Court nullifies order of sequestration due to issuance with no prima facie showing of wealth being ill-gotten

The court a quo substituted its own judgment to that of petitioner and unlawfully encroached on matters falling within the latter"s administrative competence.

In support of its argument, petitioner invokes this Courts Decision in PCGG v. Pea. The Decision is inapplicable. In that case, this Court held that Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction over the PCGGs actions which are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, subject to review exclusively by this Court. The Joint Decision assailed in this petition was rendered by the Sandiganbayan, not by a Regional Trial Court.

Under Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution, an order of sequestration may only issue upon a showing of a prima facie case that the properties are ill-gotten wealth under Executive Orders Nos. 1 and  2. When a court nullifies an order of sequestration for having been issued without a prima facie showing that the properties sequestered are ill-gotten wealth under Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, the court does not substitute its judgment for that of the PCGG but simply applies the law.

It bears stressing that among the rights explicitly acknowledged in Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co., Inc. v. PCGG is that owners of properties have the opportunity to contest actions or orders of sequestration issued by the PCGG. Hence, the actions brought by respondents are in the exercise of their right to contest petitioners sequestration of their shares of stock in various corporations. (G.R. No. 173553-56; December 7, 2007)