MACAGA-AN VS PEOPLE

JULY 29, 1987 | FELICIANO, J.

P: Madid Macaga-an, et al (Treasurers of
various municipalities in Lanao del Norte and
Lanao del Sur, and OIC Provincial Treasurers
Office, Assistant Provincial Auditor of Lanao
del Sur)
R: People of the Philippines
TOPIC: Who may avail of amnesty
FACTS
In a decision on July 15, 1981, the 22
petitioners were charged and convicted in 33
cases for estafa through falsification of
public and commercial documents. The total
amount of Government funds (treasury
warrants) involved was overP2.7 million.
Petitioners moved to close their cases
on ground that they had been given amnesty
by former President Marcos on January 28
1986. The Sandiganbayan required them to
submit originals or authenticated copies of
their amnesty papers, which they were
unable to produce. Petition was denied.
According to the petitioners, they were given
conditional amnesty on Feb 2, 1985,
through the 3rd and 11th Amnesty
Commission (sic) of Lanao del Sur and
Marawi City, subject to the approval or final
action of the President of the Philippines,
pursuant to PD 1082.
The Amnesty Commission recommended the
approval of their amnesty or grant of
executive clemency.
January 22, 1986: Former Governor
Mohammed Ali Dimaporo made written
representations with Marcos concerning the
applications during a political rally of the
Kilusang Bagong Lipunan. Marcos apparently
wrote the following on the upper right hand
corner of Dimaporo's letter: "Approved" and
signed the same with a partly illegible date.
Petitioners also state that the original copies
of the amnesty papers were lost or destroyed
at Malacanang "during the February 1986
bloodless military revolution" and could
not be located.
In a MR, petitioners sought to present
secondary evidence of the amnesty, but the
Sandiganbayan did not allow it. Court also

held that amnesty benefits under PD 1082

were never available to them. Petitioners
seek certiorari in SC, claiming that amnesty
statute PD 1082 is applicable to them, NOT
PD 1182. and that they should be allowed to
present secondary evidence of the amnesty
given by Marcos.
ISSUES
1. W/N PD 1082 applies to the
petitioners. NO
HELD/RATIO
1. PD 1082 does not apply to the petitioners
because their acts were not offenses of
rebellion.
The offenses for which amnesty may be
granted under the provisions of PD 1082 are
acts which were done in furtherance of
resistance to the Republic by members and
supporters of the MNLF and the Bangsa
Moro Army and other anti-government
groups with similar motivations and
aims.
- Resistance = offenses of rebellion/
insurrection/ sedition under Crimes
Against Public Order
There is nothing in the case to indicate
that the acts petitioners were convicted were
"in the furtherance of resistance to the
duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines." On the
contrary, the acts of which the accused were
convicted were ordinary crimes (albeit
carefully plotted and systematically carried
out by numerous accused) without any
political complexion and consisting simply of
diversion of public funds to private profit.
2. Petitioners fall under persons expressly
disqualified from amnesty, stated in Sec
2(a) of PD 1182, which repealed PD 1082.
Petitioners applications for amnesty were
also filed beyond the time limit provided
in PD 1182
PD 1182 SEC. 2 (a) Persons Disqualified:
Those who have promoted, maintained or headed
a rebellion or insurrection or who, while holding
public office or employment took part therein,
engaged in war against the forces of the
Government, destroyed property or committed
serious violence, exacted contributions or
diverted public funds from the lawful

purpose for which they had been

appropriated

Although PD 1182 covers the same subject

matter as PD 1082, PD 1182 makes no
mention of the MNLF nor of the Bangsa Moro
Army but rather relates to all groups fighting
the government of the Republic. PD 1182,
unlike PD 1082, covers the entire
territory of the Republic of the
Philippines, while P.D. 1082 covers only
some of the provinces in Mindanao and
Sulu and Tawi-Tawi and some of the
cities there located.
In addition, P.D. 1182 included a repealing
clause, which rescinded and/or modified all
laws, decrees, instructions, rules and
regulations inconsistent with that decree.

3. The supposed approval of the former

President done in 1985, in clear conflict with
the restrictions in the very decrees he
promulgated, cannot be given any legal
effect.
It may be supposed that Marcos could have
validly amended PD #s 1082 and 1182 so
as to wipe away the restrictions and
limitations found in the decrees. But Marcos
did not amend his own decrees and he must
be held to the terms and conditions that he
himself had promulgated in the exercise of
legislative power.
Petition DENIED.