Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC
G.R. No. 77663 April 12, 1988 PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, petitioner, vs.
ON. EMMANUEL G. PE!A, "# Pr$#i%i&' ()%'$, RTC, NC(R, *r. CLII, P"#i', M$+ropoli+"& M"&il", "&% EUNG CUN -AM, EUNG CUM O "&% ARCIE CAN r$pr$#$&+$% / IM -AM SING, respondents.
TEEAN-EE, C.J.: This special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminar in!unction and"or restrainin# order see$s to set aside the orders, dated %ebruar &' and March (, &)*+, rendered b respondent trial !ud#e on #rounds of lac$ of !urisdiction and #rave abuse of discretion. The main issue is whether re#ional trial courts have !urisdiction over the petitioner Presidential Co00i##io& o& Goo% Go$r&0$&+ $r$i&"4+$r r$4$rr$% +o "# +$ Co00i##io& and properties se-uestered and placed in its custodia le#is in the eercise of its powers under Eecutive /rders Nos. &, 0 and &1, as amended, and whether said re#ional trial courts ma interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders and actions of the Commission. The Court holds that re#ional trial courts do not have such !urisdiction over the Commission and accordin#l #rants the petition. To eliminate all doubts, the Court upholds the primac of administrative !urisdiction as vested in the Commission and holds that !urisdiction over all se-uestration cases of ill2#otten wealth,
assets and properties under the past discredited re#ime fall within the eclusive and ori#inal !urisdiction of the 3andi#anbaan, sub!ect to review eclusivel b this Court. 5 The antecedent facts are4
O& M"r 2, 1986, +$ Co00i##io& i##)$% "& or%$r 4r$$i&' +$ "##$+#, $44$+#, %o)0$&+# "&% r$or%# o4 +o $:por+ '"r0$&+ 0"&)4"+)ri&' 4ir0# %$&o0i&"+$% "# A0$ri"& I&+$r;4"#io& Corpor"+io& "&% D$ Sol$il App"r$l M"&)4"+)ri&' Corpor"+io&. 3aid firms had both been or#ani5ed b !oint venture a#reement on 6ul 0,&)*1 with the approval of the 7arments 8 Tetile Eport Board. Two2thirds or '+9 of the stoc$ of both corporations were subscribed b so2called :ocal ;nvestors represented b Renato <. %rancisco and Att. 7re#orio R. Castillo and one2third or ==9 thereof were subscribed b the so2called >on#$on# ;nvestors, namel respondents ?eun# Chun @am and ?eun# Chun >o. The
Co00i##io& "ppoi&+$% M#. No$0i L. S"l)%o "# O44i$r;i&; C"r'$ OIC< o4 +$ #"i% orpor"+io&# i+ 4)ll ")+ori+/ +o 0"&"'$ "&% op$r"+$ +$ #"0$. /n 6une 0+, &)*', the Commission desi#nated the /;C, 3aludo, and Mr.?eun# Chun >o private respondent herein, as authori5ed si#natories to effect deposits and withdrawals of the funds of the two corporations. /n 3eptember 1, &)*', the Commission desi#nated Mr. ?im @am 3hin# as co2si#nator, in the absence of Mr. ?eun# Chun >o and Mr. Marcelo de 7u5man, in the absence of Ms. 3aludo. >owever, in a memorandum dated %ebruar =, &)*+, and addressed to depositor ban$s of the said two corporations, Ms. 3aludo revo$ed the authori5ations previousl issued upon findin# that Mr. ?im @am 3hin# was a >on#$on# Chinese national stain# in the countr on a mere tourist visa, and desi#nated 6ames as her co2si#nator and Enrico Rees 3antos as the other authori5ed si#nator with Teresita ?u as the latters co2si#nator. The said memorandum was approved b then Commissioner Mar Concepcion Bautista of the Commission.
/n %ebruar &&, &)*+, +$ OIC i+%r$ +$ "0o)&+ o4 P=>>,>>>.>>, more or less, from the Metropolitan Ban$ and Trust Compan a#ainst the accounts of the said corporations 4or p"/0$&+ o4 +$ #"l"ri$# o4 +$ #+"44, $0plo/$$# "&% l"or$r# of the same for the period from %ebruar & to &( of &)*+. /n %ebruar &=, &)*+, respondents ?eun# Chun @am ?eun# Chun >o and Archie Chan who are all in >on#$on#, i&#+i+)+$% +ro)' i0
-"0 Si&' "& "+io& 4or %"0"'$# i+ pr"/$r 4or " ri+ o4 pr$li0i&"r/ i&?)&+io& "'"i&#+ +$ #"i% "&@, the Commission, then Commissioner Mar Concepcion Bautista and the /;C, 3aludo, doc$eted as Civil Case No. (10)* of Branch &(0 of the Re#ional Tri"l Co)r+ "+ P"#i', M$+ro M"&il", presided b respondent !ud#e, and -uestionin# the aforesaid revocation of the authori5ation as si#nator previousl #ranted to Mr. ?im @am 3hin# as private respondents representative. /n %ebruar &', &)*+, r$#po&%$&+ ?)%'$ i##)$% $:;p"r+$
+$ )$#+io&$% +$0por"r/ r$#+r"i&i&' or%$r $&?oi&i&' +$ "&@, i+# "++or&$/#, "'$&+# or p$r#o&# "+i&' i& +$ir $"l4 B4ro0 r$l$"#i&' "&/ 4)&%# o4 A0$ri"& I&+$r;4"#io& Corpor"+io& without the si#nature of plaintiff ?im @am 3hin# and to desist from committin# an other acts complained of ... and the Commission from enforcin# the -uestioned memorandum dated %ebruar =, &)*+ DAnne 6 Petition. /n %ebruar 0, &)*+, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss with opposition to plaintiffs Dprivate respondents herein praer for a writ of preliminar in!unction on the #round that the trial court has no !urisdiction over the Commission or over the sub!ect of the case and that assumin# ar#uendo its !urisdiction, it acted with #rave abuse of discretion since private respondents as ==9 minorit shareholders are not entitled to an restrainin# order or preliminar in!unction. /n March (, &)*+, respondent !ud#e issued the other assailed order denin# the Commissions motion to dismiss and #rantin# private respondents praer for a writ of preliminar in!unction on a P&, bond DAnne :, Petition. /n March 0, &)*+,
the Commission filed the petition at bar -uestionin# the !urisdiction of respondent !ud#es court over it and prain# for Da the nullification of the aforesaid %ebruar &' and March (, &)*+ orders and Db the issuance of a writ of prohibition orderin# the respondent !ud#e to cease and desist from proceedin# with the said case.
