III. People Power Revolution: Republic v. Sandiganbayan A.

Comprehensive Digest FACTS: The AFP Anti-Graft Board (AFP Board, Petitioner) under the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG, Petitioner) investigated reports of alleged unexplained wealth of Major General Josephus Q. Ramas (Ramas, Respondent). Police officers, acting under the authority of the PCGG, conducted a raid on the house of Elizabeth Dimaano (Dimaano, Respondent), a confidential agent of the Military Security Unit and alleged of mistress of Ramas. On 3 March 1986, the raiding team served at Dimaanos residence a search warrant captioned Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. Dimaano was not present during the raid but Dimaanos cousins witnessed the raid. The raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant. The raiding team seized the following items: one baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol, caliber .45; communications equipment, cash consisting of Php2,870,000 and US$50,000, jewelry, and land titles. Of these items, the money, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles were not included in the warrant. The AFP Board then filed complaints against Ramas and Dimaano for alleged violations of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and RA 1379 (The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property). Respondents Ramas and Dimaano filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Citing Republic vs Migrino5, the respondents argued that the PCGG did not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held without showing that such officers were subordinates of former President Marcos. The Sandiganbayan granted respondents motion and dismissed the complaint on the following grounds: 1) The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan6 and Republic v. Migrino which involve the same issues. 2) No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases was conducted against Ramas and Dimaano. 3) The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case against him. 4) There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari asking the high court to set aside the resolution of the Sandiganbayan dismissing the complaint. ISSUES: a) W/N the PCGG had jurisdiction to investigate the respondents. b) W/N the Sandiganbayans dismissal of the case prior to the completion of the presentation of evidence was proper. c1) W/N the revolutionary government organized after the EDSA Revolution was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum.7 7 Following the EDSA Revolution and the departure of Marcos, a revolutionary government was established. The interregnum was the period from the take-over by the revolutionary government in defiance of the 1973 Constitution to the promulgation of the Freedom Constitution. In other words, the interregnum was the period when no Constitution was in effect.

Note: The Freedom Constitution is NOT the 1987 Constitution which is currently in effect. The Freedom Constitution came before the 1987 Constitution and was provisional. c2) W/N the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) remained in effect during the interregnum. c3) W/N the search and seizure conducted by police officers on Dimaanos residence was legal. RATIO: a) The PCGG, through the AFP Board, could only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Section 2 of EO No. 1. These are: (1) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of former President Marcos by being the latters immediate family, relative, subordinate or close associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers, influence x x x; or (2) AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns their cases to the PCGG. Ramas did not fall under either category.
7 Following the EDSA Revolution and the departure of Marcos, a revolutionary government was established. The interregnum was the period from the take-over by the revolutionary government in defiance of the 1973 Constitution to the promulgation of the Freedom Constitution. In other words, the interregnum was the period when no Constitution was in effect. Note: The Freedom Constitution is NOT the 1987 Constitution which is currently in effect. The Freedom Constitution came before the 1987 Constitution and was provisional.

First, Ramas was not a subordinate of former President Marcos in the sense contemplated under EO No. 1 and its amendments. Republic vs. Migrino held that mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a subordinate as this term is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed close association with former President Marcos. Second, Petitioner did not claim that the President assigned Ramas case to the PCGG. In sum, the PCGG had no jurisdiction over the Respondents. b) The failure to complete the presentation of evidence was due to Petitioners own fault. The case had been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it. Petitioner filed its amended complaint on 11 August 1987, and only began to present its evidence on 17 April 1989. Petitioner had almost two years to prepare its evidence. However, despite this sufficient time, petitioner still delayed the presentation of the rest of its evidence by filing numerous motions for postponements and extensions. Furthermore, the rulings in Migrino5 and Cruz6 are sufficient bases for the dismissal of the complaint. In sum, the Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the complaint. c1) The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in President Aquinos 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.

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. c2) The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed responsibility for the States good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant. Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that [n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. 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 States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. In sum, the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. However, the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. c3) The warrant for the search and seizure was issued by the authority of the Revolutionary government and was therefore valid. Consequently, the seizure of items specified in the warrant was also valid. However, the search and seizure of items not specified in the warrant was unlawful. While the Bill of Rights which protected citizens from unlawful seizures could not be invoked, similar rights guaranteed under the Covenant and Declaration remained in effect. Thus, the items illegally seized must be returned to the person from whom the raiding team seized them. RULING: a) The PCGG had no jurisdiction to investigate and cause the filing of a forfeiture petition against Ramas and Dimaano. b) The Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the case before the completion of the presentation of petitioners evidence. c1) The revolutionary government was established in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution. It was a de jure government4 and was not bound by a constitution or the Bill of Rights. c2) The revolutionary government was bound by the treaty obligations of the Philippines. Thus, the protection under the ICCPR and the UDHR remained in effect. c3) The search and seizure was legal with regard to the items specified in the warrant. On the other hand, the search of seizure of items not included in the warrant was illegal. B. Case Primer

Why was the PCGG established? The PCGGs task is to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. What is an interregnum? It is the period where no Constitution or fundamental law existed. As such, the Bill of Rights was not operative during the interregnum. When was the interregnum? February 26, 1986 - March 24, 1986 When was the effectivity of the Freedom Constitution? March 25, 1986 - February 10, 1987 When was the 1987 Constitution ratified? February 11, 1987 What was the relevant provision in the Bill of Rights which the petitioner argued was inoperative? The Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution requires the government to procure a search warrant before searching any property of an individual. Although the Constabulary secured a warrant, they seized items not included in the warrant and hence, petitioner argued that the search was nevertheless valid since the Bill of Rights was non-existent during that time. Despite the non-existence of the Bill of Rights, why did the court rule that the search was illegal? Although there was no fundamental law, the State still has to comply with its treaty obligations under the international law. The Philippines is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guaranty the life, liberty, and property of an individual. Recitation-Ready Digest Dimaanos house was searched by PCGG, yielding firearms (sequestration order) and money, and titles, jewelry (not covered). Allegedly illegal search. Republic contends that the Bill of Rights was not operative during interregnum (between overthrow of Marcos and enactment of 1987 Constitution). True, the 1973 Bill of Rights was inoperative (abrogated by the revolution, the whole legal order nullified) during the interregnum; no municipal law to govern revolutionary government. But the ICCPR and UDHR were effective. (1987 Constitution was prospective). The revolutionary succeeding government (Aquino) inherited the international obligations of the last regime. Interpreted as covered by incorporation clause. Items not covered by order must be returned. But sequestration was valid. Puno Dissent: the right against search and seizure existed during that time, based on natural law.8