The Supreme Court has ordered lifting the freeze order against the P54 million assets of retired Philippine Army comptroller Lt. Gen. Jacinto Ligot and members of his family.
The Anti-Money Laundering Council sought the freezing of their properties and bank accounts believed to be ill-gotten wealth.
In the 24-page ruling of the SC 2nd Division written by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, the SC said the issuance of a freeze order cannot be done in an unlimited period.
Concurring in the ruling are Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Mariano del Castillo, Jose P. Perez and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.
The SC said they are granting the petition of Ligot because his right to due process has been violated by the AMLC.
"Wherefore premises considered, we grant the petition and lift the freeze order issued by the Court of Appeals in CA SP GR No. 90238," the SC ruling said.
However, the SC made a condition that despite the lifting of the freeze order over the assets of Ligot, it shall not affect the other pending cases before the lower courts, including the forfeiture cases.
"The lifting is without prejudice to, and shall not affect, the preservation orders that the lower courts have ordered on the same properties in the cases pending before them," the SC said.
As such, the CA was ordered to remand the case before the Manila Regional Trial Court where the forfeiture cases against the Ligots are pending.
"Pursuant to Section 54 of AM No. 05-11-04-SC, the Court of Appeals is hereby ordered to remand the case and to transmit the records of the case to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 22, where the civil forfeiture proceedings is pending, for consolidations as may forthwith be appropriate," the SC ruling said.
It said while Republic Act 9160 allows the CA to issue a freeze order for a period of 20 days and it can be extended for a period of six months, it cannot be done indefinitely because it will affect the fundamental rights of an individual under the 1987 Constitution to enjoy his property.
The SC even questioned the slow phase of the government to file the forfeiture case against the Ligots, or after the lapse of six years.
The SC ruling said: "In more concrete terms, the freeze order over the Ligots' properties has been in effect since 2005, while the civil forfeiture case – per the Republic's manifestation – was filed only in 2011 and the forfeiture case under RA No. 1379 – per the petitioners' manifestation – was filed only in 2012.
"This means that the Ligots have not been able to access the properties subject of the freeze order for six years or so simply on the basis of the existence of probable cause to issue a freeze order.
"To our mind, the six-month extension period is ordinarily sufficient for the government to act against the suspected money launderer and to file the appropriate forfeiture case against him, and is a reasonable period as well that recognizes the property owner's right to due process.
"In this case, the period of inaction of six years, under the circumstances, already far exceeded what is reasonable.
"Under these circumstances, we cannot but conclude that the continued extension of the freeze order beyond the six-month period violated the Ligots' right to due process; thus, the CA decision should be reversed."
Likewise, the SC commended the CA for doing its duty in supporting the government against grafters, but it was cautioned not to forget the fundamental laws of the land and not to make shortcuts.
http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=&sid=&nid=&rid=512687
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.