1. Republic v.

Sandiganbayan

TITLE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR

GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO, respondents
GR NUMBER G.R. No. 104768
DATE July 21, 2003
PONENTE CARPIO, J.:
NATURE/KEYWORDS Primacy of Human Rights and Enforcement; Interregnum
FACTS Immediately upon her assumption to office following the successful EDSA
Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1
(“EO No. 1”) creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(“PCGG”). EO No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten
wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family,
relatives, subordinates and close associates. Accordingly, the PCGG,
through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft
Board (“AFP Board”) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth
and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or
retired.

Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various reports of the
alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q.
Ramas (“Ramas”). Later, the AFP Board issued a Resolution on its findings
and recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of Ramas.

On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary raiding team served at Dimaano’s

residence a search warrant captioned “Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition.” The raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure
receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant. The
raiding team seized firearms, jewelry, and land titles.

Thus, on 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under
Republic Act No. 1379 (“RA No. 1379”) against Ramas. The complaint was
amended to include Elizabeth Dimaano, the alleged mistress of Ramas, as
a co-defendant.

The Amended Complaint further alleged that Ramas “acquired funds,

assets and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army
officer and his other income from legitimately acquired property by taking
undue advantage of his public office and/or using his power, authority and
influence as such officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and as a
subordinate and close associate of the deposed President Ferdinand
Marcos.” The Amended Complaint prayed for, among others, the forfeiture
of respondents’ properties, funds, and equipment in favor of the State.

Trial ensured. However, the Sandiganbayan subsequently dismissed the

complaint because there were an illegal search and seizure of the items
confiscated, among others.

Hence, this appeal.

Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team
conducted the search and seizure “on March 3, 1986, or five days after the
successful EDSA revolution.” Petitioner argues that a revolutionary
government was operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation No. 1
announcing that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel were “taking
power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people.” Petitioner asserts
that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the operation of the
1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’ exclusionary
right.

Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an

illegal search applies only beginning 2 February 1987, the date of
ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contends that all rights
under the Bill of Rights had already reverted to its embryonic stage at the
time of the search. Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies
and items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her
since, at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any
constitutional right.

ISSUE(S) Whether or not the respondents may invoke any exclusionary right under
 the Bill of Rights of 1973 Constitution?

RULING(S) No, they may not invoke any exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights of
The 1973 Constitution for the court held that it was not operative during
the interregnum. Because to hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973
Constitution remained operative during the interregnum would render void
all sequestration orders issued by the Philippine Commission on Good
Government (“PCGG”) before the adoption of the Freedom Constitution.
The sequestration orders, which direct the freezing and even the take-over
of private property by mere executive issuance without judicial action,
would violate the due process and search and seizure clauses of the Bill of
Rights.

In addition, 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 directives and orders. With the
abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was
no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary
government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any
exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a
constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum.

However, the court ruled that the protection accorded to individuals under
the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the
interregnum.

The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure

government, assumed responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance
with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of
the Covenant requires each signatory State “to respect and to ensure to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant.” Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant,
the revolutionary government had the duty to ensure that “no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,
home or correspondence.”

The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its

Article 17(2) that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally
binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the
Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law
and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government was also
obligated under international law to observe the rights of individuals under
the Declaration.