Supreme Court and Sandiganbayan orders turnover of Marcos' looted $42 Million USD to Philippine Treasury

Bank of America Merrill Lynch - Photo: investmentnews.com

Court orders turnover of Marcos' USD42M loot to govt

MANILA - The Sandiganbayan has ordered the turnover to the government of 42 million US dollars in the so-called "Arelma" account of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

The anti-graft court's Special Division issued a two-page writ of execution on the 18th of this month directing the transfer of the money from the Philippine National Bank to the Bureau of Treasury.

The funds represent Marcos assets, originally amounting to 2 million dollars deposited with Merrill Lynch Securities in New York in 1972 in the name of Arelma Foundation.

The order was based on a Supreme Court ruling dated March 12, 2014.

In the ruling, the High Court junked the motion for reconsideration filed by Imelda Marcos, on behalf of the late President, and affirmed its April 25, 2012 decision which held that "[a]ll assets, properties, and funds belonging to Arelma, S.A., with an estimated aggregate amount of $3,369,975 as of 1983, plus all interests and all other income accrued thereon" be forfeited in favor of government when these assets are transferred to the possession of the Republic of the Philippines.

The case stems from a petition for forfeiture filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) with the Sandiganbayan on Dec. 17, 1991 involving $356 million ($658 million as of the April 2012 SC ruling), and two treasury notes worth $25 million and $5 million, allegedly illegally amassed by the Marcoses.

The PCGG petition also sought the forfeiture of the assets of alleged dummy corporations and entities established by the Marcoses, as well as real properties and personal properties obtained by the couple "manifestly out of proportion" to their lawful income.

Sandiganbayan - photo: philippinechronicle.com

Arelma, which maintained an account and portfolio in Merrill Lynch, New York, was described by the PCGG in the petition as among entities purportedly organized by the Marcoses for "hiding ill-gotten wealth."

The PCGG stressed that the Marcoses could not have afforded to acquire Arelma because their combined lawful income for the period 1966 to 1986, or in the two decades they were in power, was only P2,319,583 or $ 304,372, or only 9% of the entire Arelma fund of $3.4 million in 1983.

The PCGG obtained a favorable ruling from the Sandiganbayan on April 2, 2009; the anti-graft court declared all assets and properties of Arelma, S.A. forfeited in favor of the government.

The Marcoses filed an appeal with the SC to seek a reversal of the Sandiganbayan ruling.

In its 2012 decision, the high court stressed that "in determining whether the presumption of ill-gotten wealth should be applied, the relevant period is incumbency, or the period in which the public officer served in that position."

"The amount of the public officer's salary and lawful income is compared against any property or amount required for that same period," the high court said.

In its final ruling, the high court said the arguments the Marcoses raised in their MR were already passed upon in the 2012 decision.

Marcos incorporated Arelma, S.A. under Panamanian law in 1972, he was already President then; in 2000, the account had grown to $35 million. - ABS-CBN News

 

Continue reading

Charter Change (Cha-Cha) Kicks Off! Should Pro Win? Aquino could have 2nd Term?

 

Cha-cha gets going

MANILA, Philippines - Floor debates over proposals to change economic provisions of the Constitution kicked off at the House of Representatives yesterday, with one of the proponents stressing that the effort is more about making future economic legislation responsive to Filipinos’ needs than giving foreigners the right to own land.

Davao City Rep. Mylene Garcia-Albano, who chairs the committee on constitutional amendment, made this clear in response to interpellation of Resolution of Both Houses No. 1 (RBH 1) by Akbayan party-list Rep. Walden Bello.

The plenary debates ended at past 7 p.m.

Albano said any proposed amendment to economic provisions of the Constitution would not be automatically written and adopted even if the resolution being discussed in the House is approved and ratified by the people.

Albano was the first to defend RBH 1 yesterday.

RBH 1, principally authored by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., seeks to include the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in some sections of Articles XII (national economy and patrimony), XIV (education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports) and XVI (general provisions).

This means the constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership will remain until Congress enacts specific laws to remove them.

In his interpellation, Bello pointed out that China, Indonesia and Vietnam have the same constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership of land but these did not hinder the massive flow of foreign investments to their economies.

“We have seen that in the most dynamic economies in Southeast Asia, constitutional ban on foreign ownership was not in fact a hindrance – it’s something that foreign investors have learned to live with,” Bello said.

Albano, however, pointed out that RBH 1 does not contemplate on directly writing amendments to the Constitution but only seeks to allow the country to adjust or adapt to future economic realities and contingencies.

She said the parliaments of China, Indonesia and Vietnam have passed numerous laws that tend to ease economic restrictions in their respective constitutions.

“That’s not the objective. We’re not saying we’re going to remove them (restrictions). We want to provide flexibility to our country on crafting economic policies to meet the exigencies that come our way,” Albano told Bello.

She said China has allowed long-term lease of up to 99 years for land, while Vietnam and Indonesia have also enacted laws that allow full repatriation of earnings of investors, among other legislation passed to attract investments.

Albano said land ownership is not the only concern addressed by RBH 1, but also other sectors and aspects of the economy.

She noted Congress recently ratified a bill allowing full foreign ownership of banks.

Leaders of the chamber said they would try to speed up passage of RBH 1 to protect it from possible attempts by some lawmakers to dilute it with proposals to amend the political provisions of the Constitution to allow President Aquino to seek another term.

A counterpart measure, authored by Sen. Ralph Recto, is pending in the Senate.

Belmonte earlier expressed confidence that there would not be much fuss over RBH 1 as it is aimed at attracting investments and boosting employment.

“This is just a simple change. The door (to investments) is still locked and we have to provide a legal key,” the Speaker said. “I suppose all the countries around us, in fact, have always been ahead in the area of foreign direct investments, so we really have to start thinking on what we should do.”

He said positive economic developments and high foreign investor confidence provide further justification for removing constitutional obstacles to investments. - philSTAR

 

 

 

Continue reading