Unacceptable
NO DEAL. That's the assurance administration officials have been repeating like a mantra since it was first known that Marcos family members, including the former first lady, Imelda Marcos, would testify against businessman Lucio Tan.Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, who said he had cleared the decision of the Presidential Commission on Good Government to call the Marcoses as witnesses, declared that "definitely" there was no compromise agreement between the family of the late dictator and the Arroyo administration. "There is no such deal," said PCGG Commissioner Nicasio Conti, who is in charge of litigation. "The Marcoses are principal defendants in this case." But who can blame a cynical public for believing otherwise?
The PCGG is seeking the forfeiture of some 60 percent of Tan's share holdings in 10 giant companies--among them, including Fortune Tobacco Corp., Asia Brewery Inc. and Allied Banking Corp.--claiming that the Chinese-Filipino businessman merely served as dummy for the late dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, who was their real owner. Tan, who is now estimated to have a personal fortune worth $2.3 billion, was reputed to be one of Marcos' closest cronies.
In a surprising turn of events, the Marcoses announced last week that they were going to testify against Tan. First to be called before the Sandiganbayan last Wednesday was Ilocos Norte Rep. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who promised to produce documents showing that their family owned the shares in question. (Tan's lawyer tried to block his testimony, but succeeded only in deferring it to later this month.)
But if the Marcoses now find themselves on the same side as the government in trying to recover the shares they are claiming, that's about how far their alliance will go--or so both sides are saying.
The PCGG says the testimony of the Marcoses would strengthen its case against Tan, but once the court declares the shares to be owned by the Marcoses, then it would grab the whole lot as ill-gotten wealth. Conti said there was no way the Marcoses could prove they acquired such assets through legitimate means, given the vastly more modest income earned by both the dictator and his wife. The Supreme Court earlier determined that between 1965 (when Marcos assumed the presidency) and February 1986, when he was toppled, the Marcos couple had a combined income of P2.3 million or $304,372, based on the exchange rate during that period. Anything beyond that amount is deemed to have been acquired through illegal means and therefore to be forfeited in favor of government.
But if that is a sure thing, as the PCGG would like the public to believe, is it possible that only the Marcoses cannot see it that way? Why would the Marcoses fight for those shares if the government can take them away almost immediately?
Marcos Jr. said he decided to testify against Tan in order to clear his father's name as well as his family's. But as Estelito Mendoza, Tan's lawyer and Marcos' long-time solicitor general, has pointed out, in order for the Marcoses to stake their claim to majority of Tan's share holdings, they would have to admit that Marcos got them in exchange for favors, which is tantamount to bribery. Or they would have to say Marcos engaged in business, which the Constitution prohibits a president from doing.
The last thing the Marcoses will do is admit that the former dictator got wealthy through bribery, blackmail or any illegal means. Maybe they have proof that Marcos already owned most of the country's business even before he became president? Or that he had come upon tons of gold and other treasures some time during his charmed existence, as Imelda Marcos used to claim? And maybe the PCGG finds that explanation believable?
It's hard to believe that the Marcoses stand to gain nothing from cooperating with the government in going after Tan's share holdings. They may be everything their critics say they are, but no one has accused them of being dumb. The PCGG and the Arroyo administration have a lot of explaining to do in regard to this latest twist in the government's efforts to recover the Marcos wealth. Declaring there's no deal simply is not acceptable. That's like saying no consideration was involved when then Rep. Imee Marcos suddenly made herself unavailable as the House prepared to vote on the impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
