by MLC | Dec 14, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Vince F. Nonato
Source: Inquirer.net
Former first lady Imelda Marcos, who has been sentenced to 77 years in prison, claims she is suffering from “multiple organ infirmities” in her explanation of her absence from the Sandiganbayan’s promulgation of her graft conviction on Nov. 9.
Her “motion for leave of court to avail [herself] of postconviction remedies” that she submitted on Monday did not mention her attendance at the birthday party of her daughter Imee hours after she skipped the court hearing.
Instead, the four-page motion—which was shown to journalists only on Thursday—stated that Marcos was “under strict orders from her physician to refrain from stressful conditions that will put her at risk of heart and brain attack and recurrence of seizure.”
“The failure to appear was neither intentional nor meant to disrespect this Honorable Court but was solely because she was indisposed,” said the motion filed by her new lawyers led by a former government corporate counsel, Manuel Lazaro.
Seven ailments
The motion itself did not enumerate what those ailments were, but Marcos presented a medical certification by her lead doctor, neurologist Joven Cuanang of St. Luke’s Medical Center in Quezon City.
Cuanang listed seven ailments: Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, static ministrokes, moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss, chronic recurrent urinary tract infection, chronic recurrent gastritis and multiple colon polyps, and recurrent respiratory tract infection.
Despite her ailments, Marcos is running for governor of Ilocos Norte, a post currently held by her daughter Imee Marcos, who is seeking a Senate seat in midterm elections next year.
Lawyer’s hypertension
The same motion stated that Marcos’ longtime lawyer, Robert A.C. Sison, could not attend the hearing because he was treated for high blood pressure at Asian Hospital in Muntinlupa City.
Sison was supposedly advised to rest for three days. He submitted a sworn affidavit and a medical certificate, too.
Marcos’ motion for leave of court is an option under Rule 120 of the Rules of Court for defendants who miss their promulgation “without justifiable cause.”
It is a chance for her to justify her absence so she could get the court’s consent to pursue her appeal, seek the deferment of her arrest and apply for postconviction bail to remain free while the verdict is not yet final.
The court’s Fifth Division ordered the issuance of an arrest warrant on Nov. 9, when it promulgated Marcos’ conviction.
But the court deferred the release of the warrant, opting to hold a hearing first on Marcos’ motion on Nov. 16.
Pictures of partying
The absence of the 89-year-old widow of dictator Ferdinand Marcos was controversial, as CNN Philippines published pictures of her partying with President Duterte’s daughter, Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte, and other government officials.
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan secretary general Renato Reyes said in a statement: “How can Imelda Marcos claim she was unable to attend the promulgation of the verdict due to multiple organ infirmities when she was photographed at an evening party on the same day? The reasoning is an insult to Filipinos.”
Marcos was charged with violating Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for her involvement in transactions prohibited by the 1973 Constitution.
The Swiss foundations covered by these cases were allegedly used to maintain bank accounts containing more than $200 million for the benefit of the Marcos family. The cases also involve Asian Reliability Company Inc., a local company.
The court said the transactions were illegal because she was serving as a member of the Batasang Pambansa representing Metro Manila from 1978 to 1984, and as the minister of human settlements and concurrent Metro Manila governor from June 1976 to February 1986.
Under Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution, members of the Batasang Pambansa are prohibited from having direct or indirect interest in transactions involving the government.
by MLC | Dec 13, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Gabriel Pabico Lalu
Source: Inquirer.net
This file photo taken on May 5, 2016 shows Philippines’ former first lady Imelda Marcos waving to the crowd as she arrives for her son vice-presidential candidate Ferdinand Marcos Jnr’s “miting-de-avance” in Manila. – Imelda Marcos was found guilty of corruption on November 9, 2018 and ordered arrested in a rare conviction for the former Philippine first lady accused with her late dictator husband of embezzling billions of dollars from state coffers. (Photo by Ted ALJIBE / AFP)
The Sandiganbayan on Friday allowed former First Lady Imelda Marcos to post P150,000-bail and enjoy temporary liberty while the court decides on her motion for leave despite the anti-graft court’s decision convicting her on seven cases of graft.
