THE Sandiganbayan has affirmed its decision issued last January 2023 denying the bid of former first lady Imelda Marcos and daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta to regain possession of several assets, including a frozen trust account, that has either been sequestered or surrendered to the government for allegedly being part of the Marcos family’s ill-gotten wealth.
In a 15-page resolution, the Sandiganbayan’s Fourth Division did not give merit to the plea of the Marcoses for the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal of the assets and properties including a frozen account; those surrendered by virtue of compromise agreements; sequestered but not in the custody of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG; and those sequestered under the PCGG’s control and supervision.
The Marcoses filed the omnibus motion for execution based on the Sandiganbayan’s resolution dated July 22, 2022, denying with finality the PCGG’s motion for reconsideration of its 2019 decision junking the P200 billion forfeiture case against them.
The Marcos family argued that the sequestration and freeze orders on assets and properties included in the complaint could now be lifted following the 2019 ruling.
In their MR, the Marcoses insisted that they have been deprived of the properties for more than 30 years and that the said properties were dissipated by the PCGG’s neglect and have been released from sequestration by virtue of compromise agreements.
They also questioned the status of properties that were transferred to the government or third persons by virtue of said compromise agreements.
They claimed that the compromise agreements were void for lack of their consent and PCGG’s authority.
In denying the Marcoses’ MR, the Sandiganbayan pointed out that the writ of execution cannot be issued as the July 22, 2022 ruling of the anti-graft court is still subject of an appeal.
“As earlier ruled by this Court, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of execution…cannot prosper as the judgment or order that disposes of the action is not yet final,” the ruling stated.
Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan noted that there are still cases not only against the Marcoses but also their relatives, subordinates, and close associates seeking the “reconveyance, reversion, accounting and damages” pertaining to alleged ill-gotten properties.
In those cases, the Sandiganbayan said, the Supreme Court had already upheld the validity of the compromise agreements executed by the parties involving the recovery of certain properties and the authority of the PCGG to enter into such agreements.
“Thus, they have the force of res judicata between the parties and should be complied with in accordance with its terms,” the resolution stated.
The doctrine of res judicata, according to the Court, provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the claim, demand or cause of action.
The Sandiganbayan also noted that Marcoses’ MR did not cite any new arguments that would warrant the reconsideration of its January 2023 decision. “
“The Court thus maintains its earlier pronouncements in the resolution dated January 25, 2023,” the anti-graft court said.
In its January 25, 2025 decision, the anti-graft court held the issuance of a writ of execution cannot prosper since its judgment has yet attained finality with the filing by the OSG before the SC of an appeal of its July 26, 2022 resolution.
Image credits: Photo by Patrick Roque via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0