O& M"r 2=, 1987, +$ Co)r+ i##)$% " +$0por"r/ r$#+r"i&i&' or%$r, Bor%$ri&' r$#po&%$&+ ?)%'$ +o $"#$ "&% %$#i#+ 4ro0 $&4ori&' i# or%$r# %"+$% $r)"r/ 16 "&% M"r , 1987 "&% 4ro0 pro$$%i&' i+ Ciil C"#$ No. =298 ... #)?$+ +o +$ o&%i+io& +"+ +$ "0o)&+# +"+ +$ p$+i+io&$r 0"/ i+%r" 4ro0 +$ "o)&+# o4 +$ #$)$#+$r$% orpor"+io&#< i+ +$ M$+ropoli+"& *"&@ "&% Tr)#+ Co0p"&/, I&., #"ll $ li0i+$% +o +$ &$$##"r/ op$r"+i&' $:p$&#$# o4 +$ +o o0p"&i$# "&% 4or +$ p"/0$&+ o4 +$ #"l"ri$#, "'$# "&% "llo"&$# o4 +$ o0p"&i$#B #+"44, $0plo/$$# "&% l"or$r#B ... "&% +"+ +$ pro$$%# "&% i&o0$ r$$i$% #"ll li@$i#$ i& %)$ o)r#$ $ %$po#i+$% i+ +$ #"i% o0p"&i$# "o)&+# i+ +$ #"i% M$+ropoli+"& *"&@ "&% Tr)#+ Co0p"&/, I&.B /n the issue of !urisdiction s-uarel raised, as above indicated, +$ Co)r+ #)#+"i&# p$+i+io&$r# #+"&% "&%
ol%# +"+ r$'io&"l +ri"l o)r+# "&% +$ Co)r+ o4 App$"l# 4or +"+ 0"++$r "$ no ?)ri#%i+io& o$r +$ Pr$#i%$&+i"l Co00i##io& o& Goo% Go$r&0$&+ i& +$ $:$ri#$ o4 i+# po$r# )&%$r +$ "ppli"l$ E:$)+i$ Or%$r# "&% Ar+il$ VIII, #$+io& 26 o4 +$ Co&#+i+)+io& "&% +$r$4or$ 0"/ &o+ i&+$r4$r$ i+ "&% r$#+r"i& or #$+ "#i%$ +$ or%$r# "&% "+io&# o4 +$ Co00i##io&. U&%$r #$+io& 2 o4 +$ Pr$#i%$&+# E:$)+i$ Or%$r No. 1= i##)$% o& M"/ 7, 1986, "ll "#$# o4 +$ Co00i##io& r$'"r%i&' B+$ )&%#, Mo&$/#, A##$+#, "&% Prop$r+i$# Ill$'"ll/ A)ir$% or Mi#"ppropri"+$% / or0$r Pr$#i%$&+ $r%i&"&% M"ro#, Mr#. I0$l%" Ro0)"l%$ M"ro#, +$ir Clo#$ R$l"+i$#, S)or%i&"+$#, *)#i&$## A##oi"+$#, D)00i$#, A'$&+#, or 1 No0i&$$#B $+$r iil or ri0i&"l, "r$ lo%'$% i+i&
+$ B$:l)#i$ "&% ori'i&"l ?)ri#%i+io& o4 +$ S"&%i'"&"/"&B 2 "&% "ll i&i%$&+# "ri#i&' 4ro0, i&i%$&+"l +o, or r$l"+$% +o, #) "#$# &$$##"ril/ 4"ll li@$i#$ )&%$r +$ S"&%i'"&"/"&# $:l)#i$ "&% ori'i&"l ?)ri#%i+io&, #)?$+ +o r$i$ o& $r+ior"ri $:l)#i$l/ / +$ S)pr$0$ Co)r+. 3 The Constitution and the applicable Eecutive /rders and established le#al principles and !urisprudence full support the Courts rulin# at bar.
