REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR -GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS AND ELIZABETH DIMAANO 407 SCRA 10 July 21, 2003 Petitioner: RP Respondent: Sandiganbayan, et al. Ponente: J. Carpio Nature of Action: Petition for review on certiorari FACTS:
The PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government) created an AFP Anti-Graft Board tasked to scrutinize the reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by any AFP personnel (active or retired). The AFP A FP Board investigated various reports of alleged “ill-gotten “ill-gotten”” wealth of respondent Maj. Gen. Josephus Ramas. Along with this, the Constabulary raiding team served a search and seizure warrant on the premises of Ramas’ Ramas ’ alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano. The Board then concluded that Ramas be prosecuted for violating the “Anti-Graft “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)” 3019)” and “Forfeiture of unlawfully Acquired Property (RA Property (RA 1379)”. 1379)”. Thereafter, they filed a petition for forfeiture against him before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on several grounds one of which is that there was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the PCGG has the authority to investigate Ramas and Dimaano 2. Whether or not the properties and other belongings confiscated in Dimaano’s house were illegally seized which will consequently make it inad missible HELD: The petition was dismissed. Even in the absence of a Constitution, the right against unlawful seizure can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, even during the interregnum, the Filipino Filipino people under the Covenant and Declaration continued to enjoy almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. As stated in Article Article 2(1) of the Convenant, the State is required “to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” Further, under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that “[n]o one else shall shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”
The Declaration also provides also provides in its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” The Court has taken into consideration the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Hence, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration, because it didn’ didn’t repudiated either the Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum.
Footnotes: (1) REPUBLIC ACT No. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT) Section 1. Statement of policy. It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto. (2) REPUBLIC ACT No. 1379 (AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE.) Section 1. Definitions. (a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public officer or employee" means any person holding any public office or employment by virtue of an appointment, election or contract, and any person holding any office or employment, by appointment or contract, in any State owned or controlled corporation or enterprise. (3) E.O. # 14 Sec. 3. The civil suits to recover unlawfully acquired property under Republic Act No. 1379 or for restitution, reparation of damages, or indemnification for consequential and other damages or any other civil actions under the Civil Code or other existing laws filed with the Sandiganbayan against Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, members of their immediate family, close relatives, subordinates, close and/or business associates, dummies, agents and nominees, may proceed independently of any criminal proceedings and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence (4) Art. 2(1) of the Covenant – “to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” (5) Art. 17(1) of the Declaration –“ to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the right recognized in the present Covenant.”
