MANILA - The government and former First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos have asked the Sandiganbayan First Division to render a ruling on their dispute concerning rightful ownership over the so-called Malacañang jewelry collection valued between $110,055 and $153,089.

In a 20-page joint memorandum, Mrs. Marcos and daughter Irene Marcos-Araneta, argued that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has no legal right to continue holding the Malacañang jewels because they were never included in any of the hundreds of legal actions initiated by the government in its effort to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly amassed by the Marcos family and their associates.

At best, they noted that there was only a vague mention of the said collection in the complaint filed in 1987 designated as Civil Case no. 0141 concerning the 5 Swiss accounts which have been forfeited in favor of the State.

This was in page 11 sub-paragraph (6) of the ‘petition for forfeiture’ which reads, “Paintings and silverwares, already sold at public auction in the United States worth $17-M …aside from jewelries (sic), paintings and other valuable decorative arts found in Malacañang and in the United States estimated to be about $23.9-M…”

“Aside from the above, nowhere in the Petition was the Malacañang Collection discussed or even stated with particularity and detail. Neither did petitioner (Republic of the Philippines) make a list nor an inventory of all the jewelries intended to be part of the instant case, so as to give Respondents an opportunity to examine the same and to properly respond to their allegations,” Marcos lawyers, Charlito Martin R. Mendoza and Efren Vincent M. Dizon, pointed out.

The Malacañang jewels is the smallest of the three Marcos jewelry collections since the other two – the Hawaii and Roumeliotes collections were earlier assessed to have a combined value of up to $7 million.

Mrs. Marcos said the Office of the Solicitor General became aware of its oversight only after she sent a demand-letter to the PCGG on May 25, 2009.

Because of the government’s failure to include the jewelry collection in its claims, the Marcos widow and her daughter said the PCGG is now barred from asserting such claim at this point.

“(Civil) Case no. 0141 is procedurally terminated and closed and it is elementary that once a case is terminated, satisfied and closed, the same cannot be re-opened by anybody …in any way,” they said.

Lastly, they contend that the government is already barred by prescription from pursuing the case even if it has basis to do so since under Section 2 of Republic Act 1379 or the Forfeiture Law, the right to file a petition for recovery ‘shall prescribe after four years from the date of resignation, dismissal or separation or expiration of the term of office’ of a public official.

“Eveybody knows that Mr. Marcos (former President Ferdinand Marcos) was ousted from power more than two decades ago,” the defense noted.

But assistant solicitor general John Emmanuel Madamba and associate solicitors Moses V. Florendo and Camille R. Buhain countered that it was the Marcoses themselves who caused so much delay in court proceedings.

“It’s on record that the respondents tired in vain, through circuitous legal maneuvers to forestall judicious disposition of claims against them. Surely, the Honorable Court cannot allow respondents to keep their ill-gotten gains. It would be the height of injustice if the Respondents who caused the delay should now benefit for it,” they pointed out.

Likewise, they argued that the original petition in Civil Case no. 0141 contained a reservation for ‘other reliefs and remedies as may be just and reasonable under the premises’ which, by law, adequately covers the government’s claim over the Malacañang jewelry collection.