Lozano doesn’t represent Marcoses – Bongbong


Former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. denied on Tuesday any knowledge of the supposed proposal of lawyer Oliver Lozano to settle the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family sequestered by the government.

He issued the statement following reports that Lozano, a known loyalist of the Marcoses, submitted a draft proposal offering government a share of the wealth and properties in exchange for the lifting of the freeze order.

“The Marcos family has no knowledge or information of that apparent exchange and service of document between Lozano and the office of Secretary Sal (Salvador Panelo, chief presidential legal counsel),” the former senator said.

One of the proposals in Lozano’s draft was the creation of a legal team that would study a compromise agreement with the Marcoses.

“Oliver Lozano does not represent any member of the Marcos family or the estate of the late President (Ferdinand) Marcos,” Marcos added.

Panelo earlier confirmed that his office received a draft containing proposals and suggestion on how to settle the Marcos wealth, but that it was not acted upon.

No Marcos ‘compromise deal’ – Palace
Malacañang said on Tuesday the family of the late president Marcos has not proposed a compromise agreement.

“He (Lozano) submitted a draft [compromise agreement]. He wrote our office and attached that draft. He has been submitting a lot of proposals and suggestions. Our office just acknowledges receipt of the same and thanks him for his suggestions,” Presidential Legal Adviser Salvador Panelo said in a statement.

Lozano said his proposal was based on the April 9, 1973 notes of President Marcos “bequeathing his earthly goods to the Marcos foundation for the benefit of the people” and as such, President Rodrigo Duterte should issue an executive order lifting the government order freezing the Marcos assets, a part of which will go to government.

Lozano, however, did not specify how much the government share should be. He suggested that the Palace form a legal team to deliberate on the matter and on a proposed bill at the House of Representatives, which will grant the Marcoses immunity from prosecution.

“Atty. Oliver Lozano has written to Malacañang proposing the creation of a legal team that would study a compromise agreement with the Marcos family. The proposal, however, has not been acted and agreed upon by the Palace,” Palace spokesman Harry Roque Jr. said.

Lozano’s proposal has not been signed by any of the surviving family members of President Marcos namely: former first lady and Rep. Imelda Marcos of Ilocos Norte, Gov. Imee Marcos of Ilocos Norte, Irene Marcos-Araneta and former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.

The late President died in 1989 while he and his family were in exile in Hawaii.

President Duterte first floated the possible return of the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth in August 29, 2017, saying that the family is even willing to return a few gold bars and even suggested that Congress pass a law to facilitate the process.

The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was mandated to go after the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses.

Based on government records, the PCGG has recovered $4 billion out of the $10 billion Marcos loot from 1987 to 2016 and was still going after P179 billion from the Marcoses and their cronies.

Imelda Marcos has at least 10 pending graft cases before the Sandiganbayan’s Fifth Division. All have been deemed submitted for decision on August 26, three days before President Duterte announced the Marcoses alleged compromise.

The United States federal court in Hawaii awarded in February 1995 $1.964 billion worth of Marcos’ assets to the victims of his 20-year dictatorship.

The Supreme Court also ruled in July 2003 that the 10,000 claimants in the class suit filed against the Marcoses before the US Federal Court in 1995 were entitled to compensation from the $10 billion Swiss bank deposits of the family. The $10 billion Marcos bank deposits were also deemed ill-gotten by the high court in the same July 2003 ruling.



Please follow our commenting guidelines.

Comments are closed.