spot_img
28.9 C
Philippines
Monday, September 30, 2024

Government grabs Imelda jewelry

The Supreme Court on Jan. 18, 2017 upheld the forfeiture by the state of the three fabulous Imelda Marcos jewelry collections valued at $23 million.

Penned by SC Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the decision details just how rich the Marcoses were/are.

- Advertisement -

The Civil Case No. 0141 is entitled “Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos, (represented by his Estate/Heirs) and Imelda R. Marcos.”

A major setback for the Marcos family, Sereno’s decision estimated that the “known lawful income” of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos from 1965 to 1986 had been unanimously fixed at $304,372.43 in Republic vs Sandiganbayan (July 15, 2003).

The chief justice reiterated that “any cash, property or assets of the Marcoses in excess of the said sum would be deemed ‘ill-gotten and forfeited in favor of the State.’”

The decision affirmed a unanimous Sandiganbayan decision (Jan. 13, 2014, penned by Justice Efren N. de la Cruz and concurred in by Justices Teresita V. Diaz- Baldos and Alex L. Quiroz) in which “the pieces of jewelry, known as the Malacañang Collection, were labeled as ill-gotten and were consequently forfeited in favor of the Republic.”

The Civil Case No. 0141 excludes the assets, monies and all the other properties involved in the said civil cases (Nos. 0002-0035, the cronies’ ill-gotten wealth cases) now pending before the Sandiganbayan.   The crony cases—Civil Cases No. 2 to 35—were estimated by PCGG at one time to be worth $10 billion in 1986, making the Marcoses one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest family in the Philippines.

The other properties which had been identified so far by both the PCGG and the Solicitor General (excluding those involved in the No. 2 to 35 civil cases) are approximated at $5 billion. 

They include:  

(1) Holding companies, agro-industrial ventures and other investments identified by Rolando Gapud in his affidavit dated Aug. 1, 1987.

(2) Landholdings, buildings, condo—minium units, mansions and other houses which the Marcos spouses built, improved or acquired during their 20-year rule as listed and described by Bonifacio Gillego’s Sworn Statement dated June 30, 1986) and the list of landholdings, buildings and mansions of the arrival of the Marcoses discovered by the PCGG in 1986;

(3) Properties held for the Marcoses and surrendered to the government (through PCGG) as part of the Marcos ill-gotten wealth by his known crony, Mr. Jose Y. Campos, estimated to be about P2.5-B as of April 8, 1986 aside from the P250 million cash;

(4) Properties held for the Marcoses and surrendered to the government by another Marcos crony, Mr. Antonio Floirendo estimated to be about $30 million, aside from the P70 million cash and the $653,856.40 paid as taxes in the United States as stated in his affidavit, Compromise Agreement and Agreement;

(5) The so-called New York properties valued at $250 million, of another affidavit of Rolando Gapud dated Jan.14, 1987, as well as in Annex “A” of Civil Case No. 0001; 

(6) Painting and silverwares, already sold at public auction in the United States worth $17 million, aside from the jewelries, paintings and other valuable decorative arts found in Malacañang and in the United States estimated to be about $23.9 million;

(7) Philippine peso bills amounting to P27,744,535.00, foreign currencies and jewelries amounting to $4 million and Certificates of Time Deposits worth P46.4 million seized by the US customs authorities upon arrival of the Marcoses in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (now subject of a separate charge before the Ombudsman) when they fled hastily at the height of the Feb. 22-25, 1986 EDSA Revolt;

(8) The $30 million in the custody of the Central Bank (as part of the dollar denominated treasury bills purchased by the Marcoses from the Central Bank through their dummies using their dollar deposits in Switzerland;

(9) Shares of stocks in Piedras Petroleum Co. Inc. (PIEDRAS) and in Oriental Petroleum & Minerals Corp. (OCPM) worth P500 million;

(10) Shares of stock in Balabac Oil Co. worth about P42 million as described in the affidavit of Mr. Raymundo S. Feliciano, plus the 60% of the sequestered assets of CDCP in the amount of P172,378,030;

(11) The amount of P10 million as described by Jesus Tanchangco in his affidavit and the 45 percent beneficial ownership of FM in Landoil as stated by Jose de Venecia, Jr. in his affidavit dated March 7, 1987;

(12)  Philippine peso and US dollars deposited in the Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC) totaling P974,885,480.46 and $6,522,361.29;

(13) The shareholding of the Marcoses in SBTC which were sold by the PCGG at P161.2 million, and which has increased to P238.7 million including interests, but excluding P15 million already received by PCGG;

(14) The other properties already recovered such as the 21 vehicles reg- istered in the names of Fernando and Susan Timbol estimated to be worth about P5.1 million;

(15) Philippine pesos deposits in Traders Royal Bank totalling over P1 billion which had been invested by Mr. Marcos from 1978 to May 9, 1983 as shown by an analysis of Trust Account No. 76/128 and 76/128A of Mr. Marcos;

(16)   The other properties in the United States already recovered in the total amount of $25.7 million as shown by the hereto attached report on recovered and sold assets abroad, 1986-1991; 

(17) The bank deposits in Luxembourg, Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, United States and other countries which have not yet been fully documented and the approximate amounts therein cannot yet be determined;

(18) The secret deposits in Swiss banks, being the primary and principal object of this petition for forfeiture pursuant to judgments of the Swiss Federal Tribunal in “Heirs of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Avertina Foundation Vaduz, Imelda Marcos, Vibur Foundation, Heirs of Ferdinand Marcos, Palmy Foundation Vaduz versus Attorney General of District of Zurich, Attorney General of Canton of Zurich, and Republic of the Philippines x x x (Zurich Decision), and “Heirs of Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, and Aguamina Corp. versus Chambre d’ accusation of the Fribourg Cantonal Court and the Republic of the Philippines x x x (Fribourg Decision).

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles