Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Senator Bongbong Marcos plans to sneak into the vice-presidency the way Binay did

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Can the Marcoses be charged in court using their dad’s “Anti-Fencing” decree?

By Raïssa Robles

Analysis---WEB-raissarobles.comDon’t be fooled by what the Marcoses are saying – that Imelda is “disappointed” and Imee is “surprised” that the unico hijo is only running for VP.

That’s the spin the first family of crime wants the public to believe. That Baby Marcos is not running for the presidency, but the spare tire position underneath.

Ho hum. Nothing to worry about. Let Baby Marcos be.

The Marcoses are clever at running national campaigns and they don’t do things halfway.

If Marcos junior DOES win the vice-presidency he will be in a very powerful position. To start off, he would be able to take advantage of political developments no matter who becomes president. If Binay runs and wins the presidency and gets impeached or overthrown, guess who’d replace him? If Poe wins and gets overwhelmed by citizenship considerations, guess who’s waiting in the wings.

Binay, Joseph Estrada Noli de Castro have shown the tremendous propaganda potential of the vice-president’s office. Just by occupying the post and doing feel-good things, a vice-president can outshine the sitting president in popularity polls.

Which is why the office is considered a launching pad for the presidency.

To win the vice-presidency, Marcos Jr can easily do what Binay did in 2010. Bongbong Marcos can graft himself to two of the leading presidential contenders – Senator Grace Poe and Vice-President Jejomar Binay. Both Poe and Binay are on very friendly terms with Marcos Jr.

And even to a third – Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte – if the latter again changes his mind and runs for president. Even if Duterte doesn’t run, the mayor has already dropped the word that BBM is welcome to campaign in his city. Which should make people wonder at Duterte’s set of values – for instance, he said he would also go after “corrupt” officials but here he is happily backing the son of the most corrupt leader this country has ever had.

It is no sweat for Bongbong Marcos to print sample ballots and plaster the nation with stickers and campaign posters saying – “Poe-Marcos” and “Binay-Marcos”. There is no election law against it.

It’s probably cynical and unethical, but it isn’t illegal. And the Marcoses have the money to do this nationwide. After all, everybody knows they stole at least US$10 billion when they were in power. Who knows what that plunder is worth after interest?

Of course, at the last moment if Bongbong Marcos’ numbers do not improve, he might opt to just run again for the Senate and ask supporters to back one of the presidential candidates. That is what Imelda Marcos did in 1998. She started by running for the presidency, then backed out and supported Estrada. When Estrada won, Ate Imee gushed that they were “over the moon” with Erap’s victory.

The nation soon found out why, when Estrada tried to bury daddy big bucks Marcos’ corpse in Libingan ng mga Bayani. Failing that, Estrada still tried to forge a compromise deal with the Marcos family but was stopped cold by his ouster from office.

Senator Bongbong has to make up his mind about running for which post by December – the deadline the Comelec gave to candidates to ensure their names will be printed on the ballots.

Pro-Marcos loyalists have slammed me for heaping the sins of the father on the son, which they said Senator Bongbong Marcos should not be blamed for.

Ganito yon. (It’s like this.)

Bongbong Marcos’ dictator-father, Ferdinand Marcos Sr., signed Presidential Decree No. 1612 or the “Anti-Fencing Law of 1979.” I have printed out the entire decree at the end of this piece.

PD 1612 defines fencing as “the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.”

Notice in particular the words “possess”, “keep”, “acquire” and “conceal” as the elements of the crime of fencing.
Isn’t what the Marcoses doing fencing when they insist on continuing to keep “the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft” – but in this case, grand theft?

Please recall that in the year 2012, I asked Senator Marcos during a foreign correspondents forum (Focap) whether he still intended to pursue a compromise settlement on the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth cases and the wealth still out there hidden in various bank vaults from the government.

Senator Bongbong Marcos replied to me: “We’ve been pursuing a compromise settlement since 1986. We will continue to do so.”

Here is the link to what Senator Marcos told me.

His mother Imelda herself has publicly claimed on various TV interviews that so much Marcos “gold” and other assets are still out there, hidden. She has shown gold certificates as proof to the BBC and other media outlets.

These pronouncements suggest that the Marcoses themselves are acknowledging they have assets out there, assets concealed from the Filipino people. There is already a final and definitive ruling by the Supreme Court on the Marcos loot – that any earnings beyond what the conjugal dictatorship did not pay taxes on are considered stolen.

A forensic analysis of the various Statements of Assets and Liabilities (SALNs) filed by Imelda, Imee and Bongbong as public officials through the years could help establish what the children earned legitimately.

If you read the Anti-Fencing Marcos decree, the Marcoses could each be looking at up to 20 years in jail, if they are found guilty of fencing goods stolen from the Filipino people.

