The conviction for graft charges of Imelda Marcos, the widow of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, is another judicial confirmation of the inordinate corruption perpetrated during the martial law regime by the Marcos family and its cronies.
Even without an immediate imprisonment due to the availability of appeal, the conviction puts an end to impunity for the Marcoses.
Conviction is an indelible ascertainment of culpability, while imprisonment is an imposition of a penal sanction, the deferment or non-service of which does not diminish guilt.
No less than the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized and validated the enormous plunder which the strongman Marcos, his family and cronies committed during the martial law regime, like the following:
(a) In PCGG vs. Peña (G.R. No. 77663, April 12, 1988), it was ruled that:
“The very first Executive Order issued by President Corazon C. Aquino after her assumption of office and the ouster of deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos on February 25, 1986 was Executive Order No. 1 issued on February 28, 1986 creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government, charging it with the task of assisting the President in regard to the "recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship."
x x x x x x x x x
“The rationale of the exclusivity of such jurisdiction is readily understood. Given the magnitude of the past regime's ‘organized pillage’ and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of the experts and best legal minds available in the market, it is a matter of sheer necessity to restrict access to the lower courts, which would have tied into knots and made impossible the Commission's gigantic task ofrecovering the plundered wealth of the nation, whom the past regime in the process had saddled and laid prostrate with a huge $27 billion foreign debt that has since ballooned to $28.5 billion.” (Emphasis supplied).
(b) In Marcos vs. Manglapus (G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989), the Supreme Court barred the return of the dictator and his immediate family to the Philippines. It ruled that:
“The resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons who seek to return to the country are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be ill-gotten wealth are sought to be recovered…”
(c) In Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003), the Supreme Court forfeited the amounts transferred to the Philippines by the Swiss Supreme Court in favor of the Republic of the Philippines as Marcos’ ill-gotten wealth, which was deposited in escrow with the Philippine National Bank in the estimated aggregate amount ofUS$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002, plus interest. It held that:
“The pattern of: 1) creating foundations, 2) use of pseudonyms and dummies, 3) approving regulations of the Foundations for the distribution of capital and income of the Foundations to the First and Second beneficiary (who are no other than FM and his family), 4) opening of bank accounts for the Foundations, 5) changing the names of the Foundations, 6) transferring funds and assets of the Foundations to other Foundations or Fides Trust, 7) liquidation of the Foundations as substantiated by the Annexes U to U-168, Petition [for forfeiture] strongly indicate that FM and/or Imelda were the real owners of the assets deposited in the Swiss banks, using the Foundations as dummies.”
x x x x x x x x x
“In the face of undeniable circumstances and the avalanche of documentary evidence against them, respondent Marcoses failed to justify the lawful nature of their acquisition of the said assets. Hence, the Swiss deposits should be considered ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the State in accordance with Section 6 of RA 1379”. (Emphasis supplied).
(f) Moreover, the Swiss Supreme Court in a decision dated December 10, 1997 ruled that: “there was little doubt about the criminal provenance of the secret Marcos accounts and securities hidden in the Swiss banks.” (Emphasis supplied).
The validity and efficacy of the foregoing court rulings are final and unassailable that the Marcoses were plunderers who pillaged the country’s coffers.
Likewise, congressional confirmation of the pillage and atrocities during martial law are unmistakable in RA No. 10368 or the "Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013” and RA No. 10353 or the “Anti Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012”.