Court junks civil case vs Marcoses
(UPDATES) THE Sandiganbayan's Second Division has dismissed a civil case against the Marcoses, finding that their right to speedy case disposition was violated. In a 30-page resolution promulgated on Oct. 4, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by former first lady Imelda Marcos and the heirs of the late president Ferdinand E. Marcos. "As for the reason for the delay, it started with the defective complaint which led to the filing of the bill of particulars and the dismissal of the case against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos in a Resolution dated October 25, 2012. This resolution was reversed by the Supreme Court, but it excluded the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos from paragraphs 9, 12(a), 12(b), 12(c), and 12(e) of the Expanded Complaint, without prejudice to the standing valid effect of paragraph 12(d) or the Pinugay Estate," the court said. "Scrutiny of the chronology of events, in this case, shows a plethora of motions for extension filed due to unpreparedness or lack of witnesses/documentary evidence, aside from pending incidents and scheduled pre-trial cancellations contributing to the inordinate delay. Thus far, there has been no pre-trial in this case, and the trial has not even started. A long period of time has elapsed without the defendants having their case tried," the court said. "They can no longer be afforded a fair trial since the witnesses may have already died, and the documentary evidence may no longer be located after more than 30 years from the filing of the complaint," the court said. "Moreover, the alleged transaction involving the Pinugay estate happened around 53 years ago, during which the heirs of the late defendant Ferdinand Marcos would have been minors. This would give the defendants difficulty in finding testimonial and documentary evidence to prove their defense considering the time that has elapsed," the court said. It pointed out that the plaintiff — the Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government and assisted by the Office of the Solicitor General —did not oppose the motion to dismiss. "In fact, the plaintiff tends to agree with the dismissal of the case when it emphasizes that there are no more allegations against the Estate of Marcos... It said that the Pinugay Estate alluded to in paragraph 12(d) was not included in Annex A of the Complaint. The plaintiff then averred that all allegations against the Marcoses were struck down; hence, there is no more reason to proceed as against them," the court said. Article 3, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution grants all people the right to speedy disposition of their cases before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
Tomas Kauer - Moderator 
(UPDATES) THE Sandiganbayan's Second Division has dismissed a civil case against the Marcoses, finding that their right to speedy case disposition was violated.
In a 30-page resolution promulgated on Oct. 4, 2024, the court granted the motion to dismiss filed by former first lady Imelda Marcos and the heirs of the late president Ferdinand E. Marcos.
"As for the reason for the delay, it started with the defective complaint which led to the filing of the bill of particulars and the dismissal of the case against the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos in a Resolution dated October 25, 2012. This resolution was reversed by the Supreme Court, but it excluded the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos from paragraphs 9, 12(a), 12(b), 12(c), and 12(e) of the Expanded Complaint, without prejudice to the standing valid effect of paragraph 12(d) or the Pinugay Estate," the court said.
"Scrutiny of the chronology of events, in this case, shows a plethora of motions for extension filed due to unpreparedness or lack of witnesses/documentary evidence, aside from pending incidents and scheduled pre-trial cancellations contributing to the inordinate delay. Thus far, there has been no pre-trial in this case, and the trial has not even started. A long period of time has elapsed without the defendants having their case tried," the court said.
"They can no longer be afforded a fair trial since the witnesses may have already died, and the documentary evidence may no longer be located after more than 30 years from the filing of the complaint," the court said.
"Moreover, the alleged transaction involving the Pinugay estate happened around 53 years ago, during which the heirs of the late defendant Ferdinand Marcos would have been minors. This would give the defendants difficulty in finding testimonial and documentary evidence to prove their defense considering the time that has elapsed," the court said.
It pointed out that the plaintiff — the Republic, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government and assisted by the Office of the Solicitor General —did not oppose the motion to dismiss.
"In fact, the plaintiff tends to agree with the dismissal of the case when it emphasizes that there are no more allegations against the Estate of Marcos... It said that the Pinugay Estate alluded to in paragraph 12(d) was not included in Annex A of the Complaint. The plaintiff then averred that all allegations against the Marcoses were struck down; hence, there is no more reason to proceed as against them," the court said.
Article 3, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution grants all people the right to speedy disposition of their cases before judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