This is in Section 3 (a) of PD 1612 which states that “if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum (of P22,000) the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.”

Please also recall that a year ago, some paintings were seized from Congresswoman Imelda Marcos. Can’t she be charged with fencing on this matter? You can read about the seizure here. 

Interestingly, the Marcos decree expanded the definition of fencing. Instead of punishing only those who buy stolen goods the mere act of receiving, possessing, concealing and/or acquiring stolen goods now constitute fencing.

Will anyone dare to file a lawsuit against the entire Marcos family using the Anti-Fencing Law?

Here below is the Anti-Fencing Law:

Presidential Decree No. 1612

ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is rampant robbery and thievery of government and private properties;
WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the part of the lawless elements because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as fence, of stolen properties;
WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as an accessory after the fact and punished lightly;
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as part of the law of the land the following:
SECTION 1. Title. — This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — The following terms shall mean as follows:

a. “Fencing” is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

b. “Fence” includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing.

SECTION 3. Penalties. — Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated:

a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.
e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.
f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

SECTION 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. — If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association, the president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known the commission of the offense shall be liable.

SECTION 5. Presumption of Fencing. — Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

SECTION 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles.

For purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.

SECTION 7. Repealing Clause. — All laws or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 8. Effectivity. — This Decree shall take effect upon
approval.

Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.

Comments

  1. Will the huge investment pay off?

    It must have cost quite a fortune, at least by the standards of us poor taxpayers, to fund a massive, systematic and relentless campaign to revise history. But then again, the cost could just be a tiny fraction of the mind-boggling wealth the Marcos family managed to accumulate while burying the country into billions of dollars in debt.

    Bongbong Marcos boldly declares that the Filipinos no longer care about the abuses during martial law, and that they are now ready for a return of a Marcos to power. Marcos fans say the sins of the father must not be visited upon the son, and that we will not move forward if we don’t let go of the past.

    Nothing can be more wrong. Bongbong was not a toddler when his father was pillaging the country’s coffers, hauling to prison thousands of people, partitioning the economy among cronies, and plunging the country into abject poverty while Imelda shopped like there was no tomorrow. In fact, he was a beneficiary of his father’s absolute hold on power, an active collaborator as a government official himself, and ardent defender during the regime’s dying days. He shares in his father’s sins, and has many sins of his own.

    Was he, or any of his family, ever sorry for where they have brought this country? No! In fact, they want to do it all over again as if it is us who owes them an apology for cutting short their party days. Can we, as a nation, simply take up the burden of paying off the debts and repairing the damage done to our institutions by this family for the sake of “moving on”, while they continue to live in the lap of opulent luxury?

    Anyone who puts Bongbong Marcos on the ballot not only dishonors the sacrifices of those who fought the dictatorship and worked tirelessly so we can have the freedoms that we enjoy today, but also betrays the future generations who must suffer the consequences of our choice of leaders today.

    • thoes pushing for his evil ambition are ignorants or collaborators.
      or accomplices to the plunders…

      • Ignorants, corraborators or accomplices. Yes, and there seem to be a lot of those.

        With that and the bottomless well of wealth from the plunder, it is right that we shift our focus on Marcos(es). All the tricks of the trade, using only a small part of that wealth, I have a gut feeling will be used. Marcos can buy the best machine and tricksters money can buy. That is my gut feeling, too. And that scares me.

        And so to the question of @Den above, “Will the huge investment pay off?” my comment is that the “huge investment” to be invested for the May 2016 Election is really a drop in the bucket.

        • it isn’t huge.
          tama si @nherrera, just a drop from a bucket.
          he will be doing a “SALISI Gang” modus.
          and the family is very successful on that modus.
          it’s only now that we realized it.
          if not for the mother hen writing it off here!
          we have to thank ms. raissa.
          with her matanglawin if not matangpusa…:)

        • Indeed our mother hen in CPM has not lost her touch on feeling the relative strength of the election wind. With the support of the Erap and Enrile brands and what is coming out to be the Miriam brand (meaning the greater than even probability of a Miriam-Marcos team), Marcos, in addition to our preferred Robredo is the VP to watch. On the Presidential front, we have more to say about that later.

    • The children of tomorrow will suffer if the bobotantes and non-bobotantes will make the wrong choice of leaders. . .I agree.

      Today, there is in the air a possible double-repeat of the wrong choices : the Binays and the Marcoses.

      Two (2) plunderers. First plunderer gave this country a hard time. So hard, none of them could be criminally charge, prosecuted and convicted under our judicial system of rule of law which has since then never actually taken off the ground. It is grounded. Fact is there are still only non-criminal cases pending, unresolved and unfinished. When will it end?