The sum of bail bond was the same amount Mrs. Marcos originally posted in 1991, but was forfeited upon her conviction last Nov. 9.
While the anti-graft court resolves her motion for leave, the widow of the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos was ordered to stay inside the premises of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division’s court room.
On Monday, Mrs. Marcos filed a motion for leave to avail of post-conviction remedies. She also cited in that motion that she was unable to attend the November 9-promulgation hearing because she was “indisposed” and has “multiple organ infirmities.”
But Mrs. Marcos attended the birthday party of her daughter Imee hours after the anti-graft court handed down its ruling.
Mrs. Marcos was found guilty for seven counts of graft in connection with the transfer of around $200 million to Swiss foundations, which she created with her husband and had their children among its beneficiaries.
The 89-year-old Mrs. Marcos held several government positions – Metro Manila governor, Batasang Pambansa member, and Human Settlements minister – during the regime of her husband. /kga
by MLC | Dec 12, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Source: Inquirer.net
Why did it take all of 27 years? Why was she not jailed after being convicted? Why was she granted bail? Why was her ill-gotten wealth not forfeited? Why was she convicted only of graft? Why not of plunder, a nonbailable offense, given the enormous amounts involved?
Let me answer these questions befuddling readers.
Of the 10 cases lodged against Imelda, five were filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on Dec. 16, 1991, one on Dec. 21, 1993, and four on Aug. 17, 1995. Because of their different dates of filing, they were raffled to different divisions of the Sandiganbayan. But because they all alleged the use by Imelda and her husband, former president Ferdinand Marcos, of various Swiss foundations to hide their wealth, the 10 cases were later consolidated in the Fifth Division, which eventually decided them.
Apart from the consolidation, the other causes of delay are the (1) inhibitions of the former ponentes, (2) midstream amendments of the charges, (3) various motions to quash filed by the accused (which reached, and had to be decided first by, the Supreme Court), (4) reinvestigation of the charges by the Ombudsman, (5) many postponements asked by both the prosecution and the defense, etc. All told, it was only on Aug. 29, 2017, and Sept. 19, 2017, that the prosecution and the defense respectively submitted their memoranda.
Justice Maryann E. Corpus-Mañalac, the ponente or writer of the decision, was appointed to the Anti-Graft Court only on Dec. 8, 2017. Clearly, she can’t be blamed for the delay. After the 10 cases were assigned to her, she immediately buckled down to work. Not having heard the witnesses personally during the trial, she had to peruse minutely the gargantuan 5-foot-thick court records.
That she carefully read the voluminous transcripts of stenographic notes and the 10 thick folders of exhibits, many of which came from Switzerland, is clearly evident from her detailed accounts of the testimonies of former prime minister Cesar Virata, former Central Bank governor Jaime Laya, former solicitor general Frank Chavez, former ambassador Luis Ascalon and many other witnesses.
Indeed, Justice Mañalac should be praised, not criticized, for diligently writing the 70-page, single-spaced decision that is authoritatively buttressed by 226 footnotes. With unassailable logic, she patiently traversed each element of the 10 offenses, seamlessly leading to Imelda’s conviction in seven and acquittal in three.
Imelda was convicted of violating the Anti-Graft Law (RA 3019) in relation to the 1973 Constitution. She could not have been charged with and convicted of plunder because her offenses were committed during the reign of (and ironically, under the Constitution imposed by) her husband. The Anti-Plunder Law was enacted after Marcos was ousted.
The judgment did not order the forfeiture of the assets and bank accounts of her Swiss foundations amounting to millions of US dollars because separate civil suits were instituted to recover them. But, aside from sentencing her to prison, it perpetually disqualified her from holding any public office.
Of course, the judgment cannot be enforced until it becomes final. Such finality cannot be attained unless her motion for reconsideration is denied; and, if she thereafter appeals, unless the Supreme Court affirms her conviction.
