Facts:

President Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 to create the PCGG, aiming to recover the ill-
gotten wealth of former President Marcos and his associates. Major Ramas was investigated for
unexplained wealth under RA 3019 and RA 1379. On August 1, 1987, the PCGG filed a
forfeiture petition, but due to lack of evidence and Ramas falling under EO No. 2 (requiring
presidential assignment for investigation), the case was dismissed. Confiscated assets were
returned to Dimaano, and the case was remanded for further tax review.

After the EDSA Revolution, President Corazon Aquino issued EO No. 1 to create the PCGG,
aiming to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos and associates. The PCGG, led by Jovito
Salonga, created the AFP Anti-Graft Board, which investigated Major General Ramas for
unexplained wealth. The investigation revealed properties, cash, and military equipment tied to
Ramas and his alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano.

In 1987, the PCGG filed a forfeiture petition under RA 1379. However, due to lack of evidence,
delays, and a ruling that the PCGG couldn't prosecute military officers without a direct link to
Marcos, the case was dismissed in 1989. Seized assets were returned to Dimaano. The
Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
(1) whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973
Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective take-over of power by
the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to 24
March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution); and (2) whether
the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights ("Covenant") and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration") remained in
effect during the interregnum

SPIEL
(Introductory)
Good evening, Atty. Tongol and esteemed colleagues. I am Khate DC, and I will be discussing
the case of *Republic v. Sandiganbayan* (2003). Before we delve into the specifics of the case,
allow me to provide a brief background, placing it within the context of a pivotal moment in
Philippine history—the EDSA People Power Revolution—and the events that led up to it and its
aftermath.
That video serves as a recap or refresher for us, highlighting the events of the EDSA People
Power Revolution and their connection to the current case.
Before we proceed, let us take a moment to reflect on this question, which we will address after
our discussion of the case. “"In light of the legal interregnum after the EDSA Revolution, how
did the Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2003) case navigate the complexities of constitutional rights
and transitional justice?"
So let us proceed to the case per se.
The facts of the case:
Upon assuming office, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1, establishing the
PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos and his associates.
Led by Chairman Jovito Salonga, the PCGG formed the AFP Anti-Graft Board to investigate
unexplained wealth among AFP members. The Board found Major General Josephus Ramas
owning properties and assets beyond his means, including properties and large sums of money,
some found with his alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano. The PCGG filed charges under RA
3019 and RA 1379, but due to insufficient evidence and procedural issues, the case was
dismissed, and Dimaano’s confiscated assets were ordered returned.

The issue of the case:

1. Whether the PCGG has the jurisdiction to investigate and cause the filing of a forfeiture
petition against Ramas and Dimaano for unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379.
2. Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before the completion of the
presentation of petitioner’s evidence.
3. Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the properties confiscated
from Dimaano's house as illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence.
Held:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the PCGG lacked such jurisdiction. Under Executive Order
(EO) No. 1, which governs the PCGG, the agency is mandated to recover ill-gotten
wealth specifically accumulated by former President Ferdinand Marcos, his family, close
associates, or subordinates who unlawfully used their position to enrich themselves. The
focus of EO No. 1 is on individuals who had close, personal associations with the
Marcoses, and who used these relationships to amass wealth illegally. In this case, Ramas
was not deemed a "subordinate" of former President Marcos as contemplated by EO No.
1. The court emphasized that merely holding a high-ranking military position, such as
Ramas’ role as the Commanding General of the Philippine Army, did not automatically
make him a subordinate for purposes of EO No. 1. Applying the legal doctrine of
ejusdem generis, the term "subordinate" refers specifically to individuals with a close
personal or business association with Marcos, similar to his family members, business
associates, or cronies. Thus, there was no prima facie evidence that Ramas had such a
relationship with the former president, or that he acquired wealth unlawfully due to his
position. Furthermore, the Supreme Court made it clear that the PCGG’s jurisdiction is
limited to investigating and prosecuting cases directly related to the Marcos family and
their associates. Since the allegations against Ramas fell outside of this scope, the proper
agency to handle such cases would be the Office of the Ombudsman, which is tasked
 with investigating ordinary graft and corruption cases under Republic Acts No. 3019 and
1379. In conclusion, the ruling in Republic v. Migrino underscores the limited jurisdiction
of the PCGG and affirms that its powers cannot extend beyond what was granted by EO
No. 1. The lack of prima facie evidence connecting Ramas to Marcos was fatal to the
PCGG’s case, and it was concluded that the Ombudsman should have handled the matter
instead.
2. the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that the delay in completing the
presentation of evidence was primarily the fault of the petitioner. The case had been
pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan’s dismissal. The petitioner initially filed
its amended complaint in August 1987 but did not begin presenting its evidence until
April 1989. Despite having nearly two years to prepare, the petitioner repeatedly delayed
proceedings through motions for postponements and extensions. Notably, the petitioner
filed a motion to amend its complaint just days before the evidence presentation was set
to begin. Despite this, the Sandiganbayan granted additional time, setting new dates for
the continuation of evidence presentation in September and October 1989. However, on
those dates, the petitioner still failed to [Link] petitioner’s inability to present
evidence continued, even after the Sandiganbayan granted further extensions in March
and May of 1990. By July 1990, the petitioner filed a re-amended complaint, effectively
seeking to return the case to its preliminary stage, which would have caused even further
delays in a case already pending for years.
3. The petitioner argues that the search occurred under the context of a revolutionary
government following the EDSA Revolution, and that Proclamation No. 1, which
declared the new government, effectively suspended the 1973 Constitution. Petitioner
further asserts that the exclusionary rule, which typically protects individuals against
evidence obtained through illegal searches, did not apply until the ratification of the 1987
Constitution on February 2, 1987. Thus, petitioner argues that the rights under the Bill of
Rights, including the exclusionary rule, were inoperative at the time of the search,
allowing the confiscated items to be used as evidence. 