      Second plunderer. Another case hard also to crack. Same old ineffective judicial system fit for burial except for a few trying their best to not only make it live but to be a healthy and robust judicial system. A rule of law that will catch and clamp to the end to convict plunderers.

      The country could not solve completely to end the first plunderer. Would the country be able to solve when there are two plunderers already on the road? Under the same old obsolete judicial system? The odds? Never mind thinking of an answer. It is so slippery like two eels with sharp bites to fight the judicial system’s rule of law.

      Isn’t time that the first mechanism to fight corruptions by public officials is to change the bad and ineffective laws this country has? But this is asking ‘Who makes the laws?’ Isn’t it Congress? Can such change be expected to be done by Congress? How can that expectation be if the wrong choices are made electing plunderers? And more plunderers to come? Dynasty plunderers more coming in?

      So, the odds will be almost absolute for more sufferings as a consequence, isn’t it? No Anti-Dynasty law at hand. No FOI law on people’s hands. Mixes all these negatives surely make true that ‘Id rather want a government run like hell by Filipinos!’ MLQ’s prophecy of hell for the future generations of this country’s children.

      Binay as VP was a local mayor also. Some punderous acts during the mayorship were discovered. But as VP, a ‘stop’ is also discovered, cannot be prosecuted because of being a constitutional officer. A need for removal first has to be done. Why was this constitutional provision thought of and made so? Isn’t this actually saying constitutional officials are above the law? Yet, the same constitution says ‘No One is Above the Law!’ So, one cause of our sufferings for wrong choices is inserting a stupid thought making it a law or a constitutional law. Isn’t it simply stupidity? Crazy? Yes, it is.

      Other countries have made strides in their laws particularly against criminals and crimes, modernizing their laws to go with the time. To equalize the sophisticated ways of criminal syndicates like plunderers, thieves extraordinaires, fraudsters, etc. The criminals have advanced their ways and system. Our justice system is way off too behind huffing to catch up but cannot. U.S.A., for example, many States and their Federal laws have discarded ‘Prescriptions of Crimes.’ Though how long ago a criminal committed one crime, 30 years or more or less, is still criminally liable for prosecution and conviction for it. Do we have such rule of ‘no more prescription of crimes or felonies?’ No. Our Rev. Penal Code, (as Amended in so many instances as of now) still has a provision that felonies or crimes prescribes after a lenght of time. We, our lawmakers, have never repealed such provision in the Penal Code, a version of Spanish Penal Code. The same even with many of our ‘special criminal laws’ other than those in the Penal Code, the rule on prescription is likewise followed. Why is this? Because the ‘Old Thought’ in the olden days was ONE or SOMEONE must be able to ESCAPE. The MODERN TREND of penal codes is NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ESCAPE.

      Another cause, why this country’s children continue to suffer in the process of making choices of leaders are the Election laws and the consequences of MULTI-PARTY system in elections, resulting in the RULE OF THE MINORITY and not the majority. The ‘multi-party’ system was thought of to be more participatory and democratic. But it ignored the rule of a RUN-OFF between the two votes: the highest and the second highest. Is this a good law? Does it make it more participatory for the people? More democratic? How can it be when the outcome is a rule of the MINORITY? Where will the country put the MAJORITY? Isn’t logical that when the majority is ignored, on the few rules? So, there we are with our another stupid election system causing future generations to suffer continuously for generations. Should this law be changed? It should without any doubt, it should. Because we find it as another stupid law.

      There is one department in the Executive Branch of government that I believe should not be in it. The Department of Justice. The DOJ for all better intents and purposes, should be an independent and a constitutional Office like the Ombudsman Office. Is justice is to be free from politics and even to lessen corruption, such Department as independent from the Executive, the President, will help much in the administration of justice in the land. Of course, it requires an amendment to the constitution for this idea. So, let us just mark this for the future, to put this soon into a reality maybe.

      On the Election side of our suffering for our future generations, is there a possibility that officials for National offices like the President, the Vice President, Senators and Representatives, will have as elected officials who are not, under our laws, natural born citizens? This is a present pending issue for the 2016 elections. We here, have discussed this so many times. Outside of here, the same discussions have been made as to ‘Who is a natural born citizen?’ There is only that constitutional provisions. There is no statute for this so far as I know, to apply for candidates to these high national offices. Should there be a statute? I know there should be but there isn’t. So, shall this missing statute be left to ‘numbers’ of the High Court for resolution? Remember, the Court changes it’s composition also. Shall the problem be left to the Court? I believe it should not if we have a clear and definite statute beside the constitutonal provision. Without a statute, the risk or danger of having a high office holder who may not be a natural born citizen looks at us in the eyes.