Not having been charged with capital offenses, Imelda was granted bail during the pendency of the 10 cases. But because she was absent during the promulgation of the judgment, her original bail bond of P150,000 was forfeited and an order of arrest, dated Nov. 9, 2018, issued against her.
A week later, on Nov. 16, she was directed to post a new bail bond of P150,000, which she posted on the same day. For this reason, the chairman of the Fifth Division, Justice Rafael R. Lagos, forthwith ordered her release.
Strange is her immediate release, because the order was signed solely by Lagos (the two Division members, Maria Theresa V. Mendoza-Arcega and Mañalac did not sign), and because her “Motion for Leave of Court to Avail of Post-Conviction Remedies” had not yet been ruled upon. Strange also why the prosecution did not object to, and meekly accepted, the grant of bail.
by MLC | Dec 11, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
Source: The Daily Guardian
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt…” said the 5th Division of the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan.
The court convicted the other half of the conjugal dictatorship, Imelda Romualdez Marcos guilty of seven counts of graft late last week. Finally, the long arms of the law have caught up with the partner in crime of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
Finding Imelda Marcos guilty of graft beyond reasonable doubt is a historic moment for the Filipino people who are losing hope of finding justice to the massive theft of public funds during the reign of greed of the Marcos family. The cases were filed in 1991 and it took twenty-seven years, almost three decades for the cases to be resolved. This is justice in the Philippines!
Contrast Imelda Marcos’ case with that of former South Korean President Park Geun-hye.
She was ousted from office in June 2017 and April 2018 was found guilty of corruption and abuse of power. Park was sentenced to twenty-years in prison. It only took South Korea less than a year to convict a former president.
Nevertheless, Filipinos can truly rejoice and celebrate that finally Imelda Marcos is convicted of graft. The court sentenced her to prison for six years and one month to eleven years in each case. In total, Imelda Marcos gets seventy-seven years jail time.
The court found Imelda Marcos guilty in seven of the ten cases filed against her. The cases involved seven Swiss foundations established by Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos to illegally stash at least US$200 million.
This was the modus of the corrupt couple. They funnel stolen money from the Philippines to a foundation in Switzerland, close it then transfer the amount to another foundation. They will again the close foundation where the money is moved and transfer it to another foundation. The money end in their secret Swiss bank accounts.
Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos used fictitious names when they created the seven foundations. Imelda Marcos was Jane Ryan and Ferdinand Marcos used the alias William Sanders. The foundations were the conduits of the Marcoses to move and hide the hundreds of millions of dollars they have stolen from the Filipino people.
The stolen money of the Imelda and Ferdinand discovered in several Swiss accounts were declared ill-gotten by the Supreme Court (when it had decent justices) in July 2003. The Court ruled that the total legal income of the Marcos couple from1966 to 1986 was around $304,000. The $683 million in their Swiss accounts was stolen money the Court said. The money was returned to the Philippines by the Swiss government.
Imelda Marcos’ conviction of graft by the Sandiganbayan is the latest evidence that the Marcoses are thieves. For years the Marcoses are peddling outright lies that they never robbed the Filipino people. Their paid trolls in social media usually challenge the allegations by asking, where is the conviction against the Marcoses? The Sandiganbayan decision punctured the lies of the Marcoses and exposed their deceit.
This is not the first time the Marcoses are found guilty of ill-gotten wealth. In 2014, Singapore’s Court of Appeals ruled that the $ 23 million Marcos money hidden in the city-state is ill-gotten and ordered the money returned to the Philippines. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court in 1997 issued a decision returning $683 million of Marcos stolen money to the Philippines. These cases blasted the claim the of Marcoses that they are not a family of thieves.
While the conviction of Imelda Marcos was universally hailed both here and abroad (it made front pages in newspapers worldwide), social media was ablaze with how she will escape punishment for her crime. It is generally agreed that Imelda Marcos will never see jail and this reflects the sorry state of justice in the country.
Netizens point out that Du30 is a “muchacho” of the Marcoses. He will see to it that his patroness will not serve her jail term and will play around with the loopholes of the legal system to prevent justice from being served to Imelda Marcos. Du30 can always grant her pardon if her case is decided with finality within his term.