1. T$ $r/ 4ir#+ E:$)+i$ Or%$r i##)$% / Pr$#i%$&+ Cor"o& C. A)i&o "4+$r $r "##)0p+io& o4 o44i$ "&% +$ o)#+$r o4 %$po#$% Pr$#i%$&+ $r%i&"&% E. M"ro# o& $r)"r/ 2, 1986 "# E:$)+i$ Or%$r No. 1 i##)$% o& $r)"r/ 28, 1986 r$"+i&' +$ Pr$#i%$&+i"l Co00i##io& o& Goo% Go$r&0$&+, "r'i&' i+ i+ +$ +"#@ o4 "##i#+i&' +$ Pr$#i%$&+ i& r$'"r% +o +$ Br$o$r/ o4 "ll ill;'o++$& $"l+ ")0)l"+$% / 4or0$r Pr$#i%$&+ $r%i&"&% E. M"ro#, i# i00$%i"+$ 4"0il/, r$l"+i$#, #)or%i&"+$# "&% lo#$ "##oi"+$#, $+$r lo"+$% i& +$ Pilippi&$# or "ro"%, i&l)%i&' +$ +"@$o$r or #$)$#+r"+io& o4 "ll )#i&$## $&+$rpri#$# "&% $&+i+i$# o&$% or o&+roll$% / +$0, %)ri&' i# "%0i&i#+r"+io&, %ir$+l/ or +ro)' &o0i&$$#, / +"@i&' )&%)$ "%"&+"'$ o4 +$ir p)li o44i$ "&%For )#i&' +$ir po$r#, ")+ori+/, i&4l)$&$, o&&$+io&# or r$l"+io&#ip. = ;n the dischar#e of its vital tas$ to recover the tremendous wealth plundered from the people b the past re#ime in the most eecrable thiever perpetrated in all histor, or or#ani5ed pilla#e Dto borrow a phrase from the articulate Mr. Blas /ple 6 , +$
Co00i##io& ")+ori+/
"#
$#+
%$i+
+$
"0pl$
po$r
"&%
Da Db to se-uester or place or cause to be placed under its control or possession an buildin# or office wherein an ill2#otten wealth or
properties ma be found, and an records pertainin# thereto, in order to prevent their destruction, concealment or disappearance which would frustrate or hamper the investi#ation or otherwise prevent the Commission from accomplishin# its tas$. Dc to provisionall ta$eover in the public interest or to prevent the disposal or dissipation of business enterprises and properties ta$en over b the #overnment of the Marcos Administration or b entities or persons close to former President Marcos, until the transactions leadin# to such ac-uisition b the latter can be disposed of b the appropriate authorities. Dd to en!oin or restrain an actual or threatened commission of acts b an person or entit that ma render moot and academic, or frustrate or otherwise ma$e ineffectual the efforts of the Commission to carr out its tas$ under this /rder. ... 7 As stressed in Baseco 3o that it mi#ht ascertain the facts #ermane to its ob!ectives, it Fthe CommissionG was #ranted power to conduct investi#ationsH re-uire submission of evidence b subpoena ad testificandum and ducestecum; administer oathsH punish for contempt. ;t was #iven power also to promul#ate such rules and re#ulations as ma be necessar to carr out the purposes of Dits creation. 8 0. These ample powers and authorit vested in the Commission b the President in the eercise of le#islative power #ranted her in the Provisional D%reedom Constitution 9 were confirmed in said Constitution and in the &)*+ Constitution. Thus, the %reedom Constitution DProc. No. = mandated that The President shall #ive priorit to measures to achieve the mandate of the people to4 .. Dd recover ill2#otten
properties amassed b the leaders and supporters of the previous re#ime and protect the interest of the people throu#h orders of se-uestration or free5in# of assets or accounts. ... 1> The Constitution overwhelmin#l ratified b the people in the %ebruar 0, &)*+ plebiscite li$ewise epressl confirmed that4
S$. 26. T$ ")+ori+/ +o i##)$ #$)$#+r"+io& or 4r$$$ or%$r# )&%$r Prol"0"+io& No. 3 %"+$% M"r 2, 1986 i& r$l"+io& +o +$ r$o$r/ o4 ill; 'o++$& $"l+ #"ll r$0"i& op$r"+i$ 4or &o+ 0or$ +"& $i'+$$& 0o&+# "4+$r +$ r"+i4i"+io& o4 +i# Co&#+i+)+io&. >owever, in the national interest, as certified b the President, the Con#ress ma etend said period.
A #$)$#+r"+io& or 4r$$$ or%$r #"ll $ i##)$% o&l/ )po& #oi&' o4 " prima facie "#$. The order and the list of the se-uestered or fro5en properties shall forthwith be re#istered with the proper court. %or orders issued before the ratification of this Constitution, the correspondin# !udicial action or proceedin# shall be filed within si months from its ratification. %or those issued after such ratification, the !udicial action or proceedin# shall be commenced within si months from the issuance thereof. The se-uestration or free5e order is deemed automaticall lifted if no !udicial action or proceedin# is commenced as herein provided. 11 =. As can be readil seen from the fore#oin# discussion of the duties and functions and the power and authorit
o4 +$ Co00i##io&, i+ $:$ri#$# )"#i;?)%ii"l 4)&+io&#. I& +$ $:$ri#$ o4 )"#i;?)%ii"l 4)&+io&#, +$ Co00i##io& i# " o;$)"l o%/ i+ r$'io&"l +ri"l o)r+# "&% Bo;$)"l o%i$# "$ &o po$r +o o&+rol +$ o+$r. 12 The 3olicitor 7eneral correctl submits +"+ +$ l"@ o4 ?)ri#%i+io& o4 r$'io&"l +ri"l o)r+#
o$r )"#i;?)%ii"l "'$&i$# i# r$o'&i$% i& #$+io& 9, p"r"'r"p 3 o4 *"+"# P"0"&#"*l'. 129 +$ ()%ii"r/ R$or'"&i"+io& A+ o4 198><, i o+$ri#$ $#+# $:l)#i$ "pp$ll"+$ ?)ri#%i+io& i& +$ Co)r+ o4 App$"l# o$r "ll 4i&"l ?)%'0$&+, %$i#io&#, r$#ol)+io&#, or%$r#, or ""r%# o4 r$'io&"l +ri"l o)r+# "&% )"#i ?)%ii"l "'$&i$#, i&#+r)0$&+"li+i$#, o"r%# or o00i##io&#. But as alread indicated hereinabove, the Court of Appeals is not vested with appellate or supervisor !urisdiction over the Commission. Eecutive /rder No. &1, which defines the !urisdiction over cases involvin# the ill2#otten wealth of former President Marcos, his wife, ;melda, members of their immediate famil, close relatives, subordinates, close and"or business associates, dummies, a#ents and nominees, specificall provides in section 0 that The Presidential Commission on 7ood 7overnment #"ll 4il$ all such cases, whether civil or criminal, with the Sandiganbayan i #"ll jurisdiction +$r$o4. "$ exclusive and original
