|
The former First Lady’s visit to the Philippine
General Hospital (PGH) on Tuesday, July 17, provided the occasion
for one newspaper to describe that event as a visit to the scene of
her crime and to pillory her once again. The PGH case, incidentally,
represents the only conviction she has suffered from the barrage of
criminal cases filed against her, of which there remain only about
50. Some nine years after the Supreme Court reversed the
Sandiganbayan’s decision convicting her, it should now be possible
to look with an unjaundiced eye at that case and the legal basis for
her acquittal. The public will be surprised to find out that it is
the government, and not the Supreme Court or Mrs. Marcos, which has
much to be embarrassed about.
Mrs. Marcos, as chairman of the
PGH Foundation, and Minister Jose P. Dans, as ex-officio
vice-chairman of the Light Rail Transit Authority, entered into an
agreement in which the LRTA leased to the foundation property for a
monthly rental of P102,760 for 25 years. Thereafter Mrs. Marcos on
behalf of the foundation subleased the property to a third party for
P734,000.
Mrs. Marcos and Minister Dans
were charged with violating Section 3(g) of the Antigraft and
Corrupt Practices Act. The elements of said crime are: that the
accused acted as a public officer; and that the contract or
transaction entered into is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the government.
Both elements of the crime were
not proven. Mrs. Marcos signed the Lease Agreement as the chairman
of a private foundation, the PGH Foundation, and not as ex-officio
chairman of the Transit Authority, a position she held by virtue of
being the Minister of Human Settlements. There was no evidence to
show that she was present when the Board of Directors of the Transit
Authority authorized and approved the lease agreement. Hence, the
prosecution failed to prove that she acted as a public officer.
To counteract that, the
prosecution relied on the theory that she acted in conspiracy with
Minister Dans. However, the Sandiganbayan, in acquitting Minister
Dans and convicting Mrs. Marcos, found there to be no conspiracy
between them. Hence, according to the Supreme Court, “it is
utterly illogical to acquit Dans who entered into the contract ‘on
behalf of the government’ and convict Marcos who signed the same
in her capacity as Chairman of … a private enterprise.”
The prosecution also did not
prove the second element. Its case rested on the disparity between
the rental price of the lease agreement and that of the sublease
agreement. It did not offer in evidence even a single lease contract
covering a property within the vicinity of the said leased premises.
On the other hand, a real estate appraiser testified, as an expert
witness for the defense, that the reasonable rental rate at that
time was P73,000 per month.
The Court offered another reason
why the lease agreement could not have been disadvantageous. The
rental income realized by the Foundation “from the sublease
agreement augmented the financial support for and improved the
management and operation of the Philippine General Hospital, which
is, after all, a government hospital of the people and for the
people.”
Finally, “the procedural
flaws” committed by the trial court, of which at least six were
enumerated, were “fatal to the validity of [the] decision.”
Among these flaws was the phenomenon of a sitting justice personally
conducting the cross-examination of a defense witness. The process
was described as a “rigmarole,” and that justice’s “bias and
prejudice” were exposed and his “lack of impartiality” not
refuted. Consequently, the Supreme Court found her right to due
process violated and the decision void.
Ultimately, what is most
disturbing about her prosecution and conviction is that ever since
her exile, Mrs. Marcos has been vilified by the government and the
press as wickedly greedy, corrupt and rapacious. Hence, hundreds of
civil and criminal cases were filed against her. The government
eventually achieved a victory and she was sentenced to a minimum of
nine years in prison. But the victory was a disgraceful one.
Mrs. Marcos did not personally
benefit from the transaction. Rather, it was a government hospital,
designed to service the poor and the needy, which stood to profit in
the amount of P631,240 a month in much-needed revenue for 25 years.
Her imprisonment, rather than proving her to be corrupt, would only
establish that the government was hell-bent on sending her to jail
at all costs, risking the consequences that an unfair decision would
bring. For the government would be penalizing Mrs. Marcos for her
imaginative schemes which enabled social welfare institutions to
remain viable with minimal financial support from the government, a
punishment conceivably resulting in the elevation of her status as
the compassionate champion of the forlorn and the destitute to that
of a martyr.
For comments: e-mail
eq-fernando@hotmail.com.
|