The harshest reaction is on the question what happens when the case is elevated to the Supreme Court (lawyers of Imelda Marcos said they will appeal the decision all the way to the High Court). There is a public consensus that the Supreme Court will reverse the decision and acquit Imelda Marcos. (Recall the unjust and detestable Enrile ruling.)
It is widely believed that majority of the Supreme Court justices who are servants of Mammon instead of Lady Justice will do their trick again, conjuring the most absurd, ghastly, stupid and silly reason to absolve Imelda Marcos. Right now, they are even drafting the ruling how Imelda Marcos can escape and give a finger to justice.
That Filipinos are resigned to the conclusion that the present Supreme Court, packed with fanatics of Du30 will side with Imelda Marcos indicates how low the people regard the institution. People have lost their faith in the High Court as a citadel of justice.
Filipinos look at the current Court as the stooge of the high and mighty, the refuge of the corrupt and morally bankrupt, an institution devoid of credibility and integrity. That the High Tribunal is viewed as protector of criminals and scum bugs should make the justices cringed and ashamed of themselves. But delicadeza – the sense of shame and propriety, is dead in the highest court of the land.
Supreme Court and Du30 notwithstanding, the guilty verdict is a tremendous moral and legal victory for the Filipino people. The conviction of Imelda Marcos of graft will make it more difficult and hard for the Marcoses to revise history. The ruling of the Sandiganbayan is the best antidote to the fake news the army of trolls the Marcoses are using to cover up their crimes and deceive people. They are thieves, period!
by MLC | Dec 10, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
Source: Boston 25 News
MANILA, Philippines – MANILA, Philippines (AP) – Former first lady Imelda Marcos convicted of graft; she’s likely to appeal to avoid jail and losing seat in Congress.
by MLC | Dec 9, 2018 | Martial Law Analysis
Source: The Economist
The former Philippine first lady has not exhausted her appeals
Survivors of the tyrannical and rapacious regime of Ferdinand Marcos, strongman of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986, are rejoicing at the prospect of his widow, Imelda—famous for her vast shoe collection—soon having to don prison-issue plastic sandals.
On November 9th the special court that tries cases of official corruption found Mrs Marcos guilty of spiriting $200m to Switzerland while she was a congresswoman and then governor of Manila under her husband. The court sentenced her to 77 years’ imprisonment, and ordered her arrest. But the joy among those who joined the People Power revolution of 1986, which overthrew what they called the conjugal dictatorship of Marcos and the former beauty queen, is premature.
Mrs Marcos has said she will appeal against the conviction. While that appeal is pending, she cannot be arrested. Since the wheels of Philippine justice grind slowly, she will be a free woman for a good while yet, even if the verdict is eventually upheld. It was in 1991 that the court first began hearing the charges on which she has at last been convicted. A final decision may still be years away.
The former First Lady is 89. Even assuming that she lives long enough to exhaust her appeals, she would have good reason to hope for a presidential pardon. Gloria Arroyo, a former president, backed the prosecution of her predecessor, Joseph Estrada, but pardoned him soon after, when he was just 70. Mr Estrada had been overthrown, just like Marcos, by a “people power” uprising that centred on complaints about corruption. He spent less than seven years in detention, mostly under house arrest, and later made a political comeback as mayor of Manila.
The current president, Rodrigo Duterte, has already shown some sympathy for the deceased dictator’s family, allowing the burial of Marcos’s remains in Manila’s “Heroes’ Cemetery” despite opposition from victims of his regime.
When Mr Duterte was elected president, Mrs Marcos’s son, Ferdinand Marcos junior, aka Bongbong, came within a whisker of winning the vice-presidency (voters cast separate ballots for the two posts in the Philippines). Mr Duterte has spoken of Bongbong as presidential material. He may not want to get on the wrong side of the family, in case he ever needs help from them. Or he may just be heeding Mrs Marcos’s frequent warning: “Hell has a special place for persecutors of widows and orphans.”