N$$##"ril/, +o#$ o i# +o )$#+io& or "ll$&'$ +$ Co00i##io&# "+# or or%$r# i& #) "#$# 0)#+ #$$@ r$o)r#$ i& +$ #"0$ o)r+, +$ S"&%i'"&"/"&, i i# $#+$% i+ $:l)#i$ "&% ori'i&"l ?)ri#%i+io&. T$ S"&%i'"&"/"&# %$i#io&# "&% 4i&"l or%$r# "r$ i& +)r& #)?$+ +o r$i$ o& $r+ior"ri $:l)#i$l/ / +i# Co)r+. 1. >avin# been char#ed with the herculean tas$ of bailin# the countr2out of the financial ban$ruptc and morass of the previous re#ime and returnin# to the people what is ri#htfull theirs, +$ Co00i##io& o)l%
ill;"44or% +o $ i0p$%$% or r$#+r"i&$% i& +$ p$r4or0"&$ o4 i+# 4)&+io&# / ri+# or i&?)&+io&# $0"&"+i&' 4ro0 +ri)&"l# o;$)"l +o i+ "&% i&4$rior +o +i# Co)r+. Public polic dictates that the Commission be not embroiled in and swamped b le#al suits before inferior courts all over the land, since the loss of time and ener# re-uired to defend a#ainst such suits would defeat the ver purpose of its creation. >ence, section 1Da of Eecutive /rder No. & has epressl
accorded the Commission and its members immunit from suit for dama#es in that4 No civil action shall lie a#ainst the Commission or an member thereof for anthin# done or omitted in the dischar#e of the tas$ contemplated b this order. The law and the courts frown upon split !urisdiction and the resultant multiplicit of actions. To paraphrase the leadin# case of Rheem of the Phil., Inc. vs. Ferrer, et al, 12;" to draw a tenuous !urisdiction line is to undermine stabilit in liti#ations. A piecemeal resort to one court and another #ives rise to multiplicit of suits, To force the parties to shuttle from one court to another to secure full determination of their suit is a situation #ravel pre!udicial to the administration of !ustice. The time lost, the effort wasted, the aniet au#mented, additional epenses incurred, the irreparable in!ur to the public interest I are considerations which wei#h heavil a#ainst split !urisdiction. Civil Case No. (10)* pendin# before respondent !ud#e is epressl denominated as one for dama#es with praer for a writ of preliminar in!unction DAnne ;, petition filed b private respondents a#ainst the Commission and then Commissioner Mar Concepcion Bautista. The said case is clearl barred b the afore-uoted immunit provision of Eecutive /rder No. &, as buttressed b section 1Db thereof which further provides that4 No member or staff of the Commission shall be re-uired to testif or produce evidence in an !udicial, le#islative or administrative proceedin# concernin# matters within its official co#ni5ance.
E:$)+i$ Or%$r No. 1 +)# $44$+i$l/ i+ol%# ?)ri#%i+io& o$r "#$# "'"i&#+ +$ Co00i##io& 4ro0 "ll lo$r o)r+#, i&l)%i&' +$ Co)r+ o4 App$"l#, $:$p+ +$ S"&%i'"&"/"& i& o0 i# $#+$% ori'i&"l "&% $:l)#i$ ?)ri#%i+io& "&% +i# Co)r+. Earl on, in special civil actions -uestionin# challen#ed acts of the Commission, its submittal that the cited Eecutive
/rder bars such actions in this Court was #iven short shrift because this Court, as the third #reat department of #overnment vested with the !udicial power and as the #uardian of the Constitution, cannot be deprived of its certiorari !urisdiction to pass upon and determine alle#ed violations of the citi5ens constitutional and le#al ri#hts under the Rule of :aw. (. The rationale of the eclusivit of such !urisdiction is readil understood. 7iven the ma#nitude of the past re#imes or#ani5ed pilla#e and the in#enuit of the plunderers and pilla#ers with the assistance of the eperts and best le#al minds available in the mar$et, it is a matter of sheer necessit to restrict access to the lower courts, which would have tied into $nots and made impossible the Commissions #i#antic tas$ of recoverin# the plundered wealth of the nation, whom the past re#ime in the process had saddled and laid prostrate with a hu#e J0+ billion forei#n debt that has since ballooned to J0*.( billion. To cite an eample as recorded in Baseco, in the on#oin# case filed b the #overnment to recover from the Marcoses valuable real estate holdin#s in New ?or$ and the :indenmere estate in :on# ;sland, former PC77 chairman 6ovito3alon#a has revealed that their names do not appear on an title to the propert. Ever buildin# in New ?or$ is titled in the name of a Netherlands Antilles Corporation, which in turn is purportedl owned b three Panamanian corporations, with bearer shares. This means that the shares of this corporation can chan#e hands an time, since the can be transferred, under the law of Panama, without previous re#istration on the boo$s of the corporation. /ne of the first documents that we discovered shortl after the %ebruar revolution was a declaration of trust handwritten b Mr. 6oseph Bernstein on April 1, &)*0 on a Manila Peninsula >otel stationer statin# that he would act as a trustee for the benefit of President %erdinand Marcos and would act solel pursuant to the
instructions of Marcos with respect to the Crown Buildin#H in New ?or$. 13 Kere it not for this stro$e of #ood fortune, it would have been impossible, le#all and technicall, to prove and recover this ill2#otten wealth from the deposed President and his famil, althou#h their ownership of these fabulous real estate holdin#s were a matter of public notoriet >ence, the imperative need for the 7overnment of the restored Republic as its first official act to create the Commission as an administrative and -uasi2 !udicial commission to recover the ill2#otten wealth amassed from vast resources of the #overnment b the former President, his immediate famil, relatives and close associates. 