The Marcoses’ defenses were a sham and evidently calibrated to compound and confuse the issues. The High Court found this to be an attempt to delay the goal of asset recovery by their evasiveness and the expedient profession of ignorance.
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 189505, April 25, 2012
The Marcoses’ defenses were a sham and evidently calibrated to compound and confuse the issues. The High Court found this to be an attempt to delay the goal of asset recovery by their evasiveness and the expedient profession of ignorance.
Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), G.R. No. 130716; December 9, 1998
In the case of Chavez v. PCGG, it was held that the Supreme Court may require the PCGG to disclose the details of any agreement concerning the Marcoses.
Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos v. Republic, G.R. No. 213027, January 18, 2017; Imelda Marcos and Irene Marcos-Araneta v. Republic, G.R. No. 213253, January 18, 2017
In 1991, a petition was filed to recover the properties acquired by the Marcoses through and/or as the result of the improper or illegal use of funds or properties owned by the Philippine government.
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989
In the case of Marcos v. Manglapus, the Supreme Court held that the President may bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines.
THE BARRISTER 