OSG misses deadline for comment on Marcos wealth appeal; files ABS-CBN petitions first

The Office of the Solicitor General, led by Jose Calida, missed the court-appointed deadline to comment on the appeal lodged by one of the accused in the ill-gotten wealth case against the family of the late President Ferdinand Marcos and their cronies, the OSG’s court filing showed.

In its motion to admit attached comment for Civil Case 0014, the OSG said that while the OSG received a copy of the January 10 Sandiganbayan Order requiring comment on the motion for reconsideration on denial of demurrer to evidence filed by defendants heirs of Rebecco Panlilio and Erlinda Panlilio within 10 days of notice on January 21, the said court order was lost along the way since it was included by the secretary in another case.

“Unfortunately, the said order was routed to the undersigned Solicitor only on February 14, 2020, well beyond the 10-day period required by the Honorable Court as the same was inadvertently included in the other case by his secretary. Thus the undersigned Solicitor wasted no time in preparing the required comment the moment the subject order was routed to him,” the OSG’s motion, which was filed on February 20 before the Sandiganbayan, read.

“Given the foregoing and in the interest of substantial justice, undersigned respectfully pray for the admission of the attached comment with a commitment that remedial measures will be undertaken to avoid repetition of the same,” the OSG added in the same motion.

Under the Civil Case 0014, the Panlilios—business associates of the Marcos couple—are accused of acting as dummies in acquiring ownership/control  of Ternate Development Corp., Monte Sol Development Corporation, Olas del Mar Development Corporation, Fantasia Filipina Resort, Inc., Sulo Dobbs, Inc., Philippine Village, Inc., Silahis International Hotel, Inc., and Hotel Properties, Inc. by securing financial assistance from government institutions on liberal terms for their financial and pecuniary interests.

Aside from the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, the government — the plaintiff in the case — seeking at least P51 billion worth of moral and exemplary damages from the defendants, aside from actual, temperate, and nominal damages, among others, which could be later determined by the anti-graft court.

Quo warranto vs. ABS-CBN first

The deadline set by the anti-graft court for the OSG to file a comment, counting the working days from the day OSG received the court order last January 21, is February 4.

Calida himself filed a quo warranto petition seeking to void the existing ABS-CBN franchise before the Supreme Court (SC) last February 10 due to alleged violation on foreign ownership ban and bypassing government regulations.

Likewise, on February 18, Calida asked the SC to issue a gag order on ABS-CBN in connection with the said quo warranto petition.

These actions show that Calida filed the quo warranto petition (February 10) and the petition for gag order (February 18) on ABS-CBN ahead of its comment on the Panlilio heirs’ appeal involving the ill-gotten wealth case against them and the Marcos couple. The OSG filed the comment to the appeal on the Marcos wealth case only on February 20.

OSG comment

In its belatedly filed comment, the OSG said the Panlilio heirs’ argument that PCGG custodian Maria Lourdes Magno has no personal knowledge of the allegations of the government is baseless, considering that the Sandiganbayan already denied the Panlilio heirs’ demurrer to evidence or move to dismiss the case without presenting evidence for the defense due to weak prosecution evidence.

“The claim is without merit. It must be noted that in their demurrer, the heirs of Panlilio already raised this issue by attempting to cloud the pieces of evidence submitted by plaintiff which have been admitted by the Honorable Court. They now belatedly claim that Ms. Magno is highly incompetent to testify on the allegations under the Expanded Complaint,” the OSG said.

“The Honorable Court’s denial of the heirs of Panlilio’s demurrer to evidence shows and proves that the plaintiff had indeed laid a prima facie case in support of its claim. The burden of proof, therefore, was shifted to heirs of Panlilio to controvert petitioner’s prima facie case,” the OSG added. —KG, GMA News