There’s often a monthslong lag between the day a Supreme Court ruling is made and when that ruling is made public.
The same was true of its June 10 decision acquitting Imelda Marcos of seven counts of graft and reversing the finding of guilt that could have kept the 97-year-old former first lady behind bars for a combined 77 years.
But what curious timing for the nation’s highest court to announce its judgment on Sept. 9, just two days before the birthday of Imelda’s late husband, dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr., and four days before the 69th birthday of their son and heir, President Marcos Jr.
And, needless to say, it came two weeks before Sept. 21, when the nation commemorates the 54th anniversary of the proclamation of martial law, though the actual date fell on Sept. 23, 1972.
One wonders: Was this a random publication date, or was there deliberate thought behind it? Did the magistrates, in their fallible wisdom, intend to offer the Marcos family an early birthday gift?
Or perhaps the release was automated and we are reading too much into it. Still, however one looks at it, the timing couldn’t be more pregnant with meaning.
Reasonable doubt
After all, the ruling wiped out a 2018 Sandiganbayan conviction on seven counts of graft involving allegations that Imelda and her late husband used a network of Swiss foundations to hold and transfer at least $200 million abroad while she occupied a succession of public positions.
To be clear, the high court did not rule that those transactions were legitimate. Rather, it held that the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary requirements needed to sustain a conviction.
The court found that the prosecution had not adequately established that the Swiss foundations were businesses covered by the antigraft law, noting that documents had not been properly authenticated.
Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, who penned the decision, stressed that public interest could not substitute for the rules governing the sufficiency and admissibility of evidence and its probative weight.
“This is especially true in this case,” he wrote, “considering that the prosecution has, at its disposal, the vast resources of the state.”
On that point, the court is right: A criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. The gravity of the charges, the notoriety of the accused or the public’s hunger for justice must not lower that standard.
No day spent in jail
But an acquittal is by no means an exoneration.
Recall that the cases were filed in December 1991, shortly after the Marcos family returned to the Philippines following the collapse of the dictatorship in 1986. The Sandiganbayan did not finally rule until 2018, when it sentenced Imelda to prison terms ranging from six to 11 years on each count. She promptly appealed and, having remained out on bail, never spent a day in jail.
Now, after more than three decades, those convictions have been erased.
And not for the first time: In 1993, the Supreme Court overturned a 24-year prison sentence imposed on Imelda in another graft case.
So the latest ruling arrives at a juncture in history when the Marcoses have completed a remarkable political restoration, and their scion now occupies the highest office in the land.
It is hardly surprising, then, that the decision has provoked not a little outrage among groups that spent decades demanding justice for the dictatorship.
The August Twenty-One Movement said the ruling extinguished whatever “flicker of hope” had emerged from the filing of plunder charges against former Speaker Martin Romualdez, Imelda’s nephew.
“The dismissal of martial law-era cases of thievery against the dictator’s family, while another Marcos now sits in Malacañang, cannot remove the stench of corruption that will always follow this kleptocratic family wherever it goes,” the Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and martial law said.
Legal vindication
The Supreme Court may have settled one legal question, but this ruling does not erase history: the atrocities committed under the dictatorship, the accumulation of enormous wealth, the family’s escape from Malacañang, and its return to the center of political power.
That is why, for all its legal implications, the timing of the ruling matters.
The high court has every right to insist that prosecutors prove their case. But the public has an equal right to ask, after decades of litigation and a historic political comeback: Has justice been served?
For the Marcos family, Sept. 9 is now another September date to remember, falling just short of the birthdays of father and son and only weeks before today’s remembrance of the martial law proclamation. It signifies, too, another legal vindication. “I’m glad that the case is over,” Mr. Marcos said.
Yet, for many Filipinos, it is further evidence of how long accountability has taken and how repeatedly it has faltered. More so, a bitter reminder of what the nation swore never to forget, but did.