Imelda Marcos and her PGH case
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.