      Election laws we are still on. . . here. Vote buying. Are our elections laws really able to stop vote buying? Tell me or us if such laws stops vote buying, why then so many elected officials are ‘Stupid Forever’ acc to Sen. Miriam? Funny but true. Why are there candidates elected who are not qualified? Known to be competent? Known to be a dynasty candidate? Known to be corrupt through and through? Known even to be so an absentee for all times from attendance from work? Why? Because there is still proliferation of vote buying. In the cities, towns and provinces there are so many that it is like a GENERAL RULE, not the exception. Couple this with the ‘Multi-Party’ taken up here, a rule of the minority, we do have the worst system of electing public officials. Vote-buying to have the rule of the minority via a Multi-Party system.

      But can we expect the COMELEC to do something good against this vote-buying menace by candidates? Yes. Maybe one is to be ABLE to enforce what election rules are there. And two, to create more helpful rules on it. Maybe the third, many voting citizens now, with the advances in communication techs like iPads, Cell phones, Videocams, etc., CAN HELP by recording and taping such vote-buyings incidents and reporting the same immediately to the COMELEC. Does the Office have already RULES for this? Maybe no. Then now it should have and for every election days.

      With a defeaning SILENCE to all these, it BETRAYS the future generations. It betrays us now. Altogether we ALL SUFFER the consequences for our joint betrayal. We must and really make the RIGHT CHOICES of leaders for our government. For every small efforts contributed makes BIG PICTURES of the truth than a thousand words of denials.

      Freedom has a price. So, we and all of us at that must that the price is achieved. Secured. Please SHARE to be an effective efforts against all DISHONORS we abhor. Many thanks to Den.

    • The assets to pay off those debts are available and will soon be released. In fact, I want to pay off those debts if only to free budgeted debt service funds and allocate them instead for healthcare and education. But there are economic and business considerations we must factor to a financial proposal. Will the government give me shares in some govt corporations in exchange for purchase of their IOUs? what will be the tax incentives that govt can offer? What shall be the discounts that the banks holding the debts shall allow to offset the debt papers? Once these issues are cleared, I will tender a soft offer and hope that Cesar et al would not try to squeeze campaign funds from the nominated debt paper buyer. Note that those debts include those that Quo Rhee got which ballooned our debt from USD26 Billion when Marcos left to more than USD65 Billion after Quo Rhee term.

  2. LET US TAKE A BREAK. Let us take a look at some numbers.

    Philstar has conducted an online survey on the question: “Who is your VP bet among those who declared to run in 2016?” It is an interesting one, among others, because only the percentage numbers are shown and not the totals. As of 2015-10-14 10:12AM, we have in percentage numbers, the following:

    Robredo 45
    Marcos 38
    Escudero 9
    Cayetano 6
    Trillanes 2
    Honasan 0

    COMMENTS:

    1. That 0 number on Honosan is strange. It may be because his name came late as a declared VP candidate.

    2. The 3 million votes (?) in the Bicol region seem to be going mainly to Robredo.

    3. The “solid north” votes seem to be going mainly to Marcos.

    4. The polar pull of these votes — along with the non-polar Bicol-Ilocano votes — seem to be reflected, roughly, in the Philstar survey on the VPs.

    5. This survey is certainly non-scientific, no random sampling in all regions, but if we have to get even a little nugget of implication of these numbers AT THIS TIME, it may be this — that Robredo and Marcos are VP candidates to watch. This seems to jibe with the waving of partisans of the neo-Marcos banners.

      • It was not indicated but you can also read the outpours of the Marcos loyalists. I wonder why they did not see the atrocities that reigned during the Marcos years. Where were they,,,, when we only live in the same country….?

      • lagi nang ipinagmamalaki ng mga loyalista ang mga nagawa ni marcos tulad heart center, lung center atbp…ang hindi nila matanggap isipin ay yung pinagka-kwartahan ng mga marcos ang inutang na perang ipinagpagawa ng mga yun…na kung iisipin lamang nila..hindi sana sa maynial lamang may heart center o lung center bagkus sa iba pang lugar sa pilipinas kung nagastos ng maayos ang mga inutang na pera…nasaan ang pera napunta sa bank account ng mga marcos…investments sa ibang bansa kaya marami silang nagagastos ngaun

  4. Light moments break muna:

    BATTLE OF THE BOBOTANTES

    Host: Mayroong isang rehiyon sa Mindanao na nagsasarili at kilala sa acronym na ARMM. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng unang dalawang letra na “AR”.

    Clue: Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

    Bobotante: Alden Richards!

    Host: Hinde. Hindi ito pangalan ng tao. Ano ang ibig sabihin ng ikatlo at ikaapat na letra na “MM”?

    Bobotante: Maine Mendoza!

    Host: Ana na lasi!

