A
Marcos should be sent to jail- that is the scenario the political opposition or
those who are against the Marcoses would like to happen.
The
so-called heroes of EDSA revolution in 1986 – the “yellows” and the communists
who are known to have aligned with the political opposition during the
presidency of former Ferdinand Marcos are making the noise that Imelda Marcos
should go directly to jail.
Even
Vice President Leni Robredo also delved into the issue of the Sandiganbayan to
grant a 150,000 bail to Imelda Marcos, calling it a “mockery of the justice
system”
Former First Lady and current Ilocos Norte Representative Imelda Marcos (photo credit to owner) |
"Iyong
150,000 pesos na bail, napakaliit considering the enormity noong ninakaw.
Pangalawa, barya lang iyon sa kaniya, eh," Robredo said.
"In
fact, iyong pinaka-insulto sa atin, kasi iyong the day na lumabas iyong
conviction, nag-party pa. Pero iyong dahilan niya nga kung bakit hindi siya
naka-attend noong conviction, may sakit siya. Parang nagiging mockery iyong
justice system," Robredo added.
Veteran
journalist has a different take on the matter altogether, stating that Imelda
cannot be held guilty simply because the decision was based on a Constitution
that is no longer in effect.
“It is like being found guilty of jaywalking, an act considered a crime
when you were charged in court, but which is no longer a crime today.”
We are
quoting the full article of Mr. Tony Lopez titled “Imelda found guilty based on
a defunct Constitution” from Manila Standard, for the public’s knowledge.
Imelda found guilty based on a defunct Constitution
The Sandigan found former First Lady Imelda
Romualdez Marcos guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, in seven counts of graft
resulting from the establishment of the Marcos couple of seven foundation that
allegedly hid illegal wealth.
Declared the 70-page Nov. 9, 2018 decision:
“GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA
No. 3019, Section 3(h) in relation to Article IX, Section 8 of the 1973
Constitution in Criminal Cases Nos. 17287, 17288, 17289, 172890, 22867, 22868
and 22869 whereby she is sentenced, in each of these cases, to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) month as
minimum to eleven (11) years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification to
hold public office. As regards the civil aspect consisting of forfeiture of the
assets and accounts of the foundations subject of these cases, the Court defers
to the disposition thereof in the forfeiture proceedings separately instituted
against the accused;”
“ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 19225, for failure
of the Information therein to charge an offense.”
The court invoked Republic Act 3019, Section 3(h)
in relation to Article IX, Section 8 the 1973 Constitution. Under the 1973
Constitution, a public official like Imelda, cannot own private corporations.
This is to avoid conflict of interest and graft.
RA 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Practices Act. Its
Section 3-H refers to being “Director or indirectly having financing or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with
which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.”
Something is funny with the decision. Imelda was
found guilty based on a Constitution that is extinct and defunct and no longer
used in this country.
It is like being found guilty of jaywalking, an act
considered a crime when you were charged in court, but which is no longer a
crime today.
Imelda was found guilty for organizing,
coordinating and directing the affairs of seven foundations that allegedly hid
the wealth of the Marcoses. These are: Maler Foundation
(Criminal Case 17287); Trinidad Foundation (CC 17288); Rayby Foundation (CC
17289); Palmy Foundation (CC 172890); Azio-Verzo (CC 22867); Rosalys-Aguamina
(CC 22868); and Avertina-Xandy (CC 22869).
Said the court
decision:
"I doubt that
the fomer first lady would go to jail."
The Sandigan found former First Lady Imelda
Romualdez Marcos guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, in seven counts of graft
resulting from the establishment of the Marcos couple of seven foundation that
allegedly hid illegal wealth.
Declared the 70-page Nov. 9, 2018 decision:
“GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA
No. 3019, Section 3(h) in relation to Article IX, Section 8 of the 1973
Constitution in Criminal Cases Nos. 17287, 17288, 17289, 172890, 22867, 22868
and 22869 whereby she is sentenced, in each of these cases, to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from six (6) years and one (1) month as
minimum to eleven (11) years as maximum, with perpetual disqualification to
hold public office. As regards the civil aspect consisting of forfeiture of the
assets and accounts of the foundations subject of these cases, the Court defers
to the disposition thereof in the forfeiture proceedings separately instituted
against the accused;”
“ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 19225, for failure
of the Information therein to charge an offense.”
