This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-28 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| As can be gleaned from the foregoing pronouncement, evidentiary substantiation of the allegations of how the wealth was illegally acquired and by whom was necessary. For that purpose, the mere holding of a position in the Marcos administration did not necessarily make the holder a close associate within the context of E.O. No.1. According to Republic v. Migriño,[35] the term subordinate as used in E.O. No. 1[36] and E.O. No. 2[37] referred to a person who enjoyed a close association with President Marcos and/or his wife similar to that of an immediate family member, relative, and close associate, or to that of a close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee. Indeed, a prima facie showing must be made to show that one unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of a close association or relation with President Marcos and/or his wife.[38] It would not suffice, then, that one served during the administration of President Marcos as a government official or employee. | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Republic v. Migriño,[93] the Court held that respondents Migriño, et al. were not necessarily among the persons covered by the term close subordinate or close associate of former President Marcos by reason alone of their having served as government officials or employees during the Marcos administration, viz: 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 a 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. This is so because otherwise the respondent's case will fall under existing general laws and procedures on the matter. xxx | |||||