The Sandiganbayan Second Division on Tuesday granted the motion of the government to challenge the decision that junked the P102 billion ill-gotten wealth case against the late President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife Imelda and 11 others.

“Wherefore, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines is hereby granted. The resolution dated September 13, 2019 is hereby reversed and set aside and plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is given due course,” said the resolution promulgated last 6 November.

To recall, the anti-graft court dismissed the P102 billion ill-gotten wealth case against the Marcoses last 5 August due to lack of evidence.

It also dismissed the motion for consideration filed by the Republic of the Philippines represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) last 13 September assailing the 5 August decision due to PCGG’s failure to provide notice of hearing, in violation of the Rules of Court.

In its present motion, the prosecution requested for the relaxation of the rigid observance of procedural rules in the interest of justice.

“Considering that the present action is an ill-gotten wealth case involving a significant amount of public funds, the injustice to the Republic is not commensurate with the degree of its counsel’s mistake in inadvertently failing to comply with the prescribed procedure,” the PCGG said.

In their opposition, the defendants contended that the present motion is a second motion for reconsideration which is prohibited under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court.

They argued that no leniency can be allowed with respect to the plaintiff’s omission of proper notice as the latter failed to present compelling justification or reason to relax the rules other than its claim of inadvertence.

In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan said that although the inadvertence of the PCGG is not a compelling reason to relax the rule, it said that the defendants’ right to due process will not be impinged should it act on the earlier motion as they will still be given an opportunity to study and meet the arguments.

It also noted that the motion for reconsideration cannot be treated as second motion for reconsideration as it does not assail the decision dated 5 August but seeks the reversal of the resolution dated 13 September.

The case against the Marcoses as well as Don Ferry, Jose Tengco Jr., Ramon Monzon, Generosa Olazo, Cynthia Cheong, Ma. Luisa Nograles and others stemmed from the complaint accusing them of extending loan accommodation to Aklan Bulk Carriers Inc., Fuga Bulk Carriers Inc., Coron Bulk Carriers Inc. and Ecija Bulk Carriers Inc. under terms and conditions grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Lorifel Lacap Phimna with concurrences from Associate Justices Oscar Herrera Jr. and Michael Frederick Musngi.