MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 1, Substantial Due Process:

Lt. Gen. Ligot v. Republic G.R. No. 176944

Facts:
On June 27, 2005, the Republic of the Philippines represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC),
filed an application for the issuance of a freeze order with the Court of Appeals against the money and properties of
the petitioners. With complaints for perjury and violations of RA. No.3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act pending with the Ombudsman, Lt. Gen. Ligot was investigated by the AMLC as recommended by the
Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that Lt. Gen. Ligot had served in the Armed Forces of the Philippines for
33 years and had retired August of 2004. Ligot declared in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
(SALN) of having a total of 3,848,003 pesos for his assets. However, the Ombudsman’s investigation discovered
properties and assets such as houses, condominium units, investmentscars, and miscellaneous properties amounting
to at least 54,001,217 pesos undeclared in Lt. Gen. Ligot’s SALN. With Ligot’s main source of income being his
salary as an AFP officer and the lack of any other source of income by his wife and children, the Ombudsman
declarer the assets under Ligot’s, his wife’s, and children’s names to be illegally obtained based on RA. No. 1379 or
An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any
Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Thereof.
Also, the Ombudsman’s investigation revealed that Mrs. Ligot’s brother, Edgardo Yambao, also has an
unreasonable amount of assets worth 8,763,550 pesos contradicting his meager contribution to the Social Security
System. Given this, the Ombudsman concluded that Yambao’s properties actually belonged to the Ligot family
acting as a dummy or nominee. With this information, the Ombudsman issued a resolution that probable cause exists
that Ligot violated RA. No. 6713 or An Act Establishing A Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees and Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code or False Testimony in other cases and Perjury in
Solemn Affirmation.
Futher, the AMLC issued Resolution No.52 to file an application to the Court of Appeals for a free order against the
properties of Lt. Gen. Ligot and member of his family followed by an Urgent Ex-Parte application by the Republic.
The appellate court granted the application on July 5, 2005 ruling that probable cause existed that money laundering
and other unlawful offenses has been committed by Ligot and family. This initial application effected for a 20-day
freeze order but a later application was granted on September 2005, for an extension of the freeze order until after all
appropriate porceedings and/or investigations had been terminated.
The Ligot’s filed a motion to lift such freeze order on the ground that no crime has yet been proven but the appellate
court denied the same. Meanwhile, on November 15, 2005 a rule in civil forfeiture cases was put into law rendering
freeze orders of having a maximum of 6 months limit. Given their previous ground and with the new limit for freeze
orders, the Ligot’s filed a motion for reconsideration but the CA denied the same.
Issue:
1) W/N CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it extended
the freeze order against the Ligot’s?
YES. The Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases, though passed after aforementioned freeze order was rendered,
has a clause under Section 59 stating that the same should apply to all pending civil forfeiture cases or
petitions for freeze order. More so, the Ligot’s motion for reconsideration was still pending at the time
when such Rule came into effect. Though probable cause does exist warranting the validity of the freeze
order, said order cannot be issued for an indefinite period. Such indefinite freeze order violates the right to
due process and right to property of the Ligot’s. The Ligot’s case of suspension of access to their property
for six years perfectly illustrates what may happen given the power of courts to hand freeze orders without
limitations. Though the six-month period for freeze order shouldn’t be an inflexible rule, the indefinite
freeze order that has spanned for six years is certainly unreasonable.
Held:
Petition of the Ligot’s to have the freeze order lifted is GRANTED.