(FILE PHOTO) The Sandiganbayan has dismissed two 29-year-old civil cases in connection with the coco levy funds. 
METRO

Coco levy cases vs Imelda, JPE, Danding junked

Edjen Oliquino

The Sandiganbayan has dismissed two 29-year-old civil cases against former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., former First Lady Imelda Marcos, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and the late tycoon Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr. in connection with the coco levy funds scam.

In a resolution dated 6 December, the anti-graft court junked Civil Cases 0033-A and 0033-F, which the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed in March and May 1987, respectively, that originally sought to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the respondents and their other cohorts.

Their exoneration follows the PCGG’s decision to withdraw the cases, citing the finality of the previous Supreme Court rulings concerning the same matter.

Civil Case 0033-A pertains to the alleged fraudulent purchase of First United Bank, now United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), by Cojuangco, former chairman and chief executive officer of San Miguel Corp. (SMC), who was also a close associate of Marcos Sr.

Court records revealed that in 1975, Cojuangco acquired 72.2 percent of the capital stock of UCPB in collusion with the Marcos couple, Enrile and their co-conspirators, using coco levy funds in violation of the law and the intended purposes for which the levy was imposed and collected.

The coco levy was exacted from coconut farmers from 1972 to 1982, following Marcos Sr.’s order, supposedly to develop the coconut industry with the assurance that farmers would get a share of the investments.

In December 2001, the SC declared that coco levies were public funds.

Civil Case No. 0033-F, meanwhile, alleged that Cojuangco acquired two blocks of stock purchases of SMC shares using Coco levy funds allegedly in connivance with his co-respondents.

The Sandiganbayan said that during a hearing on 3 July, none of the defendants objected to the withdrawal of the remaining causes of action for damages. It also mentioned that the PCGG complied with the Supreme Court’s ruling, leading to the final dismissal of the cases.