President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has faced a significant judicial setback as the Supreme Court ruled against his bid to reclaim the Paoay complex in Ilocos Norte, classifying it as ill-gotten wealth procured through an unconstitutional lease by his father, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
The Supreme Court delivered its unanimous decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, on November 13 last year and published on September 4. The decision declared that the land, except those validly covered by free patents, belongs to the public domain and hence, the state. The 1978 Lease Contract between Marcos Sr. and the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) was deemed void and unconstitutional.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling on the unconstitutional nature of the lease, Marcos’ sister, Senator Imee Marcos, and his sons managed to secure free patents on 58 out of the 150 parcels of land in the Paoay complex since 2000. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that these free patents had ‘glaring irregularities’ as they were issued even though the land was part of a national park. The matter of reversing these free patents falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), which requires presidential approval. Notably, the President is the same individual who sought to acquire these properties for his family.
The Supreme Court suggested that due to the president’s multifarious responsibilities, he could delegate the power to reverse the free patents to the Land Management Bureau of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). This case represents a critical test for President Marcos as it involves addressing an ill-gotten wealth issue linked to his own family.
The contested land spans 576,787 square meters in Barangay Suba, Paoay, and includes Malacañang of the North, a sports complex, tennis courts, and a golf course. In 1969, Marcos Sr. declared Paoay Lake a national park. However, in 1978, he declared parts of the land surrounding the lake disposable and open for acquisition, subsequently entering into a lease agreement with the PTA for a nominal fee of P1 per year for 25 years. This allowed substantial profits for Marcos Sr. at the government’s expense, as the PTA bore the development costs.
In 2014, the Sandiganbayan declared the lease void, prompting the Marcos estate to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. Despite attempts to reclaim the property, the Supreme Court concluded that the Marcos estate, represented by the President, ‘is a mere usurper of public property.’ Consequently, the land, aside from legally obtained free patents, belongs to the state.
This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing recovery of ill-gotten properties acquired by the Marcos family. The Supreme Court emphasized that for property to be considered ill-gotten, its origin must be traceable to the State, and it must have been acquired through illegal means by Marcos Sr., his immediate family, relatives, or close associates. Both criteria are met in this case, establishing the current ruling.
The Supreme Court’s ruling against President Marcos Jr.’s claim over the Paoay complex underscores the ongoing challenge of reclaiming ill-gotten wealth. How President Marcos navigates this situation will significantly impact the government’s stance on corruption and governance.
Source: Rappler