Alfredo
T. Romualdez, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Fifth
Division) and the People of the Philippines, respondents.
_______________________________________________________________________
Facts: People of the
Philippines, through PCGG, filed a petition charging the accused with violation
of Section 5, RA. 3019 as amended. Said petitioner, brother-in-law of former
President Marcos and therefore, related by affinity within the third civil
degree, did then and there willfully and unlawfully, and with evident bad
faith, for the purpose of promoting his self-interested sic and/or that of
others, intervene directly or indirectly, in a contract between the National
Shipyard and Steel Corporation (NASSCO), a government-owned and controlled
corporation and the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company (BASECO), a private
corporation, the majority stocks of which is owned by former President Marcos,
whereby the NASSCO sold, transferred and conveyed to the BASECO its ownership
and all its titles and interests over all equipment and facilities including
structures, buildings, shops, quarters, houses, plants and expendable and
semi-expendable assets, located at the Engineer Island known as the Engineer
Island Shops including some of its equipment and machineries from Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte needed by BASECO in its shipbuilding and ship repair
program for the amount of P5,000,000.00.
Issue: whether or
not petitioner enjoys derivative immunity from suit.
Ruling: In Estrada
vs. Desierto, the SC
exhaustively traced the origin of executive immunity in order to determine the
extent of its applicability. Executive immunity applied only during the
incumbency of a President. It could not be used to shield a non-sitting
President from prosecution for alleged criminal acts done while sitting in
office. The reasoning of petitioner must therefore fail, since he derives
his immunity from one who is no longer sitting as President. Verily, the
felonious acts of public officials and their close relatives are not acts of
the State, and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands
on the same footing as any other trespasser.
No comments:
Post a Comment