Revolutionary Government Context:

The petitioner’s assertion that the revolutionary government suspended the 1973
Constitution is based on the premise that the Constitution's protections did not apply
during this transitional period. However, it is essential to consider whether such a
suspension aligns with legal precedents and whether the revolutionary context has been
consistently interpreted in the legal framework governing evidence and due process.

Application of the Exclusionary Rule:

The exclusionary rule, designed to protect constitutional rights by excluding evidence

obtained through illegal means, traditionally applies regardless of constitutional changes
if the act of seizure is conducted in violation of rights. The argument that this rule did not
apply until February 2, 1987, raises complex legal questions about the continuity of
constitutional protections during transitional periods.
 And these question leads us to the key issues of this case aligning it to the topic of bill of
rights in the context of the EDSA

These questions lead us to the critical issues of this case, which align with broader themes
of constitutional rights and protections in the context of revolutionary change.
Specifically, they raise important questions about the applicability and scope of
constitutional protections during transitional periods such as the aftermath of the EDSA
Revolution.

Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution:

o Issue: Whether the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was still in effect
during the interregnum between the EDSA Revolution and the adoption of the
Provisional Constitution on March 24, 1986.
o Decision: The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution was not
operative during the interregnum. During this period, the revolutionary
government, having abrogated the 1973 Constitution, was not bound by it, and
there was no higher municipal law than the directives and orders issued by the
revolutionary government.
o Rationale: The revolutionary government was not constrained by the previous
constitution’s Bill of Rights, making actions such as sequestration orders valid at
that time, even though they would have been unconstitutional under the 1973
Constitution. This position is supported by the understanding that a revolution
nullifies the existing legal order and replaces it with a new order. As Justice
Reynato S. Puno noted, a revolution involves a fundamental change in
government and legal systems, often disregarding previous constitutional
constraints.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
o Issue: Whether the protections under the ICCPR and UDHR remained in effect
during the interregnum.
o Decision: The Court held that protections under the ICCPR and UDHR remained
in effect during the interregnum. Despite the lack of a national constitution during
this period, the revolutionary government was still bound by international human
rights obligations.
o Rationale: The ICCPR and UDHR, while not always directly enforceable as
domestic law, are part of international law to which the Philippines was a
signatory. The revolutionary government did not repudiate these international
obligations, meaning it was still required to respect and ensure these rights. This
obligation continued until the adoption of the Provisional Constitution, which
reintroduced a national Bill of Rights.

Conclusion:

 The Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution did not apply during the interregnum, but
international human rights protections under the ICCPR and UDHR remained in force.
 The revolutionary government’s actions were valid as long as they did not violate these
international obligations. The adoption of the Provisional Constitution on March 25,
1986, introduced a new Bill of Rights, and henceforth, the revolutionary government’s
directives and orders were subject to the new constitutional framework.

What led to the revolutionary government in the Philippines. Let us date back first on the
political repression and economic challenges under Ferdinand Marcos’ regime. The Martial Law
period saw widespread human rights abuses. The people's discontent grew, leading to a united
front against tyranny, demonstrating how collective action can challenge oppressive governance.

