SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SEPARATE OPINION

PADILLA, J.:

Under the Pea doctrine, ¹ declaring a most comprehensive jurisdiction for the Sandiganbayan in cases involving recovery of so-called "ill-gotten wealth", it appears that the Sandiganbayan may entertain quo warranto complaints, I deem it necessary however to reiterate my dissenting opinion in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 476. Since, in my view, the PCGG writs of sequestration involved in many of the so-called "sequestration cases" were a long time ago automatically LIFTED by operation of the second paragraph, Section 26, Art. XVIII of the Constitution, which provides that

"The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein provided."

the PCGG nominees in the board of directors of said "sequestered corporations" have long ceased to have the right to sit on the board of directors of said corporations. The exception would, of course, be those corporation and entities which have been expressly impleaded as defendants in judicial actions filed in the Sandiganbayan within the periods following the issuance of writs of sequestration as provided in the first paragraph of Section 26, Art. XVIII of the Constitution. These do not, however, include corporations or entities which have been merely "annexed" in complaints for recovery of "ill-gotten wealth."