Marcos v. Republic Digest

G.R. No.
189434
March 12, 2014
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR v. REPUBLIC,

G.R. No. 189505
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. REPUBLIC
FACTS:
in 1972, Ferdinand Marcos formed the Arelma S.A. entity under the laws of Panama and,
opened an account under its name at the brokerage firm of Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Inc. in New York and deposited $2 million. A class action by the Marcos' human rights
victims resulted in a nearly $2 billion judgment for the "Pimentel class," which claimed a right to
enforce its judgment by attaching the Arelma assets. The ownership in Arelma was represented
by two bearer share certificates that are held in escrow by the Philippine National Bank (PNB),
after being transferred there in 1990 by an order of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
The Republic of thePhilippines claimed ownership of the Arelma deposit of approximately $35
million based on its custody of the Arelma shares, but citing claims to the funds by the Marcos'
human rights victims, Merrill Lynch filed an interpleader motion to request the courts to settle
ownership of the funds. Litigation is ongoing in the United States, as of early March 2011.
On 25 April 2012, this Court rendered a Decision affirming the 2 April 2009 Decision of the
Sandiganbayan and declaring all the assets of Arelma, S.A., an entity created by the late
Ferdinand E. Marcos, forfeited in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The anti-graft court
found that the totality of assets and properties acquired by the Marcos spouses was manifestly
and grossly disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials, and that petitioners
were unable to overturn the prima facie presumption of ill-gotten wealth, pursuant to Section 2 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 1379.
In June 2012, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the New York State Appellate Court
decision a year earlier which held that the case of Swezey (representing the class of human
rights victims) v. Merrill Lynch, et al, cannot proceed without the participation of the Republic of
Philippines, making reference to the Philippines' Supreme Court ruling that the Arelma assets
belonged to the People of the Philippines and should be returned to them.
ISSUE: WON the Sandiganbayan does not possess territorial jurisdiction over the res or the
Arelma proceeds
RULING:
We find that the Sandiganbayan did not err in granting the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, despite the fact that the Arelma account and proceeds are held abroad. To rule
otherwise contravenes the intent of the forfeiture law, and indirectly privileges violators who are
able to hide public assets abroad: beyond the reach of the courts and their recovery by the State.
Forfeiture proceedings, as we have already discussed exhaustively in our Decision, are actions
considered to be in the nature of proceedings in rem or quasi in rem, such that:
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal
proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. In the latter
condition, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may not be in
the actual custody of said court.
(The Republic's) national interests would be severely prejudiced by a turnover proceeding
because it has asserted a claim of ownership regarding the Arelma assets that rests on several
bases: the Philippine forfeiture law that predated the tenure of President Marcos; evidence
demonstrating that Marcos looted public coffers to amass a personal fortune worth billions of
dollars; findings by the Philippine Supreme Court and Swiss Federal Supreme Court that Marcos
stole related assets from the Republic; and, perhaps most critically, the recent determination by
the Philippine Supreme Court that Marcos pilfered the money that was deposited in the Arelma
brokerage account. Consequently, allowing the federal court judgment against the estate of
Marcos to be executed on property that may rightfully belong to the citizens of the Philippines
could irreparably undermine the Republic's claim to the Arelma assets.
Finally, we take note of the Decision rendered by the Appellate Division of the New York
Supreme Court on 26 June 2012. In Swezey v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., the
foreign court agreed with the dismissal of the turnover proceeding against the Arelma assets
initiated by alleged victims of human rights abuses during the Marcos regime. It reasoned that
the Republic was a necessary party, but could not be subject to joinder in light of its assertion of
sovereign immunity:
The Republic's declaration of sovereign immunity in this case is entitled to recognition because it
has a significant interest in allowing its courts to adjudicate the dispute over property that may
have been stolen from its public treasury and transferred to New York through no fault of the
Republic. The high courts of the United States, the Philippines and Switzerland have clearly
explained in decisions related to this case that wresting control over these matters from the
Philippine judicial system would disrupt international comity and reciprocal diplomatic selfinterests.11

Marcos v. Republic Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marcos v. Republic Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marcos v. Republic Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

March 12, 2014

FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR v. REPUBLIC,

You might also like