(case no.

1)

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 104768
July 21, 2003
Art. III

Facts:
Immediately following the EDSA revolution, then President Cory issued EO No. 1 which
created the Presidential Commission on Good Govt (PCGG). The PCGG was tasked to
recover all ill gotten wealth of former president Marcos, his immediate family, relative,
subordinates and close associates. EO No. 1 gave PCGG the power to conduct
investigations and promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out its purpose.

The PCGG accordingly created the AFP Anti-graft Board to (1) execute the mandate with
regard to AFP personnel, both in active service and retired, (2) investigate on matters that
the President may direct them to. The AFP Board conducted investigations on Major
General Ramas. In 1987, the AFP board issued a resolution consisting of its findings and
evaluation and the resolution disclosed that a certain Elizabeth Dimaano was Ramas’
mistress and that the raiding team confiscated from Dimaano various communications
equipment, Php 2.87M and $50,000 aside from the weapons exclusively and solely
specified in the search and seizure warrant. A case was then filed against Ramas and
Dimaano.

Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Complaint claiming ownership over the monies,
communications equipment, jewelries and various land titles that were confiscated by the
raiding team.

In the case before the Sandiganbayan, the Republic filed for many postponements seeking
time to gather more evidence. In 1991, the SB rendered a resolution dismissing the
Amended Complaint, citing as ground, among others, that there was an illegal search and
seizure of the items confiscated. After denial of its MR with herein respondent, petitioner
raised this present motion, averring that the respondent erred in declaring the seized items
from Dimaano as inadmissible in evidence as these were illegally acquired. It was argued
that Dimaano cannot invoke the exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights for there was
no Constitution at the time the search and seizure was done.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights under the 1973
Constitution
2. Whether the protection accorded to individuals under the ICCPR and the UDHR
remained in effect during the interregnum.

RULING:
1. NO. The EDSA Revolution was “done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973
Constitution” and the resulting government was thus a revolutionary government that was
bound by no Constitution. The Bill of Rights was therefore not operative during the
period of interregnum and at the time, the directives and orders of the revolutionary

Prepared by: Daphne Tricia G. Cadiente 1

(case no. 1)

government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of
such directives and orders. A person can therefore not invoke any exclusionary right
under the Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights.

2. YES. The revolutionary government of President Aquino, as the de jure government

in the Philippines, was bound by treaty obligation assumed under international law. The
government was then bound by both the ICCPR and the UDHR which requires the
signatory states to insure that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence” and that “no one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his property.” During the interregnum, the directives and orders
issued by the government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the
authority granted by the revolutionary government and this includes adherence to the
ICCPR and the UDHR.

The raiding team therefore had no legal basis to confiscate the communications
equipment, jewelries, monies and land titles found in the possession of Dimaano. The
seizures were therefore illegal and the items not specified in the warrant should be
returned. The Court heavily notes that it does not declare Dimaano as the lawful owner of
the items, merely that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize
and withhold the items from the possessor.

Prepared by: Daphne Tricia G. Cadiente 2