1. Question Focus of the Executive Order:

Executive Order No. 1 (EO No. 1) established the PCGG with specific mandates: primarily, to
recover ill-gotten wealth amassed by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate
family, relatives, subordinates, and close associates. This order also outlined the PCGG's role in
investigating cases of graft and corruption assigned by the President. Importantly, EO No. 1
confined the PCGG's jurisdiction to cases where the individuals involved were closely associated
with Marcos or had accumulated wealth through the misuse of public office.
Jurisdictional Limitation:
In the matter of Republic v. Sandiganbayan, it was established that the PCGG does not possess
jurisdiction over cases not specifically falling under its mandate. The court underscored that the
PCGG's authority is limited to investigating ill-gotten wealth directly associated with Marcos
and his close circle. Since the case against Ramas and Dimaano did not meet these criteria—
specifically, there was no prima facie evidence that Ramas was a subordinate or close associate
of Marcos—the PCGG lacked the authority to proceed with the forfeiture petition.
Role of the Ombudsman:
Given the absence of jurisdiction by the PCGG, the Ombudsman is the appropriate authority to
handle cases involving unexplained wealth not directly tied to Marcos' immediate circle. The
Ombudsman has the power to conduct preliminary investigations and file forfeiture petitions for
unexplained wealth amassed after February 25, 1986, and for other cases of graft and corruption
not covered by EO No. 1.
Definition of ‘Subordinate’ in Statutory Context:
The term ‘subordinate,’ as utilized in EO No. 1, is narrowly defined. It refers to individuals who
had a close association with former President Marcos, akin to family members or close
associates, rather than merely holding a high-ranking position. This interpretation aligns with the
principle of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, which dictates that general terms
following specific ones should be construed to include only those of the same kind or class.
Lack of Prima Facie Evidence:
The court highlighted that the PCGG failed to provide a prima facie showing that Ramas was a
close associate of Marcos. Mere evidence of Ramas' position as Commanding General of the
Philippine Army did not suffice to establish a direct link to Marcos. The absence of such
evidence was critical in the court’s decision to dismiss the case.
Conclusion:
The Sandiganbayan’s dismissal of the case before the completion of the presentation of evidence
was appropriate, given the PCGG's lack of jurisdiction and the delays attributable to the
petitioner. This dismissal aligns with the Court's findings and the procedural history of the case.
The Ombudsman remains the proper authority to address such matters, ensuring adherence to the
boundaries set by the relevant executive orders and statutes.

Certainly! Here’s a refined and professional explanation that includes a discussion on the
transitional period:

---

**Introduction:**
Today, we are exploring a pivotal legal issue stemming from the EDSA Revolution, particularly
focusing on the transitional period and its implications for constitutional and international human
rights protections. This discussion will address two crucial questions: the applicability of the
1973 Constitution’s Bill of Rights during the transitional period and the status of international
human rights protections.
**1. Applicability of the 1973 Constitution’s Bill of Rights:**

**Issue:**
The primary issue concerns whether the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained in
force during the transitional period from the effective takeover of power by the revolutionary
government until the adoption of the Provisional Constitution on March 24, 1986.

**Explanation:**
The transitional period refers to the time following the EDSA Revolution, when the Philippines
experienced a significant shift in government. During this time, the previous 1973 Constitution
was effectively nullified, and a revolutionary government emerged. This period was marked by a
legal and constitutional vacuum as the old legal framework was dismantled and the new
constitution had not yet been adopted.

**Ruling:**
The Court ruled that the Bill of Rights from the 1973 Constitution was not applicable during
this transitional period. The revolutionary government operated without the constraints of the old
constitution. Therefore, the rights and protections guaranteed by the 1973 Constitution were not
in effect. This legal vacuum allowed the revolutionary government to issue directives and orders
without being bound by the previous constitutional limitations.

**Justification:**
The Court's decision reflects the principle that a revolution fundamentally changes the legal
order. The absence of a functioning constitution during the transitional period meant that no
constitutional rights or protections were enforceable. The revolutionary government, having
come to power through the revolution, was not limited by the defunct Bill of Rights. This legal
context justified the issuance of new directives and orders under the authority of the new regime.

**2. Effect of International Human Rights Protections:**

**Issue:**
The second issue examines whether international human rights protections under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) continued to apply during the transitional period.
 **Explanation:**
Despite the suspension of the national Bill of Rights, the Philippines remained a signatory to
international human rights treaties. These treaties impose obligations on the state that transcend
domestic constitutional changes. The Court needed to assess whether these international
commitments were still binding on the revolutionary government during the transitional period.

