by MLC | Dec 20, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Czarina Nicole Ong
Source: Manila Bulletin
Why was former First Lady and incumbent Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Marcos absent during her graft promulgation before the Sandiganbayan last Friday?
Imelda Marcos (AFP / TED ALJIBE)
Marcos finally explained her absence in her motion for leave of court to avail of post conviction remedies, which was filed on November 12. In it, she apologized to the court for failing to appear last week, adding that it “was neither intentional nor meant to disrespect” the Sandiganbayan.
She explained that she suffers from multiple organ infirmities, and was “under strict orders from her physician to refrain from stressful conditions that will put her at risk for heart and brain attack, as well as recurrence of seizure.”
As for her counsel, Atty. Robert Sison, he was supposed to accompany her to court during promulgation. But last November 9, he was treated in the Asian Hospital in Muntinlupa due to high blood pressure and was advised to rest for three days.
Marcos even attached a letter from her doctor in the motion in order to prove her medical condition, while Sison provided a sworn statement and medical certificate from the hospital.
“Considering that the absence of the accused was due to a justifiable reason, she respectfully prays of this Honorable Court that her standing be restored and that she be given leave to avail of the remedies provided under the Rules of Criminal Procedure against her judgment of conviction,” her motion read.
Marcos added that she wants permission from the Sandiganbayan to question or challenge their “adverse,” and she hopes they would defer the issuance of the arrest warrant. She also wants the court to reinstate her bail or be allowed to post bail for her provisional liberty.
The hearing on her motion was held Friday morning before the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division.
Marcos was convicted last week of seven counts of graft and was sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six years and one month, as minimum, to 11 years, as maximum for each graft charge, with perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
Her graft charges, filed back in 1991, stemmed from her “direct and indirect financial or pecuniary interest” in the management of several non-government organizations created in Switzerland from 1968 to 1984.
She maintained accounts with the Swiss Bank Corporation for the said foundations “for the benefit of the accused and her late husband,” according to the charge sheets.
At the time, Marcos was minister of human settlement and environment management, Metro Manila governor, and a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
by MLC | Dec 19, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Czarina Nicole Ong
Source: Manila Bulletin
Former first lady and incumbent Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Marcos said she was watching television on November 9 when she learned about the guilty verdict the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division dealt on her seven graft charges.
Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Marcos arrives at the Sandiganbayan 5th Division for the hearing regarding her post conviction remedies. (Mark Balmores / MANILA BULLETIN)
“I was watching TV,” Marcos told the Sandiganbayan justices when she learned of the promulgation. “I called my legal officials,” she added, but “cannot get in touch.” Apparently, her lawyer Robert Sison had chest pains and a heart problem at the time.
In her motion for leave to file post-conviction remedies, Marcos also explained that she suffers from multiple organ infirmities, and was “under strict orders from her physician to refrain from stressful conditions that will put her at risk for heart and brain attack, as well as recurrence of seizure.”
Chairperson Rafael Lagos mentioned that she was even able to attend a party that afternoon, and Marcos quickly clarified that it took place in the evening.
That day, Marcos said she woke up late in the afternoon and attended a party in their house in San Juan to celebrate the birthday of her eldest daughter, Ilocos Norte governor Imee Marcos.
Marcos added that she actually had qualms about attending the party, but her daughter Imee called her and was “crying and begging” her to attend.
Lagos then asked Marcos what the true reason was for her absence – her sickness or the fact that she was not notified about the promulgation. After repeating the question several times, Marcos finally answered, “I did not really know.”
“If I knew about it, your Honor, I would have been here right away. Even if I was sick, I would have come here,” she said.
For now, the anti-graft court allowed Marcos to post P150,000 bail while they are resolving her motion. She is to remain within the premises of the Sandiganbayan the entire time.
Meanwhile, Marcos family supporters and protesters have flocked the gates of the Sandiganbayan while the motion is being heard. The National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL), for one, said in a statement that Marcos’ supposed arrest was “too good and beautiful to be true.”
“So after 27 long agonizing years, the Filipino people are again made to wait for the reckoning. Meantime, Imelda can go on partying the nights away, run for elections together with her forgetful eldest daughter, and wait for his son, the dictator’s namesake, to become president,” the statement read. “Because some are more powerful than others.”
On the other hand, Beth Lopez De Leon from the pro-Marcos group maintained the innocence of the Marcos family, given what they have done for the country. “Kami po ay naniniwala sa mga Marcoses, sa mga ginawa nila sa bayan (We believe in the Marcoses and in what they have done for the nation),” she said.
Last Friday, Marcos was found guilty of seven counts of graft due to her financial interests in several foundations created in Switzerland during the Marcos administration. She was acquitted in three other graft charges involving local corporations due to insufficiency of evidence against her.
