Ligot v.

Republic
G.R. No. 176944 March 06, 2013

Facts:

This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by retired Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot and
his family against the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC). On June 27, 2005, the Republic filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Application for a freeze
order against the petitioners' properties based on a recommendation from the Office of the
Ombudsman. The Ombudsman had filed a complaint against the Ligots for perjury and violations
of various laws, alleging that they had undeclared assets amounting to at least P54,001,217.00.
The Court of Appeals (CA) granted the application and issued a freeze order against the Ligots'
properties. The Republic later filed a motion to extend the freeze order, which was granted by the
CA. The Ligots filed a motion to lift the extended freeze order, but it was denied by the CA.

Issue:

The main issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals (CA) acted with grave abuse of
discretion when it issued a resolution extending the freeze order on the Ligots' properties for an
indefinite period of time.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled in favor of the Ligots and found merit in their petition. The SC
noted that the proper remedy to challenge the CA's resolution was a petition for review on
certiorari, not a petition for certiorari. However, the SC considered the issue of due process raised
by the Ligots. The SC held that the freeze order violated the Ligots' right to due process as it was
extended without sufficient evidence of a predicate crime and beyond the 6-month limit provided
by the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases.

Ratio:

The SC explained that the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases and the Anti-Money Laundering Act of
2001 (RA No. 9160) apply to the present case. The SC emphasized the conflict between the
limiting provision of the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases and the broad judicial discretion under RA
No. 9160, which raised issues of due process. The SC ruled that probable cause exists to support
the issuance of a freeze order, but the focus of the determination of probable cause for a freeze
order is different from that of a criminal action. The SC held that the freeze order should be limited
to a period not exceeding six months, and any further extension should be justified by the
government.

Summary:

In summary, the SC lifted the extended freeze order on the Ligots' properties, ruling that the
government's failure to file the forfeiture case within a reasonable period violated their right to due
process. The SC emphasized the need to balance the State's interest in curbing criminality with an
individual's right to due process. The SC also clarified that its decision only applies to the CA
ruling and does not affect the pending civil forfeiture cases in the lower courts.