Scribd
Upload
38 views1 page

5 PCGG V Sandiganbayan 2

OFFICECO's bank accounts in Switzerland were frozen based on an order from Swiss authorities investigating ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family. OFFICECO contested the freezing of its accounts in Swiss courts but lost. It then asked the Philippine government to request the accounts be unfrozen. Instead of providing evidence, OFFICECO filed a civil case in the Sandiganbayan. The OSG and PCGG argued the case should be dismissed based on the doctrine of act of state. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court ruled that proceeding with the civil case would not violate the act of state doctrine as the Sandiganbayan did not need to examine the Swiss freeze orders.

Uploaded by

Reynald Lacaba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
38 views1 page

5 PCGG V Sandiganbayan 2

OFFICECO's bank accounts in Switzerland were frozen based on an order from Swiss authorities investigating ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family. OFFICECO contested the freezing of its accounts in Swiss courts but lost. It then asked the Philippine government to request the accounts be unfrozen. Instead of providing evidence, OFFICECO filed a civil case in the Sandiganbayan. The OSG and PCGG argued the case should be dismissed based on the doctrine of act of state. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court ruled that proceeding with the civil case would not violate the act of state doctrine as the Sandiganbayan did not need to examine the Swiss freeze orders.

Uploaded by

Reynald Lacaba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case # 5.

PCGG V Sandiganbayan – petition contending the trial of Civil Case 0164


Facts:
On April 7, 1986 there were criminal proceedings regarding the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family.
The OSG requested the authorities in Switzerland to freeze related bank accounts and businesses
regarding the ill-gotten wealth, and to provide information in relation to it. The Office of the District
Attorney of Zurich granted the request of OSG and issued an Order. Bankers Trust A. G. (BTAG) of
Zurich froze the accounts of Officeco Holdings N.V. (OFFICECO). OFFICECO was said to be
wrongfully included in the bank accounts subjected to the ill-gotten wealth.
OFFICECO tried to contest the order in District Attorney to the Attorney General of the Canton of Zurich
but the order, freezing the accounts of OFFICECO, was still affirmed. OFFICECO further appealed the
same to Swiss Federal Court but was still dismissed on May 31, 1989.
On 1992, OFFICECO made representation with OSG and PCGG regarding the matter and asked them to
formally advice the Swiss Office for Police Matters to exclude and unfreeze their accounts.
On September 12, 1994 they were asked by the herein petitioner, OSG and PCGG, to submit
countervailing evidence to support its request but instead of doing so OFFICECO sought for Civil Case at
Sandiganbayan docketed as Civil Case No. 0164.
OSG answered and PCGG filed a motion to dismiss but was denied by the Sandiganbayan.
Hence this case. Pursuant to this petition, the Sandiganbayan temporarily cancelled the scheduled pre-trial
regarding the Civil Case Number 0164 in consideration to whatever the result of the petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the doctrine of Act of State is the proper reason why the Civil Case No. 0164 should not
proceed.
RULING/APPLICATION:
The petition is denied, there will be no violation of the Doctrine of Act of State in the course of settling
Civil Case No. 0164 and the said Civil Case should proceed. The Act of State Doctrine is not
applicable in the case at bench. Petitioner is incorrect when they contended that the Sandiganbayan
cannot proceed with the Civil Case pending before them without scrutinizing the freeze order that was
adjudicated by another country and the act of scrutinizing will then result to the violation of the doctrine
of act of state between Philippines and Switzerland. The Court further emphasized that in the course of
Civil Case No. 0164, there is no need for Sandiganbayan to examine and review the freeze orders
adjudicated by Switzerland. The Sandiganbayan would not even require the Swiss Officials to participate
in the said Civil Case.
Conclusion:
The act of state doctrine is one of the methods by which States prevent their national courts from deciding
disputes which relate to the internal affairs of another State, the other two being immune and non-
justiciable.

You might also like