Marcos, 89, is the wife of the late president Ferdinand Marcos and the mother of Ilocos Norte governor Imee Marcos and former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. The two of them were with their mother during the hearing.
She was also escorted by her grandsons, fashion model Borgy Manotoc, lawyer Mike Manotoc, and Luis Araneta.
by MLC | Dec 18, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Ben Rosario
Source: Manila Bulletin
The Sandiganbayan came under fire Friday as opposition lawmakers slammed its decision to grant bail on convicted former first lady and Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos.
(EPA / MANILA BULLETIN)
In separate press statements, critics in the House of Representatives chided the anti-graft court’s ruling as a glaring evidence of “double standard” of justice in the country.
“Very double standard! Very shameful of the high magistrates of the Sandiganbayan bowing down to the high and mighty Marcoses for the whole world to see,” said Anakpawis Rep. Ariel Casilao.
Rep. Edcel Lagman (LP, Albay) said the grant of the post-conviction bail to Marcos “does not liberate her as a prisoner of her own conscience.”
“No conscience is so callous as not to be afflicted by guilt and remorse,” stated Lagman.
Akbayan Rep.Tom Villarin noted that Marcos “is having the best of all worlds” as she partied while the decision of her conviction on seven counts of graft was being read by the anti-graft court.
Now, the former first lady is citing her advanced age and health conditions to evade the long prison term that the Sandiganbayan imposed on her.
“Imelda Marcos is having the best of all worlds partying with gusto, rubbing elbows with the high and mighty, and now running as governor that is a 24/7 job and would likely result to her immediate death. So why allow her to bail and engage in such a strenuous work in politics,?” asked Villarin.
Former Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares said the grant of bail “would mean that justice would against have to wait.”
“This also shows the seeming double standard in the Philippine justice system,” he stated.
The Sandiganbayan has granted a P150,000 cash bond bail for Marcos as her lawyers asked for leniency while they prepared their appeal for a reversal of the anti-graft court’s ruling.
by MLC | Dec 17, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: ATTY. MEL STA. MARIA
Source: Manila Bulletin
What are the salient points of the recent Imelda Marcos conviction by the Sandiganbayan?
First. Imelda Marcos was convicted of Section 3 (h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act making it unlawful for a public official to “directly or indirectly have financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction in connection with which he (she) intervenes or takes part in his (her) official capacity, or in which he (she) is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.” To convict, proof beyond reasonable doubt was required. That means moral certainty, not absolute certainty, that the accused feloniously committed the crime. That was achieved.
Second. Approximately US$200,000,000 were involved in the seven private foundations of the Marcoses in Switzerland despite their salary only estimated as not even reaching US$1,000,000. Imelda Marcos was, at that time, minister of human settlements and member of the Batasan Pambansa. The positions were full-time government jobs. No strong countervailing evidence was effectively presented to debunk such proven facts despite chances for Imelda Marcos to present witnesses for such purpose.
Third. The “trier of facts” was a collegiate body of three justices of the Sandiganbayan’s fifth division. Their determination was unanimous. At this point, only a stretching of the imagination can say that these three magistrates — trained in the appreciation of evidence and with lengthy experience in deciding criminal cases — can be so negligent or, borrowing the words of the Supreme Court in abuse-of discretion-cases, acted “whimsically or arbitrarily in a manner so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.” Neither can they be accused of partisanship considering the patience they showed and the opportunities they gave to Imelda Marcos to present witnesses for her defense.
Fourth. It is quite revealing that, at the very end, Imelda Marcos seems to take the case nonchalantly. Neither she nor her lawyers attended the decision’s promulgation. While the accused may be excused due to very meritorious reasons, such as being ill-disposed, the lawyers must at least be present. The Sandiganbayan’s order of arrest could have been prevented had the lawyers, in open court, requested the availment of her exising bail for her provisional liberty during the motion for reconsideration or appeal. It is interesting to see the explanation on their absence. At any rate, bail will most likely be granted.
Fifth. In the event that the case is appealed, the Supreme Court cannot entertain new evidence. The limit of its review is to examine only the proofs deliberated upon by the “trier of facts.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court is duty-bound to give the greatest weight to the Sandiganbayan’s factual findings.
But all those who rejoice in the Sandiganbayan’s decision must manage their expectations. The Supreme Court has lately favored the family of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in their decisions: the grant of the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, the exoneration of Imelda Marcos in the LRT-PGH graft and dollar-salting charges, and the dismissal of the Imee Marcos case involving the damages sought against her concerning the death of Archimedes Trajano.
