Another forfeiture case vs Kokoy Romualdez junked

MANILA, Philippines — A division of the Sandiganbayan dismissed on March 19 the government’s bid to forfeit over $5 million worth of offshore bank deposits owned by the late former Leyte governor and ambassador Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez and his wife.

The anti-graft court’s Sixth Division granted the motion to dismiss ad cautelam filed by the heirs of Romualdez and his wife Juliette Gomez-Romualdez.

The couple – parents of former speaker Martin Romualdez – faced a case for forfeiture of unexplained wealth under Republic Act 1379.

They were accused of maintaining accounts at the Union Bank of Switzerland AG Geneva that contained $5,193,726.37, according to court records. The money was placed in escrow with the Philippine National Bank.

Romualdez is a brother of former first lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, father of former House speaker Martin Romualdez and uncle of President Marcos.

In its seven-page resolution, Sixth Division chairperson Associate Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez wrote the three-member body “resolves to grant respondents Romualdez’s Motion to Dismiss Ad Cautelam, on the ground that this Court cannot interfere with the orders or judgment of the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan.”

It noted that the Fourth Division already dismissed in June 2018 the petition by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2011 for the forfeiture for lack of authority to carry out such action, as well as denied the motion for reconsideration on the order by the Office of the Solicitor General in August 2018.

The Fourth Division also granted Romualdez’s motion to release the escrowed funds in late 2025, ruling that the OSG’s “prolonged inaction… should be considered as an abandonment or waiver of its right to seek the forfeiture of the escrowed funds, and that such inaction has allowed the 2018 dismissal … to lapse into finality, which can be executed and enforced by way of the said Motion to Release Escrowed Funds,” the Sixth Division noted.

“Regardless of whether the Fourth Division correctly ruled on the matter before it, or whether it had jurisdiction to do so, this Court, being co-equal with the Fourth Division and without the authority to annul its acts, cannot interfere in the said ruling, respecting the doctrine of noninterference,” read a portion of the Sixth Division’s resolution.