by: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
The Right Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure: A Search for the Proper Basis of Protection in the Absence of a Constitution
(Part II)
AUTHOR’S NOTE:
I am sharing to you a paper which I have written in my masteral degree subject in International Law and Policy at the San Sebastian College Recoletos-Manila Graduate School of Law. Due to space and layout limitations, the references are omitted. Complete citations are available in the original text of the paper.
III. THE BILL OF RIGHTS DURING THE INTERREGNUM
Shortly after Aquino was sworn in as President, Executive Order No. 1, series of 1986 creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was issued for the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship.
As part of the above mandate, the PCGG is also empowered to sequester or place or cause to be placed under its control or possession any building or office wherein any ill-gotten wealth or properties may be found, and any records pertaining thereto, in order to prevent their destruction, concealment or disappearance which would frustrate or hamper the investigation or otherwise prevent the Commission from accomplishing its task and to provisionally take over in the public interest or to prevent its disposal or dissipation, business enterprises and properties taken over by the government of the Marcos Administration or by entities or persons close to former President Marcos, until the transactions leading to such acquisition by the latter can be disposed of by the appropriate authorities.
Although PCGG was tasked with what can be considered as a lofty mandate during the time, its actions were not immaculate. The sequestration orders issued by the Commission were described by the late Father Joaquin G. Bernas, a member of the Constitutional Commission, as an act of ‘backsliding’ to the Marcosian protestation of due process and rule of law, a vice of disregarding the Bill of Rights, and an act of auctioning the Bill of Rights as a ransom price to the hoarders of Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth.
Bernas then criticized PCGG Chair Jovito Salonga’s position that what matters are the results and not the legal niceties as a very disturbing argument. Conscious of the consequence that the sequestration orders would not stand the test of due process under the Bill of Rights and despite the impassioned plea of Father Bernas, the Constitutional Commission still adopted the proposed amendment, which is now Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution.
Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution cleansed PCGG’s actions from the infirmities described by Bernas as a vice of disregarding the Bill of Rights and a ransom price for Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth in this manner:
The authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986, in relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth shall remain operative for not more than eighteen months after the ratification of this Constitution. However, in the national interest, as certified by the President, Congress may extend such period.
A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon a showing of a prima facie case. The order and the list of the sequestered or frozen properties shall forthwith be registered with the proper court. For orders issued before the ratification of this Constitution, the corresponding judicial action or proceeding shall be filed within six months from its ratification. For those issued after such ratification, the judicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within six months from the issuance thereof.
The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein provided.
It was during the interregnum, on March 3, 1986, to be exact, when the Constabulary raiding team served at Elizabeth Dimaano’s residence a search warrant captioned “Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.” Dimaano was then suspected as the mistress of Major General Josephus Q. Ramas, who was under investigation for his reported unexplained wealth. The raid resulted in the confiscation of military equipment/items and communications equipment, and money in the amount of P2,870,000.00, $50,000.00 US Dollars, jewelry, and land titles.
The confiscation was questioned at the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan as illegally seized and therefore inadmissible, which was sustained by the antigraft court. Aggrieved of the court a quo’s decision, the Republic elevated the case on appeal to the Supreme Court in what is now known in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence as Republic v Sandiganbayan.
Speaking through Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. The revolutionary government’s directives and orders 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 revolutionary government’s directives and orders. 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. (to be continued)