Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 470 views

    Lt. Gen. Ligot v. Republic G.R. No. 176944

    Uploaded by

    JP Murao III
    1. The Anti-Money Laundering Council filed an application for a freeze order against properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family based on an investigation that revealed Ligot had significantly more assets than declared. 2. The Court of Appeals granted an initial 20-day freeze order that was later extended indefinitely pending investigations. 3. The Ligots argued the indefinite freeze violated their due process and property rights, especially since a new law later set a six-month limit. 4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ligots, finding the indefinite freeze unreasonable and a grave abuse of discretion, violating their constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lt. Gen. Ligot v. Republic G.R. No. 176944

    Uploaded by

    JP Murao III
    470 views1 page
    1. The Anti-Money Laundering Council filed an application for a freeze order against properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family based on an investigation that revealed Ligot had significantly more assets than declared. 2. The Court of Appeals granted an initial 20-day freeze order that was later extended indefinitely pending investigations. 3. The Ligots argued the indefinite freeze violated their due process and property rights, especially since a new law later set a six-month limit. 4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ligots, finding the indefinite freeze unreasonable and a grave abuse of discretion, violating their constitutional rights.

    Original Title

    Lt. Gen. Ligot v. Republic.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The Anti-Money Laundering Council filed an application for a freeze order against properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family based on an investigation that revealed Ligot had significantly more assets than declared. 2. The Court of Appeals granted an initial 20-day freeze order that was later extended indefinitely pending investigations. 3. The Ligots argued the indefinite freeze violated their due process and property rights, especially since a new law later set a six-month limit. 4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ligots, finding the indefinite freeze unreasonable and a grave abuse of discretion, violating their constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    470 views1 page

    Lt. Gen. Ligot v. Republic G.R. No. 176944

    Uploaded by

    JP Murao III
    1. The Anti-Money Laundering Council filed an application for a freeze order against properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and his family based on an investigation that revealed Ligot had significantly more assets than declared. 2. The Court of Appeals granted an initial 20-day freeze order that was later extended indefinitely pending investigations. 3. The Ligots argued the indefinite freeze violated their due process and property rights, especially since a new law later set a six-month limit. 4. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Ligots, finding the indefinite freeze unreasonable and a grave abuse of discretion, violating their constitutional rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

    I. Article III Section 1, Substantial Due Process:

    Lt. Gen. Ligot v. Republic G.R. No. 176944


    Facts:
    On June 27, 2005, the Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC),
    filed an application for the issuance of a freeze order with the Court of Appeals against the money and properties of
    the petitioners. With complaints for perjury and violations of RA. No.3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
    Act pending with the Ombudsman, Lt. Gen. Ligot was investigated by the AMLC as recommended by the
    Ombudsman.
    The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that Lt. Gen. Ligot had served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines for
    33 years and had retired August of 2004. Ligot declared in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
    (SALN) of having a total of 3,848,003 pesos for his assets. However, the Ombudsman’s investigation discovered
    properties and assets such as houses, condominium units, investmentscars, and miscellaneous properties amounting
    to at least 54,001,217 pesos undeclared in Lt. Gen. Ligot’s SALN. With Ligot’s main source of income being his
    salary as an AFP officer and the lack of any other source of income by his wife and children, the Ombudsman
    declarer the assets under Ligot’s, his wife’s, and children’s names to be illegally obtained based on RA. No. 1379 or
    An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any
    Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Thereof.
    Also, the Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that Mrs. Ligot’s brother, Edgardo Yambao, also has an
    unreasonable amount of assets worth 8,763,550 pesos contradicting his meager contribution to the Social Security
    System. Given this, the Ombudsman concluded that Yambao’s properties actually belonged to the Ligot family
    acting as a dummy or nominee. With this information, the Ombudsman issued a resolution that probable cause exists
    that Ligot violated RA. No. 6713 or An Act Establishing A Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
    Officials and Employees and Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code or False Testimony in other cases and Perjury in
    Solemn Affirmation.
    Futher, the AMLC issued Resolution No.52 to file an application to the Court of Appeals for a free order against the
    properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and member of his family followed by an Urgent Ex-Parte application by the Republic.
    The appellate court granted the application on July 5, 2005 ruling that probable cause existed that money laundering
    and other unlawful offenses has been committed by Ligot and family. This initial application effected for a 20-day
    freeze order but a later application was granted on September 2005, for an extension of the freeze order until after all
    appropriate porceedings and/or investigations had been terminated.
    The Ligot’s filed a motion to lift such freeze order on the ground that no crime has yet been proven but the appellate
    court denied the same. Meanwhile, on November 15, 2005 a rule in civil forfeiture cases was put into law rendering
    freeze orders of having a maximum of 6 months limit. Given their previous ground and with the new limit for freeze
    orders, the Ligot’s filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same.
    Issue:
    1) W/N CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it extended
    the freeze order against the Ligot’s?
    YES. The Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases, though passed after aforementioned freeze order was rendered,
    has a clause under Section 59 stating that the same should apply to all pending civil forfeiture cases or
    petitions for freeze order. More so, the Ligot’s motion for reconsideration was still pending at the time
    when such Rule came into effect. Though probable cause does exist warranting the validity of the freeze
    order, said order cannot be issued for an indefinite period. Such indefinite freeze order violates the right to
    due process and right to property of the Ligot’s. The Ligot’s case of suspension of access to their property
    for six years perfectly illustrates what may happen given the power of courts to hand freeze orders without
    limitations. Though the six-month period for freeze order shouldn’t be an inflexible rule, the indefinite
    freeze order that has spanned for six years is certainly unreasonable.
    Held:
    Petition of the Ligot’s to have the freeze order lifted is GRANTED.

    You might also like