Ligot vs.

Republic

Doctrine: Under Section 10 of RA No. 9160, as amended by RA No. 9194, the two
requisites for the issuance of a freeze order are: (1) Application ex parte made by AMLC
and (2) the existence of probable cause determine by the CA

Facts: Gen. Ligot together with his wife and four children was revealed to have other
properties and bank account which the Ombudsman who held the investigation to be
named after each of them individually. The Ombudsman further declared that the assets
were obtained unlawfully and came from unaccounted riches taking into account Lt.
General’s AFP pay served as his primary source of income; the Ombudsman came to the
conclusion that Yambao functioned as a dummy and/or nominee of the spouses and that all
the properties under Yamboa's name are held by the Ligot. He also looked into the brother
of Mrs. Ligot, Yambao, who claimed three addresses of the Ligots as his. Once the court
determined that Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family had engaged in illegal activity and/or money
laundering, it issued a freeze order against Ligot's and Yambao's bank accounts.
Thereafter, The Republic, represented by AMLC, filed an urgent Ex-Parte Application for the
issuance of a freeze order against the petitioner's properties and financial instruments
before CA, which was granted. Until the conclusion of the investigation and/or the
necessary processes, Republic's urgent motion for an extension of the freeze order's
effectiveness was granted. Ligots requested the lifting of the prolonged freezing order, but
his request was denied. He then requested a review, which was also denied.

Issue: Whether or not the CA committed a serious abuse of discretion by extending the
freezing order against him and his family given that the money laundering accusation has
not yet been proven.

Ruling: Yes. The court discussed how the CA imposed the freeze order as an extraordinary
and interim measure to prevent the property's disposal. The Republic violated the freeze
order by failing to file a civil forfeiture lawsuit in court for six years, but the court emphasizes
that the freeze order only has a temporary impact and can be extended for up to six
months. The court cited section 10 of RA No. 9160, as amended by. RA No. 9194 which
states that, freezing of monetary instrument or property can be made by the CA upon the
application ex parte of AMLC and following the determination of the existence of probable
cause that any of the monetary instrument or property is, in any way, related to an illegal
activity, which can be effective immediately for the period of 20 days, which can be
extended upon the motion of the court. Thus, the court mandated that the freeze order
issued by the CA be lifted.