Many ask: would the final outcome be any different in this latest Imelda Marcos conviction? Will a majority of the members of the Supreme Court again save her from this ignominy which, to many, is so deserving? Will Associate Justice Marvin Leonen’s eye-opening observation in his dissent in the Enrile bail case once again come to fore that, in our justice system, “there are just some among us who are elite” and “who are powerful and networked to enjoy privileges not shared by all”? Let us hold our breath.
But there is one surprising revelation emerging. We are now witnessing the courage of the courts to decide against those who are considered as powerful and close to the “powers that be.”
And there is a greater revelation. Judicial independence is now perceived by many, not as emanating from majority of the Supreme Court justices but, astoundingly, as coming from the lower court judges. We have seen this first in Judge Andres Soriano of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 148 who rendered ineffective President Duterte’s arrest-order against Senator Trillanes. Now, it’s Sandiganbayan Associate Justices Rafael Lagos, Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega, and Maryan Corpus-Mañalac.
Truly, this emerging exhibition of judicial courage exponentially elevates the significance of Imelda Marcos’ conviction to an institutional level. Hopefully it continues.
by MLC | Dec 16, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Martin Sadongdong
Source: Manila Bulletin
The Philippine National Police (PNP) has remained firm in its stand not to apprehend former First Lady and incumbent Ilocos Norte second district Representative Imelda Marcos without a warrant of arrest.
Ilocos Rep. Imelda Marcos approaches the witness stand during a hearing at the Sandiganbayan 5th Division in Quezon City, November 16, 2018. (Mark Balmores / MANILA BULLETIN)
Chief Superintendent Benigno Durana Jr., PNP spokesperson, said an arrest warrant has yet to be issued by the concerned court pertaining to the conviction of Marcos. Besides, he added that Marcos has already posted a P150,000-bail for her temporary liberty.
“Nag-post na siya ng bail (She already posted a bail). We cannot just… we were criticized initially why we’re not arresting Representative Marcos. We cannot do that because wala po kaming (we don’t have a) warrant of arrest. We would violate the rights of the convicted person if we arrest her without a warrant,” Durana said.
Marcos, 89, was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan last November 9 of seven counts of graft for illegally funneling $200 million to Swiss foundations while serving as a government official from 1968 to 1986.
However, Durana explained that the anti-graft court’s decision was not yet final and executor, and Marcos can still avail herself of legal remedies.
“Even the Sandiganbayan communicated to the public, the media, that there are still legal recourses open to Representative Marcos. First, post bail, second is file a motion for reconsideration up to the Supreme Court,” Durana noted.
“The decision is not yet final and executory so bakit kami magmadali (why should we hurry) that even the court handling that is telling us it’s not yet final and executory because there are still legal recourses?” he asked.
The PNP spokesperson also asked for public understanding since they cannot act based only on the critics’ clamor to arrest Marcos, explaining that there are laws that should be followed before effecting an arrest.
“Ang trabaho namin (Our job) is damn if you do, damn if you don’t. We are respecting the rights of convicted person to legal recourse by not arresting kasi wala namang (because there is no) warrant of arrest,” he reiterated.
PNP chief, Director General Oscar Albayalde previously instructed the Criminal Invetigation and Detection Group (CIDG) to implement the arrest warrant in case the Sandiganbayan issues one against Marcos.
He also said that the age and health of Marcos would be considered once she gets arrested.
by MLC | Dec 15, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Pathricia Ann V. Roxas
Source: Inquirer.net
Bayan Muna Partylist Representative Carlos Zarate (CDN PHOTO/CHOY ROMANO)
Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate on Thursday lambasted Ilocos Norte 2nd Dist. Rep. Imelda Marcos over her “indisposed” and “multiple organ infirmities” alibi to justify her absence at the Sandiganbayan’s promulgation of her graft cases.
Zarate was apparently not buying the excuse of the late dictator’s widow, who even partied on the night she was convicted on seven counts of graft.
“What indisposed? She PARTIED with gusto all night the same day she was convicted by the Sandiganbayan,” Zarate pointed out.
“She must be suffering from multiple moral and honesty infirmities rather than the contrived ‘multiple organ infirmities’ cited in her Motion,” he added.
The convicted 89-year-old former First Lady attended her daughter Imee’s birthday bash last November 9. The party was also graced by House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, Solicitor General Jose Calida, former Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile, and Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio.
Earlier that day, the anti-graft court found the widow of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos guilty for violating Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The Sandiganbayan ruled on seven cases concerning Swiss accounts where around $200 million were channeled by Mrs. Marcos, as she held various positions in government during the late dictator’s reign.
Mrs. Marcos, who has been known to own 3,000 pairs of luxurious shoes, was sentenced to imprisonment of six years up to 11 years for each count of graft.