1= This is the onl possible and practical wa to enable the Commision to be#in to do its formidable !ob. Thus, in the fifties in an analo#ous case, the Court ta$in# co#ni5ance of the trend to vest !urisdiction in administrative commissions and boards the power to resolve speciali5ed disputes ruled that Con#ress in re-uirin# the ;ndustrial Courts intervention in the resolution of labor2mana#ement controversies li$el to cause stri$es or loc$outs meant such !urisdiction to be eclusive, althou#h it did not so epressl state in the law. The court held that under the sense2ma$in# and epeditious doctrine of primar !urisdiction ... the courts cannot or will not determine a controvers involvin# a -uestion which is within the !urisdiction of an administrative tribunal, where the -uestion demands the eercise of sound administrative discretion re-uirin# the special $nowled#e, eperience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and of the re#ulator statute administered. 1 ;n this era of clo##ed court doc$ets, the need for speciali5ed administrative boards or commissions with the special $nowled#e, eperience and capabilit to hear and determine promptl disputes on technical
matters or essentiall factual matters, sub!ect to !udicial review in case of #rave abuse of discretion, has become well ni#h indispensable. %or eample, the Court in the case of Ebon vs. de Guzman 16 noted that the lawma$in# authorit, in restorin# to the labor arbiters and the N:RC their !urisdiction to award all $inds of dama#es in labor cases, as a#ainst the previous P.. amendment splittin# their !urisdiction with the re#ular courts, evidentl..... had second thou#hts about deprivin# the :abor Arbiters and the N:RC of the !urisdiction to award dama#es in labor cases because that setup would mean duplicit of suits, splittin# the cause of action and possible conflictin# findin#s and conclusions b two tribunals on one and the same claim. '. The Court recentl had occasion to stress once more, in 7.R. No. *00&*, Reyes vs. Caneba March &+, &)**, that DThe thrust of the related doctrines of primar administrative !urisdiction and ehaustion of administrative remedies is that courts must allow administrative a#encies to carr out their functions and dischar#e their responsibilities within the speciali5ed areas of their respective competence. Acts of an administrative a#enc must not casuall be overturned b a court, and a court should as a rule not substitute its !ud#ment for that of the administrative a#enc actin# within the perimeters of its own competence. Applin# these fundamental doctrines to the case at bar, the -uestions and disputes raised b respondents see$in# to controvert the Commissions findin# of rima facie basis for the issuance of its se-uestration orders as well as the inter!ection of the claims of the predecessor of American ;nter2fashion and e 3oleil Corporations, vi5. 7lorious 3un Phil., headed b Nemesis Co are all -uestions that he within the primar administrative !urisdiction of the Commission that cannot be prematurel brou#ht up to clo# the court doc$ets without first resortin# to the ehaustion of the prescribed administrative remedies. The administrative procedure and remedies for contestin#
orders of se-uestration issued b the Commission are provided for in its rules and re#ulations. Thus, the person a#ainst whom a writ of se-uestration is directed ma re-uest the liftin# thereof, in writin#H after due hearin# or moturorio for #ood cause shown, the Commission ma lift the writ unconditionall or sub!ect to such conditions as it ma deem necessar, ta$in# into consideration the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The resolution of the Commission is appealable to the President of the Philippines. The Commission conducts a hearin#, after due notice to the parties concerned to ascertain whether an particular asset, propert or enterprise constitutes ill2#otten wealth. The Commissions order of se-uestration is not final, at the proper time, the -uestion of ownership of the se-uestered properties shall be eclusivel determined in the 3andi#anbaan, whose own decisions in turn are sub!ect to review eclusivel b the 3upreme Court. ;t should be emphasi5ed here, as a#ain stressed b the Court in the recent case of Reublic, et al. vs. !e los "n#eles, et al., 7.R. No. :2=01, March 0(, &)**, that it is well2reco#ni5ed principle that purel administrative and discretionar function ma not be interfered with b the courts. ;n #eneral, courts have no supervisin# power over the proceedin#s and actions of the administrative departments of #overnment. This is #enerall true with respect to acts involvin# the eercise of !ud#ment or discretion, and findin#s of fact. There should be no thou#ht of disre#ardin# the traditional line separatin# !udicial and administrative competence, the former bein# entrusted with the determination of le#al -uestions and the latter bein# limited as a result of its epertise to the ascertainment of the decisive facts. This is speciall true in se-uestration cases affected b the Commission for the recover of the nation s plundered wealth that ma affect the nations ver survival, in the li#ht of the constitutional mandate that such se-uestration or free5e orders shall be issued onl upon showin# of a
