Quoting the decision: She is “guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of RA 3019, Section 3(h) in relation to Article
IX, Section 8 of the 1973 Constitution” for having a stake in seven
“foundations” with monies in Switzerland.
RA 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act of 1960, and its Section 3(h) provides that one corrupt practice
is “directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or
takes part in his official capacity…”
For example, it is corruption if a public
works official intervenes to get for his firm a government construction
project, or to get a national road pass through a subdivision he owns. It is
not corruption for him to just have shares in a construction or subdivision
company.
That provision in the 1973 Constitution,
which imposes a ban on a Cabinet member “participating in the management of any
business” was deleted in the 1987 Constitution.
How in the world could Imelda be convicted in
2018 for charges filed in 1991 to 1993, for alleged crimes committed from 1968
to 1970 (when the foundations were organized) based on a provision in the 1973
Constitution that was deleted in the present 1987 Constitution? Note that the
1960 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act has a 10-year prescription period.
As Supreme Court decisions on this issue
(Macariola v. Asuncion and People v. Meneses, to cite two) pointed out, “ it is
necessary that by reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts
or transactions and, hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or
transactions which have no relation to his office cannot commit this crime.”
It is certainly preposterous to claim that Mrs.
Marcos used her positions as First Lady, Minister of Human Settlements, and Governor
of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority to intervene to benefit the
entities in Switzerland her husband had set up.
There was no law passed that implemented the
1973 Constitution’s Section 8 provision that banned a Cabinet member from
“participating in the management of any business.”
An analogy would be the fact that our present
Constitution bans political dynasties (Article II, Section 26) but there is no
law that implements it. The Ejercitos, Angaras, Revillas, Binays, and Dutertes
aren’t committing any crime. In short, Imelda has been convicted by the
Sandiganbayan on a law that doesn’t exist.
Nowhere in
the Sandiganbayan decision did it conclude that Imelda with her husband
Ferdinand “plundered” the nation’s coffers. Nowhere in the decision did the
Sandiganbayan conclude, nor did it even discuss, whether or not the funds in
the Swiss foundations allegedly owned by the Marcoses were acquired through
corruption.
Second, nowhere in the Sandiganbayan decision
did it claim that Imelda earned “as much as $200 million from the foundations’
investments.” A worse lie of this “$200 million” thing is the claim by the
Yellows that the Sandiganbayan convicted Imelda for stashing “$200 million” in
Swiss accounts.
It must be emphasized that contrary to what
many Filipinos think, there is no law that makes it criminal for any Filipino
citizen, not even a government official, to have overseas bank accounts or to
set up foundations or businesses in Switzerland,Timbuktu or anywhere in the
world. What our anti-graft laws require for a graft conviction is that there
must be proof that money in an overseas account or anywhere in the Philippines
was criminally acquired through corruption, or the use of a government
position.
Sumagot na ang gustong sumagot.
***
Salamat sa mga
patuloy na nagki-click sa mga advertisement sa paligid ng ating blog. Malaking
tulong ito para tuloy-tuloy, araw-araw kong maipost ang forumphilippines. God
Bless you all! 30
