• Home
• Video
• Books by Ikram Sehgal
• About

Accountability, Filipino Style

No one in modern times personified the misuse of public office for acquisition of wealth by illegal means more than late President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda Marcos. The lasting symbol of that blatant corruption was the 3,000 pairs of shoes owned by Mrs Imelda Marcos which were gawked at by demonstrators (some bare-feet) who broke into the Malacang Palace soon after the Marcos family fled Manila for safer havens. The street power that brought Corazon Aquino to the Presidential chair demanded accountability and one of her first acts as the new President was to issue Executive Order No.1 on Feb 28, 1986 creating the “Presidential Commission on Good Government” (PCGG) to assist her, to, quote “in the recovery of ill-gotten wealth accumulated by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relations, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the take over and sequestration of all business enterprises or entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using powers, authority, influence or connection or relationship”, unquote. Needless to say, because the Philippines was the very first nation in the Third World to break fresh ground in trying to get the illegal wealth back into the national coffers, as such there were legal loopholes, safeguards, parameters, sensitivities of fairness and due process, etc both in national and international circles. The almost unanimous public demand for immediate accountability needed to have due legal cover and two more Presidential directives, Executive Order No.2 on March 12, 1986 and Executive Order No.14 on May 5, 1986 were issued, making the required explanations and tightening the laws. On March 25, 1986, Presidential Proclamation No.3 Article II Section 1(D) duly ratified by Parliament stated that “the President shall give priority to achieve the mandate of the people to recover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interests of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or accounts”, unquote. The Proclamation stated clearly that “the vital task was the recovery of ill-gotten wealth to help and hasten national economic recovery”, unquote, Philippines having been beggared beyond description by the Marcos-es.

In the mid-80s the international community was still forgiving of despots in Third World countries who not only amassed wealth at the cost of those whom they ruled who also allowed their cronies and relations to run riot at the same time. Imelda Marcos had fantastic PR (Public Relations) among the jet set (“the beautiful people”), people with influence in the corridors of power in most western countries. The cold war not yet being over, the western world still had use for authoritarian regimes which held the line by proxy against communism. The Filipinos did not have a single precedent to help them, yet they went about it expeditiously, cautiously but carefully. Executive Order No.14, a little over two months later, finally put in place the necessary laws to recover the ill-gotten wealth. The laws governing the Commission (PCGG) clearly defined viz (1) who and what was the focus of recovery by the Commission (2) the powers of the Commission (3) it allotted a certain sum (Fifty million Pesos ie. about US$ 4-5 million) for financing of the Commission’s task (4) it spelt out clearly parameters regarding the powers of the Commission (5) it gave out legal cover and immunity to those engaged in the Commission’s work (6) it allowed the Commission to take over and freeze all assets and properties of Marcos, cronies and relatives, etc in whatever form domestically and internationally and not allow disposal till so allowed by the Commission (7) it forbade the disposal, transfer, conveyance, etc of all such assets and properties (8) it commanded those who knew of such assets and properties to report this to the PCGG (9) it allowed the Commission to obtain information from any person, government offices or government agencies (10) to frame and promulgate such rules and regulations as would be necessary to help in the success of the Commission’s work (11) recommend/adopt measures to prevent recurrence of such graft and corruption and (12) appeal to foreign governments in assisting to recover the ill-gotten wealth.

The “means” of acquiring ill-gotten wealth were also defined i.e. misappropriation, misuse of public office, receipt of commission, gift, kickback, share, percentage or any other pecuniary benefit, illegal/fraudulent conveyance of assets of government, illegally and directly/indirectly accepting stocks-shares, monopolies, undue advantage of official position, etc. The Executive Order also provided for the following, viz (1) any law contrary to the functioning of the Commission would be taken care of by the Law Department who would assist in achieving the aims of the Commission (2) The Commission would file all cases, civil or military in appropriate courts (3) PCGG would file civil suits to recover ill-gotten wealth while independently proceeding when proven by preponderance of evidence (4) force a witness to testify, if a witness refuses to testify by holding him in contempt of court, etc. (5) grant immunity to approvers/witnesses from criminal proceedings (6) there was to be no time limitation on such cases. Above all, the Executive Orders prevailed over any laws or part or Rules of Court as regards investigation, prosecution and trial of cases to recover ill-gotten wealth from the persons pointed to in the Order.