prima facie case$ 17 and the settled principle that findin#s b administrative or -uasi2!udicial a#encies li$e the Commission are entitled to the #reatest respect and are practicall bindin# and conclusive, li$e the factual findin#s of the trial and appellate courts, save where the are patentl arbitrar or capricious or are not supported b substantial evidence. +. The 3olicitor 7eneral has herein pictures-uel submitted its more than rima facie evidence for its se-uestration and provisional ta$e2over of the sub!ect assets and properties as follows4 ... the sub!ect se-uestered assets are completel owned and"or completel utili5ed and"or otherwise ta$en over b the Marcoses, with due compensation to their co2 participants in terms of tacitl a#reed upon mutual benefits, for their personal benefits and selfish economic interests, includin# particularl the saltin#, stashin# and secretin# of dollars abroad, cum loculo et era as witness the followin#, b wa of summari5in# PC77s submission, ... as supported b more than prima facie evidence4 %he fun4 7lorious 3un, Phils., headed b Nemesio 7. Co and with private respondents herein holdin# 19 of the shares of stoc$, soon after its incorporation on 6une *, &)++, en#a#ed in dollar saltin#, amon# other business unlawful manipulations. This was unearthed b the 7arments and Tetiles Eport Board D7TEB in 6anuar &)*1. At that time, in the rei#n of Marcos, it had been decreed that the matter of dollar saltin# was the eclusive domain of the so2called Binondo Central Ban$, and an other person or en entit found en#a#in# therein was #uilt of economic sabota#e, more so where the saboteurs are aliens li$e the herein
private respondents who are otherwise $nown as the >on#$on# investors. %he s&ueeze4 7TEB, under the Ministr of Trade, under then .Minister Roberto L. /n#pin, on April 0+,&)*1 cho$ed the lifeliness of 7lorious 3un in terms of cancellin# its eport -uotas, eport authori5ations, and license to maintain bonded warehouses and of dis-ualifin# its ma!or stoc$holders and officers from en#a#in# in eports. Kith protestations of innocence, 7lorious 3un on Ma 0(, &)*1 even had the temerit to file a Petition with the 3upreme Court D7.R. No. '+&*. >ow did 7lorious 3un etricate itself from the ti#htenin# .screws let loose upon its nec$ b the then rei#nin# Ceasar with his apparentl le#al contretemps Easy 4 7ive unto Ceasar what is Ceasars. ;n 6ul, &)*1, herein private respondents came up with two D0 !oint venture a#reements. and within the month, respondents themselves withdrew their Petition in 7.R. No. '+&*. Pursuant to the two D0 !oint venture a#reements, American ;nter2%ashion Co. was incorporated on Au#ust 00, &)*1 and e 3oleil on 3eptember =, &)*1, in each of which herein private respondents, the >on#$on# investors, held ==9 of the shares of stoc$ while the %ilipino investors held '+9. %he stin# 4 ;n Au#ust, &)*1, the 7TEB informed 7lorious 3un, Phils., that the substantial portion of the latters cancelled eport -uotas had been awarded to American ;nter2%ashion and e 3oleil. But while the ?eun# brothers control onl ==9 of the two corporations, the, however, operated
and mana#ed said corporation and utili5ed &9 of their eport -uota allocations. The ?eun# brothers paid the nominees of the %ilipino investors controllin# '+9, the amount of '(.)* er dozen as royalty for the utilization of the +) e-ort &uotaof said two corporations. ;t ma also be stated that even before the eport -uota allocations were awarded to American ;nter2%ashion and e 3oleil 7lorious 3un, Phils., despite the 7TEB decision, Anne A hereof, was allowed to ship out #arments worth 3 J&,0'&,+)1. under its Fpreviousl cancelledG -uota from April 0+ to Ma =,&)*1. And on petition of a forei#n buer, 7enerra 3ports Compan of 3eattle, Kashin#ton, 7lorious 3un, Phils., was allowed to fin its =rd and 1th fashion2-uarter orders of &*',* pieces valued at about 3 J&,&(),(=&.. As a result, 7lorious 3un, Phils. continued to operate its bonded manufacturin# warehouse ordered closed b the 7TEB DPlease see 7TEB Comment dated 6une 1, &)*1 in 7.R. No. '+&*.. Dpp. )2&, Consolidated Repl, Ma &(, &)*+. %he end of the fun All was fun that ended in fun for all the participants in the fun, the s-uee5e and the stin#, until of course the E3A Revolution, when PC77 shortl se-uestered the sub!ect assets and provisionall too$ over the conservation thereof pursuant to law D3ecs. 0 8 =, Eecutive /rder No. & and related issuances and pursuant to the ver Baseco case cited ironicall in the Motion at bar. A#ain, with protestations of innocence, the herein private respondents throu#h their counsel and now
Con#ressman %rancisco 3umulon# with the #ame temerit have #one to the courts and other forum DCivil Case /o. *0123 entitled ?eun# Chun @am et al. vs. PC77, et al., RTC, Branch &(&, Pasi#, Metro Manila4 3EC Case No. =&11 entitled ?eun# Chun @am et al. vs. PC77, et al., 3ecurities and Echan#e Commission !ust as Nemesio Co alle#edl President and owner of 7lorious 3un, throu#h counsel Ben!amin C. 3antos, has #one to the courts with the same protestations of innocence and e-ual temerit DCivil Cases /os. 3+4()115 and 3+4()116 before RTC, Branches == and =', ManilaH Civil Cases Nos. +'&2*+ and +'02*+, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch (', MalabonH Civil Case /o. *0266, RTC, Branch &(& Pasi#, Metro Manila and with his own brand of private arm to boot, resorted to the midni#ht plunder of the sub!ect se-uestered assets under a midni#ht writ Dissued in Civil Case No. (1)&& b 6ud#e EutropioMi#riOo. /bviousl, the herein private respondent as well as Nemesio Co would li$e to continue their fun. 18 3uch proliferation of suits filed a#ainst the Commission in the trial courts, and #ross disre#ard of the Commissions primac of administrative !urisdiction has of course compelled the Commission to -uestion in turn in this Court and obtain restrainin# orders a#ainst the lower courts usurpation of !urisdiction, in the followin# pendin# cases4 &. 7.R. No. +))& DPC77 v. >on. EutropioMi#riOo Eecutive 6ud#e, Re#ional Trial Court of Pasi# and 7lorious 3un %ashion Manufacturin# Co., ;nc. and Nemesio Co 0. 7.R. No. *+0 DPC77 v. Emilio /pinion, Presidin# 6ud#e of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch (', Malabon, Metro ManilaH
