Former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos and her daughter, Irene Marcos-Araneta, on Wednesday asked the Sandiganbayan Special Division to reverse its decision forfeiting the $35 million Arelma deposits in favor of the government.
 
In their 17-page motion for reconsideration, the two claimed the graft court’s ruling last April 3 has the effect of modifying a final ruling of the Supreme Court issued on July 15, 2003, which awarded to the government ownership of $684 million contents of five Swiss foundations of the Marcos family.
 
The appeal was filed through lead counsel Robert Sison and collaborating counsels Charlito Martin R. Mendoza, Efren Vincent M. Dizon and Al-Shwaid L. Ismael.
 
“It is elementary that once a case is terminated, satisfied and closed, the same cannot be reopened by anybody via a mere motion. In fact, it can no longer be reopened in any way,” the lawyers argued.
 
They said the government motion did not deserve to be given due course and should have been immediately expunged from the record.
 
“The manner taken by petitioner (Republic of the Philippines) to revive the case long buried is procedurally untenable. The belated filing of motion for partial summary judgment is nothing but a mere subterfuge to enable the Republic to further pursue the forfeiture proceedings,” the defendants added.
 
Likewise, they questioned the validity of the court’s decision to render a partial summary judgment noting that the government did not even present evidence that Arelma really belonged to the Marcoses.
 
“Repondents herein may have claimed to be beneficiaries of the arelma account, but it is not proof that they own the said account. The evidence so far presented by petitioner is insufficient to create a link between the Arelma account, on one hand, and herein respondents, on the other, that would ultimately justify this Honorable Court’s disposition of the controversy by way of a summary judgment,” they pointed out.
 
By granting the Arelma deposits in favor of the state, the Marcoses said the Sandiganbayan acted "in excess of its authority and jurisdiction."