SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

CONCURRING OPINION

BELLOSILLO, J.:

I concur in the intelligent dissertation of Mr. Justice Panganiban for the reason I discussed in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 106244, 22 January 1997.¹cräläwvirtualibräry

Admittedly, sequestration is a severe, radical, cursory, extraordinary, and even harsh remedy. Thus, except for a general averment of a "showing of a prima facie case" as may be determined by the PCGG itself, which is not even a judicial body, a writ of sequestration may be immediately issued. And no bond is required to indemnify the property owner of any undue damage he may suffer as a consequence of an ill-issued writ. Consequently, its issuance should be restrained to its lawful confines and used with due caution and prudence, in the words of its enabling laws, to the demands of due process, justice and fair play. The provisions of Sec. 26, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution, are crystal clear -

A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon showing of a prima facie case x x x x. For orders issued before the ratification of this Constitution, the corresponding judicial action or proceeding shall be filed within six months from its ratification. For those issued after such ratification, the judicial action or proceeding shall be commenced within six months from the issuance thereof.

The sequestration or freeze order is deemed automatically lifted if no judicial action or proceeding is commenced as herein provided.

Quite obviously, the framers of the Constitution were well aware of the danger of invasion on property rights through the process of sequestration and the possible excesses of the agents and officials tasked to issue and implement sequestration orders. Consequently, to lessen, if not avoid, incursion on private rights and prevent abuses, the PCGG would have to institute "the corresponding judicial action or proceeding x x x within six months," failing in which, the sequestration or freeze order will be "deemed automatically lifted."

The evident reason for the constitutional precaution is to prevent the indefinite sequestration of private properties and to bring the case within the realm of judicial rule so that excesses may be controlled, if not prevented, and rights lawfully protected. For, sequestration was never meant to create a permanent situation where the registered owner is deprived of his property or divested of his rights over the same.

Accordingly, in the instant case, where the shares of stock in a corporation registered in the name of a particular stockholder, whether natural or judicial, have been sequestered by the PCGG but no judicial action or proceeding was filed against the stockholder on record within the constitutionally prescribed period, the sequestration should be lifted forthwith otherwise it would be a clear violation of due process. As I said in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, supra, sequestration - if it is to adhere to constitutional due process - cannot be allowed to hang interminably and forever!