  5. I’d rather die than face the tortute of seeing bongbong as president or vice president. I am a genuine Ilocano but I hate the Marcoses.

    • he, he, he, no point dying, there is no fun in death. too quiet. better be alive and help in blocking the ambition of marcos pup. post your imaginative writing, nip at his heels, exercise your lungs and shout at him, and most important – dont vote for bong marcos.

      • don’t die.
        we need to block the rascals to inch into the coveted post.
        write.
        talk.
        shout.
        influence your relatives to deny their precious votes to them.
        vote for other candidates not related to this greedy family.

      • Death is too easy for them! Let us make them realize we can no longer be fooled. If we were able to drive them out of the country before, we can still do it again. Remember the walls of Jericho, torn down by the songs and trumpets? Our combined voices can put them down again. No to the Marcoses and the Binays. They are of the same flock.

  6. I actually think that the gown worn by Imee Marcos in the Tatler cover is no coincidence of being red. It was designed that way by people who supports the candidacy of BBM, or supports the Marcos family. Look at the same shade of red being worn by Imelda, JPE and people around them when BBM launched his candidacy. They are the same. And the Tatler Magazine was released within the same week.

      • I hope the martel family made bad investment in having imee marcos on the cover, their magazine failed to attract investors and advertisers at hindi rin wide ang readership.

        I hope people will not buy tatler magazine.

    • ano ba kayo…give the Marcoses a break…ika nga ni Madame Meldific eh they’re fighting for truth and beauty!

      granted that their version of truth and beauty are both doctored as evidenced by their statements and Imee’s face and boodayy…but still…truth and beauty, people! ? *vomits*

  7. Pagkakita ko sa letrato ni Imee Marcos sa cover ng Tatler magazine at nabasa ang ilang comentario ng mga Marcos loyalists (laban sa mga anti-Marcos) na nagsasabing “Ang ganda-ganda ni Imee, bakit ninyo sinasalbahe?”, naalaala ko ang pag-uusap ng dalawang magkumpari:

    Kumpare 1: Pare, kung baga sa boksing, down na si Marcos. Bakit suntok ka pa ng suntok sa kanya?

    Kumpare 2: Paano, down na nga siya, nandudura pa!

  8. IMO Bongbong is guilty as accessory to the crime of theft if evidence shows that he profited from the money or property stolen by his father from the Filipino people.

    Could not be fencing which is about commercial trading or buy and sell of a particular commodity and the attendant acts of receiving, possessing, keeping, concealing or disposing of such articles or object of theft or robbery. As stated in the second whereas clause of PD 1612, a fence is a buyer of stolen goods. The IRR of PD 1612 specifically deals on the buying and selling of “used secondhand articles” as defined in Section I (1) of the IRR.

    The elements of fencing are 1) a robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken during that robbery or theft; (3) the accused knows or should have known that the thing derived from that crime; and (4) he intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another.

    • in fencing, the buyer spends his money for a dirt cheap commodity.
      loose some for higher gain.
      pit vis-a-vis below.
      loose nothing, and gained riches.
      what do we call someone who keeps other person’s loot?

      • “what do we call someone who keeps other person’s loot?”

        He or she is an accessory to the crime of theft or robbery for concealment of the fact after the commission of the crime. An accessory after the fact is one who knows that the crime has occurred but helps to conceal same.

  10. You’re a very brave woman. With the wealth of the Marcoses, they can easily silence you through means fair or foul. I wish there were more Filipinos of your calibre. There known Marcos’ critics who are still alive who can take the cudgels from here on. Why don’t you personally advise them to file the necessary charges if circumstances really so warrant? Then let’s see if Lee Kuan Yew’s observation in his book, “From Third World to First”, about judges that can be bought are still very much around.

    • Er, I’m not brave at all.

      I’m just – well – just telling the truth.

      There are others far, far braver than me. YOu can see, thousands were tortured by Marcos. Thousands died. This is just a small thing.

      Perhaps someone will file the charges. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know the Rules of Court.Let’s see.

      Do join us in our discussions here, Joe. Welcome to Cyber Plaza Miranda.

    • Thanks, Leona.

      The most inportant portions are –

      “”The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft.[6]

      Before the enactment of P. D. No. 1612 in 1979, the fence could only be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact of robbery or theft, as the term is defined in Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, but the penalty was light as it was two (2) degrees lower than that prescribed for the principal.[7]

      P. D. No. 1612 was enacted to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes of robbery and theft. Evidently, the accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or under P.D. No. 1612. However, in the latter case, the accused ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. Otherwise stated, the crimes of robbery and theft, on the one hand, and fencing, on the other, are separate and distinct offenses.[8] The State may thus choose to prosecute him either under the Revised Penal Code or P. D. No. 1612, although the preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is malum prohibitum, and P. D. No. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing[9] and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.[10]

      In Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People of the Philippines, we set out the essential elements of the crime of fencing as follows:

      1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

      2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime;

      3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and

      4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.[11]

      Consequently, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused by establishing the existence of all the elements of the crime charged. [12]”

      Hmmm, do You think we can build a case agsinst Imelda and Bongbong?

