Intriguing and alarming

The Sandiganbayan decision convicting Imelda Romualdez-Marcos of seven counts of graft and corruption is really long overdue. It took three decades of trial before the case was resolved. Despite such a long period, controversy still surrounds said decision. It must be pointed out however that this on-going controversy is not really necessary, entirely irrelevant and appears to be erroneous. At this stage, the only issue that mainly surrounds said case is whether the decision is correct or not. The issue of whether she should serve her prison sentence of six to 11 years for each count of corruption is still premature to discuss and to argue about.

First of all, the decision of the Sandiganbayan is not yet final and executory. It can still be appealed. In fact, the lawyers of Imelda Marcos have already manifested that they will file a Motion for Reconsideration and eventually appeal the decision if their motion is denied. So the sentence of imprisonment cannot be implemented yet at this time. It is not timely to discuss whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against her. Such warrant can be issued only when the decision is affirmed by the appellate courts. The warrant of arrest recently issued by the Sandiganbayan is not for the service of the sentence it has imposed. It was issued only because she has violated its order to appear at the promulgation of the decision. This is the only ground for her arrest now pursuant to the order of the Sandiganbayan.

Besides, her old age is not important as far as the implementation of the Sandiganbayan decision is concerned. First of all said decision has not yet been affirmed by the appellate courts and is therefore not yet final. Furthermore, the age of the convicted person becomes relevant and material only when the judgment of conviction has become final and executory and only when death penalty is the sentence, pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code. Under said Article, the penalty of death cannot be imposed on a person who is more than 70 years old.

Hence the current moves of the Martial Law victims to cancel the bail of Imelda Marcos so that she can be arrested and detained while her appeal is still pending cannot be automatically granted at this stage. Her bail may only be cancelled and her arrest ordered while the case is pending appeal, if it is proven and shown that there is grave and imminent danger that she may flee and inexcusably disappear in order to evade the sentence upon its finality. Obviously, the recent statement of PNP Chief Albayalde regarding the necessity of her arrest now was given in this light.

With these clarifications, the ongoing controversy about the arrest of Imelda Marcos should be laid to rest. Furthermore, comments and questions about the correctness of the Sandiganbayan decision should be avoided while it is still being reviewed by the appellate courts. The only move that activists and martial law victims can do at this stage is to ensure that Malacanang will keep its hands off the case while it is pending appeal. It cannot be denied that the man in Malacanang now is a Marcos admirer. People must see to it that there are no moves behind the scenes which may influence the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to reverse or modify the Sandiganbayan decision even if it has not been shown and determined that error was committed by said court which will injuriously affect the substantial rights of the accused-appellant after an examination of the record and the evidence adduced by the parties (Section 10, Rule 124, Rules of Court). Indeed, this fear has some basis as shown by what happened when the burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, was allowed.

Another raging and intriguing controversy that must be closely followed and guarded by the people is the illegal importation of P11 billion worth of shabu that slipped past the supposedly tight and strict restrictions in the Bureau of Customs. This mess is controversial because the customs chiefs at the time the shipments slipped past the Customs Bureau were Isidro Lapena and Nicanor Faeldon, both of whom are reputedly close to Duterte. In fact, Lapena was even promoted as chief of TESDA, a position with a Cabinet rank, while Faeldon was appointed as the chief of the Bureau of Prisons despite their apparent misfeasance at the Bureau of Customs during their stint. And up to now Faeldon remains “untouched” and un-charged despite previous findings that it was during his stint in the Customs Bureau when a part of the illegal importations of substantial amounts of those dangerous drugs were successfully undertaken.

In view of these happenings and developments, people cannot indeed help but entertain the belief that both customs chiefs were “pressured” to release those illegal shipments by some influential persons close to the “powers that be” in Malacanang. To be sure, even if Lapena has already been charged of graft by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) over the 105 missing containers of undervalued goods, and even if Malacanang has committed “to keep its hands off” the case, people still fear that the case will be dismissed eventually.

There are indeed more than meet the eyes, titillate the minds and disturb the ears of our people as to the events taking place right now especially regarding the much vaunted fight against graft and corruption. They are now sensing that this alleged war against graft and corruption is only a farce.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]