Your move, Supreme Court | Inquirer Opinion

See - Your move, Supreme Court | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

I didn’t get to read the SB’s June and September decisions dismissing the case and reiterating its decision, respectively.  But I have read the PCGG’s petition to the Supreme Court, submitted last week, and it was truly an eye-opener, even for me, and I consider myself to be pretty well-versed on the case, seeing as I have been following it and commenting on it for years.

In previous columns I had listed down what had to be the most convincing evidence, both oral and written,  showing that LT was merely Ferdinand Marcos’ junior partner in business, the sharing arrangement being 60-40 in favor of Marcos. There was Rolando Gapud, who was the financial adviser (he calls himself the financial executor) of Marcos, and who, aside from revealing who the “cronies” and their business arrangements were, also recounted that LT was trying to negotiate with him to revise the arrangement to 50-50 (Gapud replied that LT should negotiate with Marcos instead). There was Bongbong Marcos, who testified to his father having called him to his office while LT was there, so that he (the young Marcos) could be familiarized with the business enterprises that they owned/controlled. There was Imelda Marcos, who, although she was a corespondent of LT, was angry with him because he reneged on their business arrangements, and described what they were, including documentary evidence (shares endorsed in blank).

And then there were letters and memos from LT or his henchmen with handwritten approvals or directions by Marcos, particularly with regard to the acquisition and subsequent operations of Allied Bank—and Central Bank documents that showed that LT was favored beyond all reason.

But the petition for review listed literally dozens more memos—which I hadn’t been aware of—from LT or his henchmen to Marcos asking for enormous favors in connection with the startups or operations of the LT companies or the purchase or acquisition of other companies by LT. The favors were invariably granted, whether they had to do with import permits or rediscounting facilities, or loans, or tariff and duty exemptions, or dollar loans, or accommodations from the Central Bank, or purchases of government-owned shares in other enterprises at terms disadvantageous to the sellers. Even a road diversion!

In other words, Reader, a mountain of solid evidence.

The logical question, then, is: How could the SB have dismissed the case? Reading through the 270 pages of text in the PCGG petition, one gets glazed eyes. But the nitty-gritty seems to be that the SB justified its position by dismissing much of the documentary evidence on the ground that it was not the original copy (certified true copies not allowed). Not content with that, it then adopted a restrictive definition of ill-gotten wealth that excludes what the PCGG and the law includes: assets and properties acquired by taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence.

That’s how the SB rationalized its actions: It excluded evidence, it redefined the crime.

Supreme Court, please do your stuff.

x x x."