G.R. No.
75885, May 27, 1987
Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co
vs. PCGG
Ponente: Narvasa
Facts:
Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc (BASECO) – private corporation
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) – issued the sequestration order
The corporation known as BASECO was owned or controlled by President Marcos during his
administration, through nominees, by taking undue advantage of his public office and/or using
his powers, authority, or influence, and that it was by and through the same means, that
BASECO had taken over the business and/or assets of the National Shipyard and Engineering
Co., Inc., and other government-owned or controlled entities.
As evidence found in Malacanang shortly after the sudden flight of President Marcos were
certificates corresponding to more than ninety-five percent (95%) of all the outstanding shares
of stock of BASECO, endorsed in blank, together with deeds of assignment of practically all the
outstanding shares of stock of the three (3) corporations above mentioned (which hold 95.82%
of all BASECO stock), signed by the owners thereof although not notarized. While the
petitioner's counsel was quick to dispute this asserted fact, assuring the Court that the BASECO
stockholders were still in possession of their respective stock certificates and had never
endorsed them in blank or to anyone else, that denial is exposed by his own prior and
subsequent recorded statements as a mere gesture of defiance rather than a verifiable factual
declaration.
In accordance with Executive Orders Numbered 1 and 2 promulgated by President Corazon
Aquino, PCGG through its commissioners and agent ordered sequestration, takeover and other
provisional orders affecting BASECO.
Commissioner Diaz invoked the provisions of Section 3 (c) of Executive Order No. 1,
empowering the Commission —To provisionally takeover in the public interest or to prevent its
disposal or dissipation, business enterprises and properties taken over by the government of the
Marcos Administration or by entities or persons close to former President Marcos, until the
transactions leading to such acquisition by the latter can be disposed of by the appropriate
authorities.
Issues:
1. Are the provisional remedies involved in this case unconstitutional?
2. Are the acts of PCGG and its Commissioners done without or in excess of its powers or
with grave abuse of discretion?
3. Was there a violation of the right against self-Incrimination and unreasonable searches
and seizures?
Ruling:
1. No.
The Provisional or "Freedom" Constitution recognizes the power and duty of the President to
enact "measures to achieve the mandate of the people to recover ill- gotten properties amassed
by the leaders and supporters of the Marcos regime and protect the interest of the people
through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or accounts. And as also already adverted
to, Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution treats of, and ratifies the authority to issue
sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3. The institution of these provisional
remedies is also premised upon the State's inherent police power, regarded, as t lie power of
promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property, and as
the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers in the promotion of general welfare and the
public interest, and said to be co-extensive with self-protection and not inaptly termed also the
law of overruling necessity.
2. No, PCGG’s general function is to conduct investigations in order to collect evidence
establishing instances of ill-gotten wealth, issue sequestration, and such orders as may be
warranted by the evidence thus collected and as may be necessary to preserve and conserve
the assets of which it takes custody and control and prevent their disappearance, loss or
dissipation; and eventually file and prosecute in the proper court of competent jurisdiction all
cases investigated by it as may be warranted by its findings. It does not try and decide, or hear
and determine, or adjudicate with any character of finality or compulsion, cases involving the
essential issue of whether or not property should be forfeited and transferred to the State
because ill-gotten within the meaning of the Constitution and the executive orders.
3. No. The right against self-incrimination has no application to juridical persons. While an
individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an
immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and
franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.
