Republic vs Sandiganbayan Carpio Facts: Petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan

dated November 18, 1991 and March 25, 1992. The first resolution ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, while second petition denied the motion for reconsideration. Pres. Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 creating the Presidential Commission on Good Governance or PCGG. Its task is to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the former Pres. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives and sub-ordinates.

o o

EO 1 vested the PCGG with the following powers To conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish and carry out the purpose of this order To promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the order. The PCGG with the leadership of Jovito Salonga created the Anti-Graft Board tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel, whether in the active service or not. Based on the findings, Major Gen. Josephus Q Ramas are alleged to have unexplained wealth including a house an lot in La Vista Quezon City, in Cebu and another property amounting to P700,000.00 in Quezon City. Found on the house of Elizabeth Dimaano mistress of petitioner. Communication equipments Money amounting to 2.870 Million Pesos and 50,000 US Dollars Because of this Ramas was already prosecuted in the Sandiganbayan. Although during numerous hearings petitioner delayed the case because of numerous postponements due to inability to present evidence, therefore on Novmber 18, 1991 Sandiganbayan dismissed the case. Thus this case: Issue: W/N PCGG has jurisdiction over the case W/N Sandiganbayan erred in concluding that petitioners cannot make a case for forfeiture and that the evidenced are considered illegally seized and therefore should be returned. Held:

o o

The PCGG has no jurisdiction since the PCGG through the AFP board can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel in either two scenarios: 1. AFP personnel accumulated ill gotten wealth during the administration of Marcos and 2. AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the president assigns their case to the PCGG. Neither in this two categories does Ramas falls. Since there should be a prima facie evidence that respondent unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his closeness with the former president.

The rightful agency should have been the ombudsman while to file the corresponding forfeiture rests on the Solicitor General.

On the seizure of evidence, the petitioners states that during the time the seizure was held it was during the revolutionary government where the 1973 constitution is inoperative-absence of exclusionary rights. Thats why some items were confiscated even if not in the search warrant.

The court partly agrees with the petitioners argument, the court agrees that during the interregnum the 1973 Constitution (Bill of Rights was ineffective. Also during the amendment of the constitution via the constitutional commission the framers exempt sequestration orders from the bill of rights.

But even if thats the case the interregnum government is still subject under the international law specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Take Note: 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 directive and orders. Thus no person can invoke the bill of rights. Rule: The seizure of the items was void and items must be returned. Case is dismissed