2/6/2021 OneNote

(27) Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

Thursday, February 4, 2021 3:57 PM

Facts:
• The Presidential Commission on Good Governance filed a case against a case against former
major-general Joseph Q. Rama and his alleged mistress Elizabeth Dimaano on violating the “Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) amended as “Forfeiture of unlawfully Acquired Property
(RA 1379).
• Because of the questionable properties owned by Gen. Ramas in Cebu and Quezon City, as well as
found jewelries, 2, 870,000 pesos and 50,000 USD in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano. Ramas a
former general of the late president Marcos was accused of having “ill-gotten wealth by the PCGG
which was the reason they filed a prima facie case. Dimaano wjo worked as an assistant to Gen.
Ramas on the years of 1987-1979 had no other source of income.
• The case was handled by Sandiganbayan which dismissed the case on the grounds of the
petitioners has no jurisdiction on the cases.
• The PCCG responsibilities according to Sec 2 of E.O.1 was first is the recovery of all ill-gotten
wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate fail, relatives,
subordinates and close associates, whether located in Philippines or abroad, including the
takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them,
during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public
office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connection or relationship.
• The second was the investigation of such case of graft and corruption as the President may assign
to the Commission from time to time.
• Basing from the responsibilities given to them, the petitioners were not assigned by the president
to handle Gen. Ramos. And Plaintiff as well failed to show that Gen. Ramas had a close association
with President Marcos. This is the reason that the PCGG had no jurisdiction to the case.
• Another reason why the Sandiganbayan diminished the case is because the petitioner’s illegal
search and seizure of the items collected that was presented as evidence. The Sandiganbayan
referred the records of the case to the Ombudsman who has primary jurisdiction to the “
Forfeiture of unlawfully Acquired Property (RA 1379), the case records is also referred to the
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of
Elizabeth Dimaano. The petitioner then raised the case on the Supreme Court and also questions
the decision of Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:
Wether or not the properties and other belongings confiscated in Dimaano’s house were illegally seized
which will consequently make it inadmissible?

1. What was the law/measure/act being challenged?

The law that was being measured was the illegal seizure of money and jewelries of Dimaano.

2. What was the law seeking to address ?

Whether or not the properties and other belongings confiscated in Dimaano’s house were illegally
seized which will consequently make it inadmissible?
3. What was the fundamental state power involved?
Police power was involved in this case because it talks about the seizure of Elizabeth Dimaano's
personal belongimgs.
4. Was there compliance with requisites of judicial review?
Yes, there is actual controversy in this case because the petitioner questions the decisions of
Sandiganbayan which calls for the exercise of judicial power. The petitioners has a locus standi in
the case because they are tasked to investigate and recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of
former President Marcos. The question of constitutionality was raised at the earliest opportunity
and thevery lis mota of the case. The main reason why Sandiganbayan ruled in favor of the
Dimaano it is because of the petitioners illegal search and seizure of the items collected as their
evidence.
5. What was the ruling of the court?
The petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court pointed out the illegal seizure of money and jewelries of
Dimaano, as used by plaintiff as one of their evidences. Capt. Rodlfo Sebastian, the head of the raiding
https://feueduph-my.sharepoint.com/personal/2020008181_feu_edu_ph/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc={cec8d525-0798-434e-ac19-07a8c38fafeb}&action=edit&… 1/2
2/6/2021 OneNote
team that searched the house of Dimaano admitted in the stand that they were just given a search
warrant to only confiscate firearms and not money and jewelries which was also used as evidence by
petitioners. The plaintiff deemed that the search on the house of Dimaano coincides with the 1973
Constitution. Supreme Court said that with people toppling the previous administration., they as well
toppled the ruling constitution. During these times the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is in
effect, for the reason the Philippines is one of the Covenant and Declaration. \

6. What was the constitutional law doctrine/principle involved?

"no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor is he to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his property.”

7.What do you think is the most important passage and why?

"no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor is he to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his property.” For
me it is same with the doctrine of the case because this phrase ensures Filipino citizen justice and
democracy that is promised by the Contitution.

8.Which modality of constitutional argumentation did the Justices use?

Textual argument were used by the Justices because they referred to the actual text 1973 Constitution.

https://feueduph-my.sharepoint.com/personal/2020008181_feu_edu_ph/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc={cec8d525-0798-434e-ac19-07a8c38fafeb}&action=edit&… 2/2