Sandigan junks Marcoses' motion vs Malacañang jewelry ruling

A special division of the Philippine anti-graft court has junked the motions filed by two members of the Marcos family who were questioning the government’s right to claim the so-called Malacañang jewelry collection. A five-page resolution promulgated last Dec. 29 by the Sandiganbayan Special Division said the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) — the special body tasked to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses — can still pursue the recovery of the jewelry collection. Sandiganbayan said arguments raised by Marcos lawyers have already been discussed and overruled by the court which, on Aug. 2, 2010, ruled that the PCGG can continue the process of recovering the pieces of jewelry, estimated to be worth as much as $153,000. The Malacañang jewels is the smallest of the three Marcos jewelry collections since the other two – the Hawaii and Roumeliotes collections — were earlier assessed to have a combined value of up to $7 million. “A judicious reading of respondents’ motion for reconsideration discloses that the arguments set forth therein are a mere rehash or reiteration …, which this Court has already carefully considered and passed upon in the questioned resolution," the court said. Defense lawyers said the Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction over the disputed collection since it was never included among the list of Marcos assets claimed by the government in Civil Case No. 0141. They said the court acknowledged this in rulings issued on Oct. 25, 1996 and Nov. 19, 2001, both declaring that "the Malacañang jewelry collection is not subject of any of the causes of action" in Civil Case No. 0141. But in its Aug. 2 resolution, the Special Division ruled that, contrary to the stand of the Marcos family, proceedings in Civil Case no. 0141 have not been terminated since there are still unresolved ownership disputes over some remaining assets of the defendants. The petitioners were former First Lady and now Ilocos Norte Rep. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos and her daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta. The two were also seeking the inhibition of Associate Justices Efren N. dela Cruz and Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos for their supposed bias. Marcos and Araneta, in their motions, claimed the two justices ignored their “valid and well-founded arguments" when they awarded the $35-million Arelma deposits in favor of the government in 2009. But in response, Justices dela Cruz and Baldos noted that their April 2, 2009 and August 27, 2009 decisions awarding the Arelma deposits to government had no bearing on how they will decide the dispute on the Malacañang jewelry collection. “The reason cited by respondents for voluntary inhibition will not erode the sense of objectivity and fairness of the members of the Special Division of this Court. It is purely speculative and preemptory. Simply because the Court had previously unfavorably ruled against respondents does not mean that the members of the said Special Division are biased for the Republic," the justices pointed out. They added that to be a valid ground for disqualification, bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source. - KBK, GMANews.TV