Republic v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 19, 1986, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) issued a writ of sequestration against all assets of Provident International Resources Corporation and Philippine Casino Operators Corporation (respondent corporations). On July 29, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 0021) before the Sandiganbayan against Edward T. Marcelo, et al., seeking to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth, and among the corporations listed as held and/or controlled by Defendant Marcelo were the respondent corporations. Later, on October 30, 1991, the complaint was amended to include both respondent corporations as parties-defendants. Procedural History: Prior to the amendment of the complaint, on September 11, 1991, respondent corporations filed a petition for mandamus before the Sandiganbayan, praying for the lifting of the sequestration order on the ground that the PCGG failed to file the appropriate judicial action within the period prescribed by Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. On December 4, 1991, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, declaring the sequestration automatically lifted and ordering the PCGG to restore the sequestered assets. The Sandiganbayan denied the PCGG's motion for reconsideration on October 27, 1993. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the PCGG, filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether a proper judicial action was filed against respondent corporations in compliance with, and within the period contemplated in, Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Whether the sequestration order issued on March 19, 1986, against respondent corporations was valid and effective despite having been signed by only one commissioner, contrary to the PCGG Rules and Regulations requiring the authority of at least two commissioners therefor.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The assailed Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan are set aside. The temporary restraining order is made permanent. The Sandiganbayan is directed to resolve the cases with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a proper judicial action was filed within the prescribed period: The Court reiterated its ruling in Republic vs. Lobregat, holding that the inclusion of corporations in complaints for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, even if not impleaded as defendants but merely listed as instruments or repositories of ill-gotten wealth, satisfies the constitutional requirement for filing a proper judicial action. The Court clarified that the original complaint (Civil Case No. 0021) listed respondent corporations as properties illegally accumulated, and they were subsequently impleaded as defendants through an amended complaint, thus constituting faithful compliance with Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution. The Court distinguished this from PCGG vs. Interco and Republic vs. Olivares, where there was a lack of prima facie evidence or the corporations were not sequestered at all, making Lobregat the controlling precedent in this case. The Court emphasized that the policy of recovering ill-gotten wealth should not be set at naught by technical rules of procedure or narrow constructions of constitutional provisions. On the validity of the sequestration order signed by only one commissioner: The Court ruled that the sequestration order dated March 19, 1986, was issued prior to the promulgation of the PCGG Rules and Regulations on April 11, 1986. Therefore, the requirement of authority from at least two commissioners under Section 3 of the said Rules could not be applied retroactively. Basic is the rule that statutes, decrees, ordinances, rules, or regulations are generally not given retroactive effect unless explicitly stated. The Court distinguished this from Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, Romualdez and Dio Island Resort, where the sequestration order was issued after the promulgation of the Rules and by an unauthorized person. In this case, the order was issued when the Rules were not yet in effect, and the PCGG Rules themselves state they are effective immediately upon promulgation, not before. The Court stressed that in cases involving alleged ill-gotten wealth, technicalities should be set aside to pursue substantial justice and ensure speedy resolution on the merits.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a complaint for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, which lists or mentions corporations allegedly controlled by defendants, constitutes the proper judicial action contemplated by Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution, even if said corporations are not impleaded as defendants therein, as long as they are subsequently impleaded through an amended complaint. Furthermore, a sequestration order issued prior to the promulgation of the PCGG Rules and Regulations is valid even if signed by only one commissioner, as the rules cannot be given retroactive effect.