Ill-gotten ‘baubles’
As though to remind Filipinos that the Marcos wealth is unfinished business, the Supreme Court upheld the 2014 Sandiganbayan decision ordering the forfeiture of former first lady Imelda Marcos’ third jewelry collection in favor of the government.
The collection was among the assets left by the Marcoses when they fled the Palace in panic at the height of the 1986 People Power revolution.
In the decision written by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the high court said the jewelry collection—valued up to $153,089 by appraisers from international auction houses Sotheby’s and Christie’s, or about P7.5 million at current exchange rates—is ill-gotten, and denied the petition filed by Marcos and her daughter Irene to reverse the Sandiganbayan’s earlier ruling.
Known as the “Malacañang Collection,” this cache of roughly 300 smaller and less expensive pieces is being kept in the vaults of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas along with two other sets of jewelry seized from the Marcoses—the “Roumeliotes Collection” and “Hawaii Collection.” In all, the three sets are worth up to $20 million, according to then Presidential Commission on Good Government chair Andres Bautista.
The Supreme Court noted that the value of the third jewelry collection alone was “manifestly out of proportion” to then President Ferdinand Marcos’ legitimate income from 1966 to 1986. Thus, “said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired,” the high court said.
Indeed, “Imeldific” doesn’t begin to describe the US Customs’ record detailing in 23 pages the valuables that the members of the ousted first family brought with them when they arrived in Hawaii, including the 413 pieces of jewelry that became known as the Hawaii Collection.
But the most spectacular stuff was found in what has become known as the Roumeliotes Collection, named after Greek businessman Demetriou Roumeliotes, reportedly a Marcos crony, who was caught trying to smuggle out the 60-piece set as he was about to leave the country in March 1986. The collection includes diamond-studded tiaras, necklaces, brooches, earrings, belts, and other gems as well as Patek Philippe, Rolex, and Cartier wristwatches. Some pieces were from such renowned jewelry makers as Bulgari, Van Cleef and Arpels, and Bucellatti. Among the notable pieces are a 37-carat diamond and a 25-carat pink diamond, considered to be exceedingly rare.
This was the best of the lot, according to a photographer hired by the PCGG to document the appraisal of the seized jewelry collection. She recalled: “You could hear a collective sucking in of breath from everyone in the room. There was an emerald and diamond choker that I can only describe as huge, and a bracelet from Bulgari that still had a price tag of $1 million on it.”
This is perhaps the best argument why plunder should be included in the bill reimposing capital punishment—if ever this benighted measure gets passed. Contrary to Rep. Reynaldo Umali’s argument that “it’s only money,” thieves on a grand scale steal more than wealth and resources: They make off with an entire generation’s only chance to rise above their meager circumstances—the opportunity to finish school, find decent jobs, and feed their families without being driven to wrest their young children from their embrace and leave for fates unknown on distant shores. Think of how many students could finish college with the proceeds of a single glittering piece from these jewelry collections.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a timely reminder of the former first family’s excesses, more so now that the anniversary of the Edsa revolution is approaching.
As former PCGG chair Richard Amurao, who once thought of exhibiting the confiscated jewelry to the public, remarked: “The collection is a critical part of the past. We believe that the exhibit of these ill-gotten jewels will be a great vehicle to raise awareness, especially [among] the younger generation and those who have forgotten [the evils of martial law], to remind the Filipino people of the perils of the two-decade regime of corruption that was under the Marcoses.”
