the 1973 Constitution.
• As the new de jure government, the revolutionary
government could not escape responsibility for the
State’s good faith compliance with its treaty obligations
under international law.
• Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the
revolutionary government had the duty to
insure that no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation.
• The Declaration provides in its Article 17(2) that
no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
property.
• The Courts still recognize the validity of
customary International Laws and Principles,
thus the Revolutionary Government is obligated
to observe the rights of individuals under the
Declaration and Covenant.
• During the interregnum when no constitution or
Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders
issued by government officers were valid so
long as these officers did not exceed the
authority granted them by the revolutionary
government. The directives and orders should
not have also violated the Covenant or the
Declaration.
• The Search warrant, issued by a judge upon
proper application, specified the items to be
searched and seized.
• The warrant is thus valid with respect to the
items specifically described in the warrant.
• In the case, the warrant did not include the
monies, communications equipment, jewelries
and land titles that the raiding team confiscated.
• The raiding team had no legal basis to seize these
items without showing that these items could be
the subject of warrantless search and seizure
making it clear that the raiding team exceeded its
authority when it seized these items.
• Unless the items are proven to be contraband,
they must be returned to the person that it was
taken from as the search and seizure warrant
could not be used in withholding the items from
the possessor, Elizabeth Dimaano.
APPLICATION OF NATURAL LAW
Seperate Opinion of Justice Puno
“The ponencia suggests that the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights in particular, is the only source of
rights. Pushing the ponencia’s line of reasoning
to the extreme will result in the conclusion that
during the one month interregnum, the people
lost their constitutionally guaranteed rights to
life, liberty and property and the revolutionary
government was not bound by the strictures of
due process of law. Even before appealing to
history and philosophy, reason shouts
otherwise.”
• The right against unreasonable search and seizure
which private respondent Dimaano invokes is among
the rights fought for by the Filipinos in the 1986
EDSA Revolution.
• As a human being, she has a natural right to life,
liberty and property which she can exercise
regardless of existing or non-existing laws and
irrespective of the will or lack of will of governments.
• We invoke natural law because the history, tradition
and moral fiber of a people indubitably show
adherence to it as ultimately, in our political and legal
tradition, the people are the source of all
government authority, and the courts are their
creation.
• Considering that the right against
unreasonable search and seizure is a natural
right, the government (Petitioner) cannot
claim that private respondent Dimaano is not
entitled to the right for the reason alone that
there was no constitution granting the right at
the time the search was conducted.
• This right of the private respondent precedes
the constitution, and does not depend on
positive law as it is part of natural rights.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy