Presidential Commission on Good Government

Presidential Commission on Good Government
Name	Presidential Commission on Good Government
Formed	1986
Jurisdiction	Philippines
Headquarters	Manila
Chief1 position	Chairperson
Parent agency	Office of the President

Presidential Commission on Good Government

The Presidential Commission on Good Government was an agency created after the 1986 People Power Revolution to recover alleged ill-gotten assets linked to the administration of Ferdinand Marcos and associated figures such as Imelda Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., and members of the Marcos family. It operated within the executive branch of the Philippine government and worked alongside institutions like the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Sandiganbayan, and international entities including the United States Department of Justice and the International Criminal Court in asset-tracing and litigation. Its work intersected with prominent legal actors such as Jovito Salonga, Corazon Aquino, and representatives from law firms and enforcement agencies in jurisdictions like Switzerland, United States, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

History and Establishment

The commission was constituted by Executive Order No. 1 under President Corazon Aquino, following the fall of the Fourth Philippine Republic and the displacement of Ferdinand Marcos after exile in Hawaii. Early figures associated with the commission included Jovito Salonga and legal teams that coordinated actions with the Office of the Solicitor General (Philippines), the Department of Justice (Philippines), and nongovernmental advocates like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Precedents for post-authoritarian asset recovery can be compared with processes after regimes such as Alberto Fujimori in Peru and Suharto in Indonesia, while contemporaneous attention involved international banking centers such as Credit Suisse, HSBC, and Swiss authorities under the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.

Mandate and Legal Authority

The commission’s mandate derived from executive directives and Philippine statutes interpreted through decisions of bodies like the Supreme Court of the Philippines and the Sandiganbayan, operating within frameworks similar to anti-corruption agencies such as the Office of the Ombudsman (Philippines), Transparency International, and laws related to forfeiture used in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and United States. Its legal authority encompassed civil recovery, asset tracing, negotiation of settlements, and coordination with foreign courts including the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and Swiss tribunals, invoking mechanisms comparable to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process and principles in international instruments like the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

Major Investigations and Recoveries

Notable efforts targeted bank accounts, real estate, artworks, and corporate holdings linked to individuals including Imelda Marcos, Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., Enrile family, and associates such as Ramon Cojuangco and corporate entities like San Miguel Corporation and PLDT. Recoveries involved coordinated litigation in jurisdictions such as Switzerland (leading to negotiated returns), the United States (where settlements and civil suits produced disgorgements), and asset repatriation agreements mediated with institutions including Credit Suisse and other banks. High-profile cases reached the Supreme Court of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, influencing decisions involving civil forfeiture, settlement agreements, and the disposition of artworks and properties in cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Geneva, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Organizational Structure and Operations

The commission operated through divisions tasked with legal affairs, investigations, asset management, and international cooperation, interacting with agencies such as the Department of Finance (Philippines), Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Philippine National Police, and foreign counterparts like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Swiss Federal Prosecutor's Office, and Hong Kong Police Force. Leadership rotated among appointed chairpersons and commissioners who coordinated with the Office of the President (Philippines), advisory boards, and independent counsel. Operational methods included forensic accounting, corporate registry searches, mutual legal assistance requests, and litigation in venues such as the Sandiganbayan and foreign courts, often engaging expert witnesses from institutions like Harvard University, Yale University, and private accounting firms.

Controversies and Criticisms

The commission faced criticism regarding its pace, transparency, and settlement choices, with observers including Senate of the Philippines members, media outlets like Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Star, and advocacy groups such as Transparency International raising concerns. Legal disputes involved appeals to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, accusations of politicization by allies of Ferdinand Marcos, and debates over agreements with Swiss authorities and banks like Credit Suisse and UBS. High-profile controversies touched on alleged preferential treatment, prosecutorial discretion challenges comparable to debates in cases involving Alberto Fujimori and Mobutu Sese Seko, and scrutiny by commissions and hearings in bodies like the House of Representatives of the Philippines and the Senate of the Philippines.

Impact and Legacy

The commission’s efforts influenced Philippine jurisprudence on civil forfeiture, asset recovery, and anti-corruption practice, shaping policies within institutions such as the Ombudsman, the Department of Justice (Philippines), and international cooperation protocols used by bodies like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Interpol. Its legacy is reflected in recovered assets redistributed via agencies including the Social Welfare and Development (Philippines) for public projects, the evolution of anti-corruption advocacy led by groups like Transparency International Philippines, and ongoing legal precedents cited in cases before the Supreme Court of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan. The commission remains a reference point in comparative studies alongside post-authoritarian recovery efforts in countries like Peru, Indonesia, and Argentina.

Category:Philippine government agencies Category:Anti-corruption agencies