The world is now much more sensitive to the looting of the national wealth by greedy, selfish leaders of Third World countries. Despite the initial missteps by the PCGG, mostly because they were journeying into as yet uncharted territory, they managed to encourage, coerce, acquire back quite a few assets and properties. The laws of secrecy of bank accounts, particularly in Switzerland and other money-havens, specially off-shore ones, were quite stringent till the 80s, many of the barriers have broken down now. In the wake of the “Marcos” campaign as well as the “Bofors” scandal in India, undeclared commissions and kickbacks can be much more easily traced out now and recovery made thereof. The present US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, till very recently the US Ambassador to the UN, was in the forefront of supporting Third World governments in organising international cooperation in helping in the recovery of such looted wealth. In sum there is now a legal precedent, a better experience and a more responsive world environment for “the Hunters” to work in. The aspirations of the Filipinos at the outset was “Mission Impossible”. They knew that very little of the money and assets were in the name of those who had been involved in the loot. The Filipinos knew that a number of associates, relatives, friends etc were used as front men and/or dummies. They knew that no thief ever leaves a signed receipt that he has committed robbery. They knew that with access to such large sums, these looters could buy off investigators. They knew that assets and properties were in the name of nominees, off-shore companies, trusts, dummy corporations, etc. They knew that because of their money and lifestyle a significant part of their own population was still enamoured by the Marcoses. Nevertheless they went ahead and did the right thing. In the process they have got billions of US dollars back, a significant part is still being contested by the shameless Imelda Marcos in various courts around the world.

The Filipinos were far more interested in getting their money back than bringing the Marcos and their cronies to justice, vengeance was a secondary consideration, only a residual effect of the primary objective. Do we in Pakistan have the same commitment or is all our rhetoric about accountability just another election slogan? What are the obstacles that prevent us from a clear statement of intention and a clearly defined course of action? For the record let us repeat the Second Presidential Directive (Executive Order No.2), to quote “Freeze all assets and properties in the Philippines in which former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and/or his wife Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents or nominees have any interest or participation and require all persons to inform about such assets or properties, whether located in the Philippines or abroad”, unquote.

As opposed to the clear commitment of the Filipinos, for some as yet unclear reason all we have is lip-service to serve as a smoke-screen. Unfortunately smoke-screens have a habit of dissipating if the wind is strong. Given that the mood of the population as regards accountability is like a strong wind, and as everyone knows when the mood of the populace shifts it is like the wind which cannot read, the camouflage will not last unless the government gets on with doing what it was primarily elected to do, recover the ill-gotten wealth through a viable modus operandi with due legal cover. Imelda Marcos’ shoes remained on display for some time, in Pakistan the symbol was a garish collection of expensive horses and stables owned by a person whose total declared wealth in 1996-97 was only Rs.12.7 million (much less than what some of the horses cost in their individual capacity). This despite a jump from a negative wealth ie. Liabilities of Rs.3.8 million in 1994-95, with no explanation of the rise by a staggering Rs.16.5 million in the subsequent three years, what to talk about his initial wealth of Rs.4 lacs in 1989, about the time he married the golden-goose. That is the tip of the iceberg against the rumour of his having acquired US$ 1.8 billion (Rs.74000 million or Rs.74 billion), a mind-boggling figure, 4,000 times the amount of his “declared wealth”, are these just rumours or are they true? Is the government interested in finding out? If the story of Rs.74 billion secreted away in assets and properties, at home and abroad, mainly through proxies, is true even partly, is the government interested in getting part of it back?

The present government has had the courage to repeal the controversial clause of the 8th Amendment. In the same time spirit all it has to do is to ask the Honourable Law Minister, Mr Khalid Anwar, to spend less than one single day to frame out the necessary laws. Given the Filipino precedent, there may be a requirement for changes and/or amendments peculiar to local Pakistani conditions. It should take less than 24 hours for Mr Khalid Anwar to set the ball rolling in trying to fulfill the deeply-held aspirations of the people of Pakistan.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.