Republic of the Philippines1 v.

Sandiganbayan,
Maj. Gen. Josephus Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano
G.R. No. 104768 21 July 2003

FACTS:

The Story
Upon assuming office, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order 1 (EO 1). The
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was created; it was tasked to recover ill-
gotten wealth of the Marcos family and their allies. The AFP Board was also created under PCGG
to investigate military officers who were considered subordinates of President Ferdinand Marcos.
Among those investigated was Army Major General Josephus Ramas (Ramas). It was alleged that
he had a house and lot in Quezon City, and another house and lot in Cebu. The report also alleged
that Elizabeth Dimaano is his mistress and that she has in her possession military equipment.
Dimaano’s house was raided, based on a warrant for illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition. The seized items were: guns, ammunition, money, communications equipment
jewelry, and land titles.
During this time, the Freedom Constitution has not yet been effective.

Sandiganbayan
The Republic filed a petition to forfeit the equipment and items from Dimaano, based on Republic
Act 13792. However, the Republic moved for several postponements. Thus Ramas and Dimaano
filed a Motion to Dismiss. They argued that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate
military officers merely because of their ranks, without proof that they were President Marcos’s
subordinates.
The Sandiganbayan dismissed the case because the search and seizure done in Dimaano’s house
was illegal. The case was referred to the Ombudsman—who had jurisdiction for cases under RA
1379. The items confiscated from Dimaano were also returned.
The Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. Thus, a petition to the Supreme Court was
filed.

1 Republic of the Philippines represented by the PCGG

2 Rep Act 1379 provides that ill-gotten wealth which was confiscated will be forfeited to the State.
Supreme Court
The Republic argues that the search and seizure done at Dimaano’s house was legal. The rights
granted by the 1973 Constitution are ineffective because the Aquino government is revolutionary,
thus not bound by the 1973 Constitution. Therefore, the seized items can be used as evidence
against Ramas and Dimaano.
However, Ramas maintains that the search and seizure done was illegal.

ISSUE:
Was the search and seizure legal?

RULING:
Answer to Issue
No, the search and seizure done at Dimaano’s house was not legal.

Court explanation/ Legal basis

As leaders of a revolutionary government, the Aquino administration was not bound by any
constitution during the interregnum3. Thus, the PCGG was not bound to act within the limits
granted by the 1973 Constitution.
However, the revolutionary government was bound by treaty obligations, such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(Covenant). The Philippines is a signatory of both. The UDHR and the Covenant both provide that
no one should be arbitrarily deprived of property.
The revolutionary government did not repudiate both. As the de jure government, the
revolutionary government has the responsibility to ensure that the Philippines complied with the
UDHR and the Covenant.

Application
In this case, the search warrant was for firearms and ammunition. But the raid included items that
were not listed in the warrant. Therefore, seizing those items was illegal.

3 Period where there is not definite government

Conclusion
The items illegally seized were returned to Dimaano. The case was remanded to the Ombudsman
for proper action.