7lorious 3un %ashion Manufacturin# Co., ;nc. and Nemesio Co =. 7.R. No. *&0& DPC77 v. >on. Maimo M. 6ap5on as Presidin# 6ud#e of the Re#ional Trial Court, Branch =', ManilaH 7lorious 3un %ashion 7arments Manufacturin# Co., ;nc. and Nemesio Co. 1. 7.R. No. *0*& DPC77 v. >on. %eli Barbers as Presidin# 6ud#e of the Re#ional Trial Court, Branch ==, Manila, eput 3heriff 3alvador A. Pueca and 7lorious 3un %ashion 7arments Manufacturin# Co., ;nc. and Nemesio Co (. 7.R. No. *=)( DPC77 v. >on. Emiho C. /pinion as Presidin# 6ud#e of Branch (' of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Malabon, Metro ManilaH 7lorious 3un 7arments Manufacturin# Co., ;nc. and Nemesio Co 7oin# bac$ to the pre2E3A s-uee5e and scam, it need onl be added that everthin# at the time seemin#l ended to everbods satisfaction. NemesioCos 7lorious 3un, Phil. notwithstandin# the 7TEBs closure order, continued to operate its bonded warehouse and to ship out millions of dollars of #arments under its supposedl cancelled eport -uotas and peremptoril withdrew on Au#ust 0, &)*1 19 its petition in 7.R. No. '+&* from this Court . The two new substitute corporations American ;nter2%ashion Co. and e 3oleil cropped out of nowhere to ta$e over the factories and eport -uotas and it was of public notoriet, particularl in the trade, that the famil had ta$en over. *. This is the thrust of the complaint filed on 6ul &', &)*+ Fwell ahead of the Constitutional deadline of Au#ust 0, &)*+Gb the 3olicitor 7eneral on behalf of the Commission representin# Plaintiff Republic of the Philippines doc$eted as Civil Case No. 0, PC772=,
with the 3andi#anbaan, a#ainst therein defendants %erdinand E. Marcos, ;melda R. Marcos, ;melda D;mee R. Marcos, Tomas Manotoc, ;rene R. Marcos Araneta, 7re#orio Ma. Araneta ;;; and %erdinand R. Marcos, 6r., for reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accountin# and dama#es, involvin#, amon# others, the sub7ect matter of the petition at bar, namel, American ;nter2%ashion and e 3oleil Corporations, to#ether with their assets, shares of stoc$s, effects, evidence and records, which the Commission avers, based on documents in its possession, were ille#all ac-uired b said defendants in unlawful concert with one another and with #ross abuse of power and authorit. ... 2> The Commission correctl submits that -uestions on whether or not the Plaintiff Republic of the Philippines is entitled to reversion, reconveance, restitution, accountin# or dama#es in respect of the above2sub!ect matter is for the 3andi#anbaan to resolve not in an of the scattershot cases that respondents have filed in the various courts of the land. The Court has so held in various cases, amon# them, 8felia %rinidad vs. PCGG, et al., 7.R. No. ++')(, 6une &', &)*+, wherein Ke pointed out that %he 9ureme Court is not a trier of facts it cannot conceivabl #o over all the minute evidence that ma be presented b the PC77. Khat is si#nificant is that this Court believes that in the instant case no abuse, much less a #rave abuse of discretion has been eercised b the PC77, and "#ro4Industrial Foundation Colle#es of 9outhern Philiines, et al. vs. Re#ional :I 8eratin# %eam /o. Five andor the PCGG, 7.R. No. +*&&', 6ul 0*, &)*+, wherein Ke ruled that the parties affected may raise their defenses at the aroriate time and before the roer forum Fthe 3andi#anbaanG. The will have their da in court. ). Khat has not been appreciated b respondents and others similarl situated is that the provisional remedies Dincludin# the encompassin# and rarel availed
of remed of provisional ta$eover #ranted to the Commission in pursuin# its life2and2death mission to recover from a well2entrenched plunderin# re#ime of twent ears, the ill2#otten wealth which ri#htfull belon#s to the Republic althou#h pilla#ed and plundered in the name of dumm or front companies, in several $nown instances carried out with the bold and mercenar, if not rec$less, cooperation and assistance of members of the bar as supposed nominees, the full etent of which has et to be uncovered, are rooted in the police power of the 3tate, the most pervasive and the least limitable of the powers of 7overnment since it represents the power of soverei#nt, the power to #overn men and thin#s within the limits of its domain. 21Police power has been defined as the power inherent in the 3tate to prescribe re#ulations to promote the health, morals, education, #ood order or safet, and #eneral welfare of the people. 22 Police power rests upon public necessit and upon the ri#ht of the 3tate and of the public to self2 protection. 23 9alusouli surema estle-$ the welfare of the people is the supreme law. %or this reason, it is coetensive with the necessities of the case and the safe#uards of public interest. ;ts scope epands and contracts with chan#in# needs. 2= ;t ma be said in a #eneral wa that the police power etends to all the #reat public needs. ;t ma be put forth in aid of what is sanctioned b usa#e, or held b the prevailin# moralit or stron# and preponderant opinion to be #reatl and immediatel necessar to the public welfare. 2 That the public interest and the #eneral welfare are subserved b se-uesterin# the purported ill2#otten assets and properties and ta$in# over stolen properties of the #overnment channeled to dumm or front companies is statin# the obvious. The recover of these ill2 #otten assets and properties would #reatl aid our financiall crippled #overnment and hasten our national economic recover, not to mention the fact that the ri#htfull belon# to the people. Khile as a measure of