      • All i can say is Move On Raissa Robles. When this so called acts were done the son was in tge states studying or out with friends. What does this guy have to do with his fathera ains? So are you saying that if my forefather did something wrong in the past the whole entire generation to come should be cricified for their fore fathers sin. What kind of mentality is that? Your asking the son to say sorry for the crimes his father did? Why shoukd i say sorry for aomething i was not involved with. I have passed 6 Presidents i was there Martial Law but I was not affected because I abide the law. NO MATTER HOW YOU CONTINUESLY DESTROY TGE MARCOS I BEING ALIVE DURING HIS PRESIDENCY CAN SAY IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PERFECT BUT THERE WAS FOOD ON THE TABLE FOR EVERYONE. Blame the balloned utang used in Infrastructure, why dont you write about the ballo ed Utang of the Presidents after him and the massacres that happened and the deal with China and Malaysia? Get out of your closet about tge Marcoses and write about how bad politics is NOW!! Move on!! Were sick and tired of hearing these every year for 30 years. Nakaka suya na!!!

        • hehehe

          you want us to move on so Bongbong can become president.

          food on the table for everyone? One of Marcos’ greatest achievements was to increase the population of the poor.

          barf away.

        • during marcos time, what increased were the length of queues on rice being rationed.
          madalas wala pa kaming mabili.
          at madalas rin na malapit nang mabulok ang bigas.
          ang ipinagmamalaki niyang rice sufficiency!
          hehehe, food for everyone, my ass.
          magdildil kaya sa nutriban, ang tinapay na para sa africa na inaarbor ng diktador para ibenta sa mga pinoy.

        • alexagomez must have been high on drugs! what food on the table?

          sa panahon ni marcos, many filipinos didn’t have tables, they’re dirt poor and eat off the floor. yong pinggan nila sartin, lumping at may butas pa, the poor making a living sa basura in smoky mountain sa tondo. habang mother of the nation si imelda is dripping in jewels, sobrang gastadora at sa ibang bansa pa nag-shopping.

        • at isinara ni imeldefic ang bòomingdales sa new york para siya lang makapag shooping spending peoples money

        • Anong pinagsasabi ni alexagomez? Lahat na yata ng shortage nangyari nung panahon ni Marcos – bigas, mantika, sabon, asukal, etc. Di ko makakalimutan na kumain ako ng mais na bigas habang nasa isang convention sa Bagiuo City, gumamit ng powdered sugar sa kape dahil yun lang ang mabibili, walang panlaba dahil sa sobrang mahal na sabon, etc. Sa peace and order naman. Ayun aasarin ka ng mga mayayabang na militar dahil UP student. Hindi ka makalaban dahil nasa pagitan ninyo yun M16 nya na ibinabangabanga sa tuhod mo. Excited akong bumoto sa unang pagkakataon (17 yrs. old) sa isang plebesito pero pinapalitan ng isang guro pagkatapos basahin ang boto ko dahil 100% yes daw ang utos ni meyor namin na kampon ni Marcos. Ito na lang muna.

        • alexagomez, you are exhibit A to how idiotic Marcos fanatics are. I implore you to read the links and try to refute them one by one. Then come back to argue your points. And please if you do come back try to stay sober and do not punish us anymore with your incoherence.

        • @alexagomez

          When apo macoy was plundering the country, junior macoy was studying at oxford with the people’s money. But instead of studying he was partying, Kaya walang diploma naiuwi sa Pilipininas.

          STUDYING AND PARTYING ON PEOPLE’S MONEY, WIYTH BODY GUARDS!

      • You’re welcome Raissa.

        It really depends: Good, I mean good Gov’t prosecutors will need to study that. First of all, I do not know if P.D. 1612 was ever published acc to law. Second, time elements in relation to the facts of robbery/theft crime acc to the case of Mr. Ramon Tan – was there a ‘reporting to the PNP of a ‘complaint’ for – theft (if under P.D. 1612?) to comply with the RR (rules/regulations issued) – Rene-Ipil’s OPN maybe right to handle such a case under the Rev.Penal Code. It’s complicated for sure, no doubt.