The court invoked Republic Act 3019, Section 3(h) in
relation to Article IX, Section 8 the 1973 Constitution. Under the 1973
Constitution, a public official like Imelda, cannot own private corporations.
This is to avoid conflict of interest and graft.
RA 3019 is the Anti-Graft and Practices Act. Its
Section 3-H refers to being “Director or indirectly having financing or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with
which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is
prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.”
Something is funny with the decision. Imelda was
found guilty based on a Constitution that is extinct and defunct and no longer
used in this country.
It is like being found guilty of jaywalking, an act
considered a crime when you were charged in court, but which is no longer a
crime today.
Imelda was found guilty for organizing,
coordinating and directing the affairs of seven foundations that allegedly hid
the wealth of the Marcoses. These are: Maler Foundation (Criminal
Case 17287); Trinidad Foundation (CC 17288); Rayby Foundation (CC 17289); Palmy
Foundation (CC 172890); Azio-Verzo (CC 22867); Rosalys-Aguamina (CC 22868); and
Avertina-Xandy (CC 22869).
Said the court decision:
“As overwhelmingly established by evidence in
Criminal Cases Nos. .17287, 17288, 17289, 17290, 22867, 22869, and 22870, Ms.
Marcos organized, coordinated and directed the affairs of Maler, Trinidad,
Rayby, Palmy, Azio-Verzo-Vibur, Avertina, and Rosalys-Aguamina Foundations,
either personally or thru her designated agents, from the creation up to the
end or dissolution thereof, including the transfer and disposition of their
respective assets and accounts. In other words, Ms. Marcos participated in the
management thereof, by exercising control over their assets and the disposal
thereof, appointing the persons to represent these foundations, transmitting
instructions, and ratifying the decisions and circumstances of these persons,
all geared towards a particular objective.”
Imelda was found guilty for organizing,
coordinating and directing the affairs of seven foundations that allegedly hid
the wealth of the Marcoses.
These are: Maler Foundation (Criminal Case 17287);
Trinidad Foundation (CC 17288); Rayby Foundation (CC 17289); Palmy Foundation
(CC 172890); Azio-Verzo (CC 22867); Rosalys-Aguamina (CC 22868); and
Avertina-Xandy (CC 22869).
Imelda was acquitted in three other cases—Criminal
Case 19225 (ARCI and Dynetics), CC 17291 (diversion of government loan by ARCI),
and CC 22870 (Pretorien-Gladiator--Cesar ESG foundations). Imelda having
financial interest in a business is not automatically a crime.
In ARCI, it was not Imelda but Ferdinand Marcos who
ran things. Criminal responsibility is personal to the perpetrator.
As to the Pretorien-Gladiator-Cesar-ESG
foundations, the evidence is inadequate to prove Imelda’s active participation.
Imelda was sued in 10 criminal cases—eight for
allegedly owning and running foundations that hid the family wealth, and two
for allegedly intervening in a Philippine company which embezzled a government
loan (the Asian Reliability case).
The first five cases (four foundations and ARCI)
were filed in 1991. The sixth case (also ARCI) was filed in December
1993. The remaining four cases (involving another four foundations) were
filed in August 1995. The first five cases were tried for 27 years. The
sixth case tried for 25 years. And the last four were tried for 23 years.
The court said: “A review of evidence points not to
Ms. Marcos, but to her husband Mr. Marcos, who personally participated in the
management, control and direction of the affairs of ARCI. Criminal
responsibility being personal to the perpetrator thereof, the same cannot be
attributed by implication to Ms. Marcos. The evidence merely shows Ms. Marcos’
financial interests in ARCI, being the spouse of Mr. Marcos, but evidence of
her active participation in the management and control thereof, which is
prohibited under Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1973 Constitution, is
insufficient.”
Now, will Imelda go to jail?
I doubt it.
What
can you say about this?
Share
us your thoughts by simply leaving on the comment section below. For more news,
updates, feel free to visit our site often.
Stay
updated with today's relevant news and trends by hitting the LIKE button.
Thanks
for dropping by and reading the post
Report
from Manila Standard
1 Comments
Sandigang Bayan.
ReplyDeleteSandigan ng mga corrupt politicians like the Dilawan.
Lpig's
Panot abnormal Aquino ang all his cohorts.
Mga SALOT ng BAYAN.