self2protection, if, in the interest of #eneral welfare, police power, ma be eercised to protect citi5ens and their businesses in financial and economic matters, it ma similarl be eercised to protect the #overnment itself a#ainst potential financial loss and the possible disruption of #overnmental functions. Police power as the power of self2protection on the part of the communit that the principle of self2 defense bears to the individual. 26 Trul, it ma be said that even more than self2defense, the recover of ill2#otten wealth and of the #overnments own properties involves the material and moral survival of the nation, mar$ed as the past re#ime was b the obliteration of an line between private funds and the public treasur and abuse of unlimited power and elimination of an accountabilit in public office, as is a matter of public record and $nowled#e. & espite all the compleities and difficulties, the ori#inal Commission created under Eecutive /rder No. & headed b its first chairman, now 3enate President 6ovito R. 3alon#a, and composed of >on. Ramon ia5, the incumbent chairman, now Associate 6ustice Pedro :. ?ap of this Court, >on. Raul a5a, now a ran$in# member of the >ouse of Representatives, and >on.. Mar Concepcion Bautista, now chairman of the >uman Ri#hts Commission, and the present Commission headed b Chairman Ramon ia5 have produced unprecedented positive results for which the full deserve the inade-uatel epressed DI at times I appreciation and #ratitude of the nation. The report as of the end of &)*+ of Chairman Ramon ia5 shows the #reat etent of the Commissions accomplishments despite its limited resources, but fortunatel bolstered b the spontaneous and welcome assistance of friendl forei#n #overnments and lawers, in the brief period of less than two ears since its creation and which are re#arded et as the tip of the iceber#4
PRE3;ENT;A: C/MM;33;/N /N 7// 7/LERNMENT 3MMAR? /% ACC/MP:;3>MENT3 As of 6anuar (, &)**
&. CA3> 8 /T>ER CA3> ;TEM3 %unds turned over to the treasur 7en. %und ()0,=(,+)). Proceeds of 3ale of Princeton Propert with PNBNew ?or$ 0,(,. Proceeds of New 6erse 3ettlement ),''),+*&. Proceeds of Auction 3ale &+,0=&,10). Proceeds of 3ale of Paintin#s *,*+),(. 3BTC D&st pament 3e-. T"s 0(,,. PCB Bal of Profit 3harin# ++,'+*,*(1. /ther Cash ;tems DCertificate of Time eposits &,1)0,)(&. Contribution to CARP &1,,. 3ub2Total P&,&&+,*=,=&1.
0. 8%/!9 7overnment %unds in TRB" National Treasur DCasino %unds &,&=*,,. T2Bills delivered to the office of the President &,0,. %unds from %ilba$ers(),**1,1(=. P&,0)+,)1,1(=. =. RECEI="B?E9 Pro!ected Proceeds of 3ale of $nic$2$nac$s and %urnitures from >achensach in /lmpic Towers 0,+0,. Pro!ected Proceeds of New ?or$ Properties D:indenmere, /lmpic Towers Apartments, Ma$i$i Properties J).M &*1,(,. 3BTC Certificates of Time eposits +=&,1+,*10. 3ub2total P)=','0+,*10.
1. F>/!9 9%
%unds with the Treasur +&,)+(,+00. %unds with PNB2/rti#as (0,(=(,0)*. 3ub2Total P&01,(&&,0.
7RAN T/TA: P=,1+',*1','0).
(. @EAE?R
Estimated Lalue P0( M
'. C8P"/IE9 AE9%R"%I8/ 8R!ER I/C?>!I/G R"!I8/ "/! %= 9%"%I8/9 0)+ Companies were sub!ect to se-uestration Dincludin# those whose se-uestrations was lifted and those surrendered companies b 6.?. Campos and those holdin# companies whose investments in shares were affected b Krits of 3e-uestration
+1 Companies have available financial statements with estimated total assets of P11B 00= Companies still without financial statements &* TL 3tations were se-uestered =* Radio 3tations were se-uestered
+. RE"? PR8PER%IE9 B>I?!I/G "/! IPR8=EE/%9
Coconut Palace &= >ouses and improvements &0 Condominium units /ffices of R.3. Benedicto, E. 7arcia, etc. 0 National Art and Museum Centers 0 %ishponds
*. 9ED>E9%ERE! ?"/!9 I/C?>!I/G IPR8=EE/%9
1( parcels of land Dincludin#
improvements have been issued with specific Krits of 3e-uestration of which onl &1* have an area of 62,1)+,2)5.)+ s&. m.
0= >aciendas of which &= haciendas constitutin# R3B %arms, ;nc. have an area of 1),3*2,15).55 s& m.
). 9>RRE/!ERE! ?"/!9 B @89E "8 C"P89
Total area in s-. m. of all surrendered properties 62,+30,0(*.0* s&. m.
isposed to AR D00 ;RC titles with total area of 6(,22),*12 s&. m.
Remainin# balance of +( titles recommended for disposal, with total area of *,+3+,25+.0* s&. m.
8%
*& 3e-uestered Lehicles 0) 3e-uestered Aircrafts &= 3e-uestered Lessels &&. A final word about the alle#ed misdeeds of the /;C which the 3olicitor 7eneral has denounced as false and unfounded. 27 3uch alle#ed misdeeds, even if ta$en as true for the nonce, do not and cannot detract from the Commissions accomplishments in the unselfish service of the nation, rendered with inte#rit and honor and without the least taint of scandal and self2interest Din welcome contrast to the past re#imes rape and plunder sub4silentio of the nationQ. ;n our free and democratic space now, with full restoration of a free press and the peoples liberties, it should be ac$nowled#ed with some sort of appreciation that an such misdeeds on the part of the Commissions representative or a#ents have been sub!ected to full public eposure and the errin# parties dismissed and replaced. ACC/R;N7:?, +$ ri+# o4 $r+ior"ri "&% proii+io&
#"ll i##)$. T$ or%$r# o4 r$#po&%$&+ ()%'$ %"+$% $r)"r/ 16, 1987 "&% M"r , 1987 "r$ $r$/ #$+ "#i%$ "# &)ll "&% oi%. R$#po&%$&+ ()%'$ i# or%$r$% +o $"#$ "&% %$#i#+ 4ro0 "&/ 4)r+$r pro$$%i&' i& Ciil C"#$ No. =298 i i# $r$/ or%$r$% DISMISSED. Ti# %$i#io& i# IMMEDIATEL EECUTOR, 55 a, Fernan, /arvasa, elencio4