        Gov’t prosec can take a look at the Plunder Law, R.A. No. 7080 together with Executive Order No. 1 s. of Feb. 28, 1986 in re to prescription of the crime of Plunder (20 years) with a non-applicability clause on Sec. 8 that R.A. No. 7080 ‘shall not apply to or AFFECT pending prosecutions or proceedings, or those which maybe instituted under Exe. Order No. 1 issued and promulgated on February 28, 1986. – to avoid the prescription issue. I think there are still a couple of such ‘proceedings’ pending in the SC or other lower courts against the Marcoses family, relatives and close associates here and abroad.

        A long shot but worth studying by gov’t prosecs on it. The Plunder Law SEC. 1 (d) on ‘Ill-gotten wealth’ together with SEC. 2 ‘a public officer’ conniving members of his family or relatives by affinity or consanguinity ‘amasses, accumulates or ACQUIRES ill-gotten wealth’ through series/combination of over or criminal acts (as described in SEC. 1 of the PL and in relation to Exe. Order No. 1 of Feb. 28, 1986), may arrive at something worth considering.

        I hope you can follow what I am thinking. I will give the links. Rene-Ipil and OTHERS here can also say something on it.

        • Does everybody really want a clean government where all plunderers (as defined by the Plunder Law) are put summarily behind bars – and let them prove their innocence? But be careful if that is what the do-gooders really want because that might decimate the government bureaucracy and put all politicians accused of plunder from 1970 to 2016 behind bars. For if that is what the do-gooders and the majority really want, we can all do that. But if we do that, all the do-gooders here and the morally upright have to do their share to elect me. We can jail the Marcoses (as Phase 2 of an unfinished business) and jail benino et al (since the SC has ruled PDAF/DAP as unconstitutional). I do not know if the Comelec can accept a COC filed online since I am out of the country and I still have 24 hours to decide to run for President if the Comelec allows with just that objective – to jail all plunderers and clean the government and resign within two years thereafter after setting up certain structural changes. I am sure all the other presidential candidates can not make that commitment.

        • Unfortunately not, senyora. Akala ko ba isa ka rin sa mga nagmamalinis na gustong may accountability ang mga nasa pamahalaan? Then, for starters, we need to jail all those who convicted Renato as they are all guilty of bribery and money laundering. Didn’t Jinggoy revealed that they all got PP50M? Then, we also need to put behind bars for the same offense all those in the lower house who signed the articles of impeachment. Then, we do the same for members of congress under all the other presidents for various offenses viz money laundering, graft and tax evasion. Since benigno has started the precedent of jailing first prior to trial making an accused having to prove her innocence rather than proving guilt, we also summarily jail all of those people first and let them prove their innocence later. That I can do if I am the president. Is it delusional for wanting to clean the bureaucracy? Or you are another hypocrite talking of accountability but does not have the guts to walk the talk?

        • The Plunder Law does not, repeat DOES NOT say ‘as long as the law does not decimate the government bureaucracy’ . . . nothing on that.

          So? As proofs are present, put all corrupt politicians in JAIL. The State will not stop functioning. The State exists because there are PEOPLE, not because there are politicians.

          Just Jail Anybody! ANY POLITICAN Who Is Corrupt. Proven Corrupt By Law.

          * * *

        • Ang hina rin ng comprehension at logic mo. Basahin mo kaya maigi ang sinulat ko bago ka magsulat ng mga walang lohikang pangungusap. I never wrote that the law has to decimate the bureaucracy. Magpaturo ka na lang kaya muna ng English sa mga magagaling sa creative writing.

  12. Many are saying: “Why blame the son for the sins of the father?”

    My take: “Well, it appears that the son is as cunning and as slippery as the father!”

    • “heaping the sins of the father on the son”

      – @raissa

      — Did the son condone or tolerate his father’s sins?

      — Did the son break away from the chain of sins his father bequeathed on him?

      — Did the son at least acknowledge the glaring sins of his father?

      It’s no-brainer to blame the son for his father’s sins when the answers to all questions are “No.”

      • The Sins of the father

        “Exodus 20:5 “You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.”

        ‘Is God saying that the children and the grandchildren of the father would have to pay for the sins of their father? What does God mean by this?’

        ‘What God is saying is that if a father misleads his family, the family will pay for it. Each will have to pay for their own sins but the father could have prevented many of the sins that his children and grandchildren would fall into had he led his family in obedience to the Law of God.’

        ‘The effects of this fatherly mismanagement would be felt by multiple generations because what has been sown will be reaped because God cannot be mocked (Gal 6:7). God is not punishing the children for their father’s sins but they are feeling the consequences and having to pay for them. That is what God means in Exodus 20 and 34.’

        ‘These verses deal with the descendants of those children who would follow their father’s example of disobedience but each one of us are ultimately responsible for our own sins and this is what Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 24 is saying. The father’s disobedience to God’s commandments have a ripple effect that keep on going until some other father in his lineage breaks that cycle.’

