The Manila Times

Sandigan terminates $5B forfeiture case against Ferdinand, Imelda Marcos

MANILA, Philippines -- The Sandiganbayan Special Division has terminated the civil forfeiture case against the estate of former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and former first lady Imelda Marcos, thereby dismissing the case. In a seven-page resolution dated June 2 and penned by Special Division chairman and Associate Justice Bayani Jacinto, the court said that the petitioner, the Republic of the Philippines through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), has moved to defer reconsiderations on the case, citing in-depth investigations and pending appeals. The case stemmed from a case filed by the PCGG on Dec. 17, 1991 to forfeit properties belonging to the Marcoses as it was alleged to have been "unlawfully acquired" because their value was disproportionate to the couple's lawful income during their tenure in government. Among the assets, which are valued at $5 billion, were holding companies, landholdings, properties by identified "cronies," real estate in New York, jewelry, paintings and Swiss bank deposits. The court also said that the government has obtained four partial summary judgments, including the forfeiture of $658 million in Swiss bank deposits in 2003, the Arelma Accounts worth $3.37 million, the Malacanang Jewelry collection, and the proceeds from the sale of paintings and artworks. After the special division was reconstituted in 2025, the anti-graft court sought to determine the status of evidence regarding the remaining properties not covered by the previous four judgments. In late 2025 and early 2026, the petitioners, according to the court, has repeatedly moved for deferments and reconsiderations, citing "in-depth investigations" and pending appeals The PCGG further filed a manifestation stating that it would no longer present evidence for the remaining properties, noting that this course of action was taken because most of these properties had been recovered through other civil actions. Due to the express manifestation of the petitioner and the subsequent absence of evidence concerning the remaining properties, the proceedings for those specific assets were terminated.