Case Digest: Republic vs Hon. Migrino, et.al., G.R. No. 89483

Republic vs Hon. Migrino, et.al., G.R. No. 89483. August 30, 1990

Subject: Statutory Construction

FACTS

This case puts in issue the authority of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), through the New Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Graft Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), to investigate and cause the prosecution of petitioner, a retired military officer, for violation of Republic Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379.

The controversy traces its roots to the order of then PCGG Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, dated May 13, 1986, which created the New Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Graft Board. The Board was created to "investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel, both retired and in active service."

Acting on information received by the Board, private respondent Lt. Col. Troadio Tecson (ret.) was required by the Board to submit his explanation/comment together with his supporting evidence by October 31, 1987. Private respondent requested, and was granted, several postponements, but was unable to produce his supporting evidence because they were allegedly in the custody of his bookkeeper who had gone abroad.

Just the same, the Board proceeded with its investigation and submitted its resolution, dated June 30, 1988, recommending that private respondent be prosecuted and tried for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended, and Rep. Act No. 1379, as amended.

The case was set for preliminary investigation by the PCGG. Private respondent moved to dismiss the case. In a resolution dated February 8, 1989, the PCGG denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit. Private respondent moved for reconsideration, but this was denied by the PCGG in a resolution dated March 8, 1989. Private respondent was directed to submit his counter-affidavit and other controverting evidence on March 20, 1989.

On March 13, 1989, private respondent filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Metro Manila. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and opposed the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on the principal ground that the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the Board. Private respondent opposed the motion to dismiss. Petitioner replied to the opposition.

On June 23, 1989, respondent judge denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss. On June 26, 1989, respondent judge granted the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining petitioners from investigating or prosecuting private respondent under Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379 upon the filing of a bond in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). Hence, the instant petition.

One of the contentions of private respondent Tecson is that he is not one of the subordinates contemplated in E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A as the alleged illegal acts being imputed to him, that of alleged amassing wealth beyond his legal means while Finance Officer of the Philippine Constabulary, are acts of his own alone, not connected with his being a crony, business associate, etc. or subordinate as the petition does not allege so; hence, the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate him; that if indeed private respondent amassed wealth beyond his legal means, the procedure laid down by Rep. Act 1379 as already pointed out before, be applied; and since, he has been separated from the government more than four years ago, the action against him under Republic Act 1379 has already prescribed.

According to petitioners, the PCGG has the power to investigate and cause the prosecution of private respondent because he is a "subordinate" of former President Marcos.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not private respondent acted as a "subordinate" of Pres. Marcos within the contemplation of E.O. No. 1, the law creating the PCGG, when he allegedly unlawfully acquired the properties.

RULING

No.

Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, that is—where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

The term "subordinate" as used in E.O. Nos. 1 and 2 would refer to one who enjoys a close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative, and close associate in E.O. No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee in E.O. No. 2. It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or was a government official or employee during the administration of former Pres. Marcos. There must be prima facie showing that the respondent unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife.

The alleged unlawful accumulation of wealth is not that contemplated in E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. It would appear that private respondent accumulated his wealth for his own account. Therefore, this case is beyond the jurisdiction of PCGG.