[ad_1]
Former First Lady Imelda Marcos told Sandiganbayan that she would challenge her conviction for seven counts of corruption directly in the Supreme Court and avoid the stages of the appeal process.
Marcos on Monday filed a notice of appeal, handed to reporters on Tuesday, which asked the Fifth Division of the antigravity court to forward the case file to the High Court.
Apparently, she could not wait until the Fifth Division first settled the "leave application for post-conviction corrective measures" that she had filed just two weeks ago, on November 12th.
"To date, the request for authorization filed by the accused has not yet been resolved," reads the notice.
She also stated, without specifying for the moment, that "the decision to condemn her is contrary to facts, law and jurisprudence".
Premature
The Fifth Division, however, declared in a statement to the press that it "could not respond to Marcos's notice of appeal".
Marcos' motion was "premature because the court has not yet resolved" his pending petition.
In order to appeal a Sandiganbayan conviction, the accused would first have to apply for reconsideration before the same court.
If the appeal was dismissed, the accused could then bring the case to the high court.
Since Marcos did not attend the promulgation of his verdict on 9 November, Article 120 of the Rules of Court required him to first lodge an application for leave justifying his absence so that he could have recourse to his recourse.
The court authorized Marcos to pay a deposit of 150,000 Pakistan pesos pending resolution.
Beneficiaries
The corruption cases, first filed in 1991, involved transactions with Swiss foundations created to manage bank accounts containing hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of the Marcos family.
The transactions would have been illegal because Marcos was a member of the National Assembly of the time, representing the National Capital Region from 1978 to 1984, and Minister of Human Settlements and concurrent Governor of the Manila Metropolitan Area of June 1976 to February 1986.
Article 11 of the 1973 Constitution prohibits members of the National Assembly from having a direct or indirect interest in transactions involving the government.
Conflict
Similarly, cabinet members were not allowed to "participate in the management of affairs" under section 8 of the same charter.
In addition to the unconstitutionality of Marcos' commercial transactions, the Sandiganbayan decision showed that his children, Imee and defeated Vice-President Bongbong, were the beneficiaries of the foundations.
Read more
<! – Please implement on Entertainment only, delete the Twitter nickname after signing in #byline_share
->
Subscribe to INQUIRE MORE to access The Philippine Daily Inquirer and more than 70 titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download it at 4am and share articles on social networks. Call 896 6000.
For comments, complaints or inquiries, contact us.
[ad_2]
Source link