        Children ‘who follow their father’s example of disobedience’ will have to pay for them for such father’s disobedience. Up to the FOURTH GENERATION.

        For every sons’ own acts of disobedience, each son has again his own generations – to the FOURTH generation – of his own. Thus, a ripple effect (like a water in the pond) that keeps on going into MULTIPLE generations – sons’ lineage and the father’s lineage, UNTIL one lineage breaks that cycle.

        bwwwhahaha! By not returning THAT MONEY the father stole bwwwhahaha And not APOLOGIZING but KEEPING THE MONEY. . . bwwwhahaha. . . this is how God laughs!

        :-(

        • @leona,
          bwahahaha!
          i want to laugh too.
          as baycas said: it’s a no brainer to think that the son should pay for the father’s sins as the son is deemed accessory to the plunder or an accomplice in hiding the loot.
          bwahahaha!

    • “heaping the sins of the father on the son”

      – @raissa

      — Did the son condone or tolerate his father’s sins?

      — Did the son break away from the chain of sins his father bequeathed on him?

      — Did the son at least acknowledge the glaring sins of his father?

      It’s no-brainer to blame the son for his father’s sins when the answers to all questions are “No.”

      • I am glad those who are professing the bible verse admits that the father sinned…

        And now the son must release himself from the bondage of his father’s sins…

        Then, we MOVE ON…

        • Blessed are those who admit that the father had sinned and are now blaming the unrepentant son…

          For theirs is the kingdom of good governance…

        • dapat mag-isip-isip ang mga tatay ngayon. any bad things they do may taint those that carry their names, mostly their sons. the hidden loot they left behind, the stolen properties, will be accounted for, with the inheritor son held to account. only after son had settled his account, debt to society paid, can he be free.

    • Unfortunately your mistaken he defied his mother by running as VP even the opposition say there is nothing they can say about the son. Except that he carries the last name MARCOS

  13. @raissa. At the end of your interview with Niel Ocampo of DZRH, he asked you: “In two words, paano maikikintal . . . ano mga dapat gagawin ng mga Pilipino sa pagpili ng karapatdapat na maging Pangulo.”

    You promptly answered him: “Be accountable.”

    With this article among many, you’re clearly making your point that you are sincere and ready to walk your talk. I send you my admiration!

    I join you in your call that all corrupt politicians (including court officials who willingly aid them and make a mockery of Philippine social justice) who have callously bled/are bleeding the Philippine economy dry, at the expense of million of Filipinos who wallow in poverty, be made accountable and be sent to jail pronto!

  15. I very much appreciate your analysis Ms. Raissa Robles. It shows that if the laws are applied correctly, the fugitives will be answerable for the crimes they have commited against the people of the Republic of the Philippines. Very sad though because how come nobody from this family has been punished up to this time? They still are enjoying extravagant lifestyle and still holding key positions in the government. Is the judiciary system too weak to impose penalties for the rich, even if the roots of their wealth is ill-gotten? Is it just a norm in this society to keep the people silent and ignorant about their rights to question authorities when major issues come up? In the eyes of international viewers, money speaks for one in this country. Freedom can be bought by cash. Dignity can’t be found specially in politics.

      • Hindi kasi accurate history books nation para maunawaan ng mamamayan. Ang daming Presidential Decrees pinalabas ni apo makoy na may bisa pa rin.

      • Indeed, everybody is tolerating those candidates in breaking the law. The campaign period officially starts on February 2016 and those wannabes are all over town with their campaign paraphernalia just because it does not contain the words VOTE FOR ME. Those candidates have made a mockery of our laws and even the intelligentsia seems to have been an accessory to their crime. I wonder if all the do-gooders here would band together to have all of these candidates disqualified for premature campaigning. Those commercials are not advertising campaigns because they do not say BUY ME?

        • Penera case:

          ‘Obviously, it is only at the start of the campaign period, when the person officially becomes a candidate, that the undue and iniquitous advantages of his/her prior acts, constituting premature campaigning, shall accrue to his/her benefit. Compared to the other candidates who are only about to begin their election campaign, a candidate who had previously engaged in premature campaigning already enjoys an unfair headstart in promoting his/her candidacy.6 (Emphasis supplied)’

          ‘The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period. In ruling that Penera is liable for premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the start of the campaigning, the assailed Decision ignores the clear and express provision of the law.’

          No ‘campaign period’ yet. So, no violation of the law. . . yet. Acquitted si Ma’m Penera.

        • Well, mag palimos pa aka ng pera para may pang filing fee to question that decision sa SC. Whether one is a candidate for an elective post or not, that is immaterial. When one is putting out paraphernalia to entice people to a certain stream of thought, that is basically campaigning. That is why you call it an advertising campaign in the commercial world.