As Marcos eyes reopening of estate tax case, Gesmundo says no decision written in stone

Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo said Wednesday that certain circumstances may permit the review of court decisions that have been accorded finality.

Gesmundo made the statement after a reporter asked him during the Kapihan sa Manila Bay about the justification for revisiting a decision that had already been declared final in light of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.'s recent statement that he wants to reopen the estate tax case involving his family.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the family of late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. owed P23 billion in estate tax. The decision became final and executory in 1999.

In an interview with TV host Toni Gonzaga in September, the President said they didn't have the opportunity to answer the estate tax issue since they were in the United States at the time, thus his call for the case to be opened again and be resolved.

“No decision of the court is written in stone. Ang pagbabago ng desisyon ng korte, unang-una nababatay ‘yan sa komposisyon ng korte,” Gesmundo said.

(No decision of the court is written in stone. First of all, the modification of a decision is dependent on the composition of the court.)

“Parang kagaya sa Amerika. May conservative, may liberal. Kapag majority conservative, mahirap magpa-reverse ng decision. Pero kapag majority ay liberal napakadali nilang gawin ‘yan,” he added.

(Similar to the United States of America. There are conservatives and liberals on the US Supreme Court. If the majority of the justices are conservative, it is difficult to reverse a decision. But if the majority is liberal, it will be easier.)

According to Gesmundo, the issues being brought up by the parties should also be taken into consideration. 

“Is it a question of constitutional rights [being] blatantly violated? Then we have to take a second look. Depende ‘yan kung anong mga sitwasyon at mga bagay-bagay na dinudulog sa Korte Suprema upang baguhin at ibahin ang desisyon,” he said.

(Is it a question of constitutional rights being blatantly violated? Then we have to take a second look. It depends on the situation and matters being raised with the Supreme Court to push for the reversal of a decision.)

He cited the SC decision in Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, which involved the trial of individuals linked to the murder of former Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. and the alleged gunman Rolando Galman in 1983.

“It was reopened after trial simply because the Supreme Court determined that there was a violation of due process. So, there was a mistrial. In those instances, the Court is always guided that a case should be terminated at a certain point in time,” he said.

“But if there are situations so unique and the parties are filing a reconsideration or sometimes from a division to the en banc to have the case be heard, there’s a possibility that former decisions or prior judgment can be modified or reversed. So, it’s actually a case-to-case basis,” he added.

Gesmundo also said each magistrate has his or her own appreciation of a case.

Meanwhile, when asked if he believed the killing of broadcaster Percy Lapid and the arrest of Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla’s son for drug possession were tests of the justice system, Gesmundo said these were "different scenarios."

“Basically these are cases from different scenarios… the case of the son of Secretary Remulla… the case has been filed already. The case of Percy Lapid, I think, is still undergoing investigation,” Gesmundo said.

Associate Justice Midas Marquez, meanwhile, said hearings are still ongoing in the drug case involving former Senator Leila De Lima.

“Siguro pabayahan natin ang ating mga hukuman na patuloy na dinggin," he said.

(Let the courts continue to hear those cases.) — VBL, GMA News