This refers to the blatantly untrue and misleading statements in Mr. Jarius Bondoc’s column Gotcha last 21 November 2018, entitled “What can ‘go wrong’ with Imelda Marcos’ conviction.” Unfortunately, and quite irresponsibly, it appears that he relied on unfounded information from former Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) commissioner Ruben Carranza. Mr. Bondoc is entirely mistaken on all three points he raised. The Solicitor General did not fire the American lawyers. He did not withhold their fees. Neither did he withdraw any case involving ill-gotten wealth.
First, the case pending before the United States Court was instituted by the District Attorney of New York City to settle ownership of, among others, four Marcos ill-gotten paintings. This is different from the forfeiture case filed by the Philippine Government before the Sandiganbayan. This is the “real recovery case” where the Government seeks to recover some US$5 to 10 billion in Marcos ill-gotten wealth. This case includes the four paintings subject of the US case. To stress, the Government, particularly the OSG, has not withdrawn this case.
Second, the OSG did not hire or fire the foreign counsel in the US case. The hiring and firing of foreign lawyers is the prerogative of the PCGG, subject only to the conformity of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Commission on Audit (COA). We must point out that it was the PCGG, under former chairperson Andres Bautista, which hired Atty. Kenneth Murphy of Simon & Partners without the conformity of the OSG and the COA. It was the COA which disallowed the payment of fees to Atty. Murphy because of this lack of conformity.
Third, the PCGG, also during the time of chairperson Bautista, authorized Atty. Murphy to “exercise a limited waiver of sovereign immunity.” Worse, there is no record of any PCGG Resolution approving this action. This is a legal misstep, in view of the 2012 ruling of the US Supreme Court in Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel (Case No. 06- 1204), wherein the Philippines’ assertion of sovereign immunity was upheld. The US Supreme Court also ruled that US courts cannot seize property being claimed by a sovereign state as ill-gotten without violating international law. The OSG thus recommended that the PCGG direct Atty. Murphy to withdraw the waiver of sovereign immunity, but he refused to do so. This disagreement between the PCGG and Atty. Murphy as to the handling of the US case, and the COA disallowance of the payment of his fees, are the real causes why Atty. Murphy, of his own accord, withdrew from the case.
We hope that this will correct the baseless and erroneous claims made in Mr. Bondoc’s column. Thank you. – HECTOR CALILUNG, Senior State Solicitor and JEANIE BACONG, State Solicitor, OSG Spokespersons