**Ruling:**
The Court affirmed that the international human rights protections under the ICCPR and
UDHR remained effective during the transitional period. Even though there was no national
constitution in place, the Philippines' international obligations continued to bind the state. The
revolutionary government, as the de facto authority, was still responsible for upholding these
international standards.

**Justification:**
The Court’s ruling underscores that international human rights obligations are a fundamental
part of international law and are binding on states regardless of domestic constitutional changes.
The revolutionary government did not repudiate its international obligations. Thus, these
protections continued to apply. The Court recognized that the ICCPR and UDHR form part of
customary international law, which remained in effect during the transitional period.

**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, the Court determined that while the 1973 Constitution's Bill of Rights was not in
effect during the transitional period, the protections afforded by international human rights
treaties such as the ICCPR and UDHR remained applicable. The revolutionary government’s
actions during this time were valid provided they did not violate these international obligations.
With the adoption of the Provisional Constitution on March 25, 1986, the Bill of Rights was
reinstated, introducing new legal constraints on the government from that point forward.

---

This detailed explanation integrates the concept of the transitional period and provides a
comprehensive view of the legal issues and rulings, ensuring clarity and professionalism.
Connecting it to the case of Dimaano
**2. Effect of International Human Rights Protections:**

**Issue:**
The second issue examines whether international human rights protections under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) continued to apply during the transitional period.

**Explanation:**
Despite the suspension of the national Bill of Rights, the Philippines remained a signatory to
international human rights treaties. These treaties impose obligations on the state that transcend
domestic constitutional changes. The Court needed to assess whether these international
commitments were still binding on the revolutionary government during the transitional period.

**Ruling:**
The Court affirmed that the international human rights protections under the ICCPR and
UDHR remained effective during the transitional period. Even though there was no national
constitution in place, the Philippines' international obligations continued to bind the state. The
revolutionary government, as the de facto authority, was still responsible for upholding these
international standards.

**Justification:**
The Court’s ruling underscores that international human rights obligations are a fundamental
part of international law and are binding on states regardless of domestic constitutional changes.
The revolutionary government did not repudiate its international obligations. Thus, these
protections continued to apply. The Court recognized that the ICCPR and UDHR form part of
customary international law, which remained in effect during the transitional period.

**Conclusion:**
In conclusion, the Court determined that while the 1973 Constitution's Bill of Rights was not in
effect during the transitional period, the protections afforded by international human rights
treaties such as the ICCPR and UDHR remained applicable. The revolutionary government’s
actions during this time were valid provided they did not violate these international obligations.
With the adoption of the Provisional Constitution on March 25, 1986, the Bill of Rights was
reinstated, introducing new legal constraints on the government from that point forward.

---

This detailed explanation integrates the concept of the transitional period and provides a
comprehensive view of the legal issues and rulings, ensuring clarity and professionalism.

### 2. **Whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) remained in effect during the interregnum**

The protection accorded to individuals under the **International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR)** and the **Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)** remained in
effect during the interregnum. Despite the absence of the 1973 Constitution’s Bill of Rights, the
Philippines, as a signatory to both the ICCPR and the UDHR, was still bound by international
obligations to respect fundamental human rights.

Under **Article 2 of the ICCPR**, it is stated that "Each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind." This
implies that even during political transitions, such as the revolutionary period, the Philippine
government was obliged to uphold the civil and political rights of individuals.

Furthermore, while the **UDHR** is a non-binding instrument, it has been recognized as

customary international law. The revolutionary government, by virtue of its international
obligations and commitments, was still expected to adhere to the human rights principles set out
in these international instruments. These include the right to life, liberty, and security of the
person, which are universally protected regardless of domestic legal changes.

Therefore, the revolutionary government was bound by its commitments under the ICCPR and
the UDHR, ensuring the protection of individual rights during the interregnum, even though the
1973 Constitution was no longer in force.
In connection with this, Under Article 17 (1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had
the duty to
insure that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence. The Declaration provides in its Article 17 (2) that no one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Thus, the revolutionary government is obligated under
international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.
In the case, such

The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in President
Aquino’s Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was "done in defiance
of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution."41 The resulting government was indisputably a
revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations
that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under
international law.

Wheno constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by government
officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted on them. The
raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not include
in the search warrant. Dimaano was also present during the raid (only Dimaano’s cousins
witnessed the raid).
Under Article 17 (1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to
insure that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence. The Declaration provides in its Article 17 (2) that no one shall
be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Thus, the revolutionary government is obligated under
international law to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.