By Tony Lopez
There was no illegal hidden wealth after all.
That is the conclusion I make after reading the stunning Dec. 6, 2024 decision of the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan on the eight coconut levy cases filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government back in 1987 and in 1995. PCGG lost all eight cases.
In a record 37 years of litigation, tycoon Eduardo “Danding” Murphy Cojuangco won Case 0033 of March 7, 1995, a civil action filed by PCGG “for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the defendants through the misuse and misappropriation of the Coco levy funds.”
Case 00-33 was later subdivided into eight cases: 0033-A filed March 7, 1995, Anomalous Purchase and Use of First United Bank (now United Coconut Planters Bank, UCPB); 0033B, filed March 7, 1995, Creation of Companies Out of the Coco Levy Funds; 0033-C, May 19, 1995, Creation and Operation of Bugsuk Project and Award of P998 million Damages to Agricultural Investors, Inc.; 0033-D, May 19, 1995, Disadvantageous Purchases and Settlement of the Accounts of Oil Mills Out of Coco Levy Funds; 0033-E, March 7, 1995, Unlawful Disbursement and Dissipation of Coco Levy Funds; 0033-F, May 19, 1995, Acquisition of SMC Shares of Stock; 0033-G, May 19, 1995, Acquisition of Pepsi-Cola; and 0033-H, March 7, 1995, Behest Loans and Contracts.
ECJ gave away P84B
Cojuangco actually gave to the government P84 billion (plus interest and dividends) representing proceeds of the sale of one-third of San Miguel which the Supreme Court erroneously claimed belonged to the government.
Cojuangco did not bother to dispute the SC decision on governnent’s alleged ownership of 31% equity in SMC. Instead, the 31% equity was converted into preferred shares which SMC redeemed for which the government was paid P84 billion plus. That money became the trust fund to develop the coconut industry.
Until now, nothing has happened to the moribund coconut industry because nobody knows how to use the trust fund.
In his Inquirer column of April 7, 2024, former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban cogently explains the jurisprudence of the ruling and the background of the cases:
CJ Panganiban explains the cases
“Former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and his wife Imelda, et al., won Civil Case No. 0033 (later subdivided into eight complaints denominated as Civil Cases 0033-A, 0033-B, 0033-C, 0033-D, 0033-E, 0033-F, 0033-G, and 0033-H) involving the coconut levy funds and the companies in which the funds were invested at, including San Miguel Corp. (SMC), United Coconut Planters Bank and Pepsi-Cola, due to the utter violation of their constitutional right to the speedy disposition of their cases.”
Civil Case 33 was filed on July 31, 1987, by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) for the “recovery of ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the defendants through the misuse and misappropriation of the Coco Levy funds.” For 37 long years since then, nothing significant has happened because of the inability of the PCGG to start proving its claims. So observed the Sandiganbayan (SBN) in Republic v. Cojuangco (Dec. 12, 2024, Second Division, per J—now PJ—Geraldine Faith A. Econg, concurred in unanimously by JJ Edgardo M. Caldona and Arthur O. Malabaguio).
Throughout those 37 long years from 1987 till the promulgation of the SBN “Resolution” last December, all that the PCGG did was to ask for “summary judgments,” (that were all denied) and to plead for postponement after postponement due to sheer lack of preparation or lack of witnesses or other dilatory tactics.
Upon motion of the defendants (except in Civil Cases 0033-A and -F), the anti-graft court, in total exasperation, ruled that enough was enough, and that the inordinate delay “subjected [the defendants] to a cloud of anxiety, suspicion and hostility … [and spent resources] on legal representation for … more than three decades … They have not yet had the opportunity to present a single witness or any piece of evidence for their defense. It is inevitable for the defense witnesses’ memories to fade or for the witnesses themselves to become unavailable and for the crucial pieces of evidence to be lost to the ravages of time.”
Significantly, Eduardo Cojuangco, not the Marcos couple, was the main defendant. The other notable codefendants were former defense secretary, now Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile, the major partners of the Accra Law Office (Edgardo J. Angara, Jose C. Concepcion, Avelino V. Cruz, Teodoro D. Regala, and Rogelio A. Vinluan), Maria Clara Lobregat, and Cesar Zalamea.
Citing the Supreme Court, the SBN said, “There is no constitutional or legal provision which states that it is mandatory for the accused to follow up his case before the right to speedy disposition may be recognized.” I agree.
The right to speedy trial
Interestingly, the right to speedy disposition is granted by the 1987 Constitution ordained by the government of the late president Corazon C. Aquino who created the PCGG via her first sovereign issuance immediately when she assumed office after the Edsa People Power Revolution of 1986 to track down and recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth of Marcos Sr. and his supposed cronies.
Another interesting item is the SBN’s notation of the “Manifestation dated Nov. 15, 2024 of the defendant Spouses Marcos to the effect that they shall no longer pursue their cross-claims and compulsory counterclaims,” principally Mrs. Marcos’ claim in her “Answer … alleging that the shares of stock in the San Miguel Corporation listed in the names of [Cojuangco and his companies] were acquired for and on behalf of defendants Spouses Marcos as trustees.”
Verily, the Supreme Court has earlier ruled that the SMC shares in the name of Cojuangco (about 20% of the total) were owned by the deceased tycoon because he proved through his counsel, the recently deceased “super lawyer” Estelito P. Mendoza, that they were purchased with money loaned from a bank that he paid for later.