The question of ill-gotten wealth continues to haunt Philippine politics decades after the fall of the Marcos regime. It also resurfaces whenever the names Marcos and Romualdez dominate the national conversation. Yet while there are undeniable historical and familial links between the two, it is important to distinguish between what has been judicially established and what remains the subject of allegation and public scrutiny.
The ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family is no longer merely a matter of accusation. It has been judicially established in several decisions rendered by Philippine courts and recognized in foreign jurisdictions.
Among the most significant rulings, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture in favor of the government of approximately US$658 million in Swiss bank deposits traced to the Marcoses. The Sandiganbayan likewise declared portions of the Marcos jewelry collections and artworks as ill-gotten wealth. In 2018, former First Lady Imelda Marcos was convicted by the Sandiganbayan on seven counts of graft arising from transactions during the Marcos years.
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), created in 1986 precisely to recover such assets, has reported recovering approximately ₱280 billion worth of cash and properties from the Marcoses and their associates. These recoveries include Swiss bank deposits, shares of stock, real estate properties, jewelry collections, artworks, dividends from sequestered corporations, and assets surrendered through compromise agreements.
These recovered assets were not merely returned to government coffers. The government used these to partly finance the government's agrarian reform program and to provide compensation to victims of Martial Law human rights abuses.
The Romualdez name also appears in the history of the PCGG's efforts.
Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez, brother-in-law of former President Ferdinand Marcos, was himself the subject of ill-gotten wealth cases filed by the PCGG. The commission alleged that he used dummy corporations to acquire shares and assets beyond lawful means during the Marcos era. The Supreme Court discussed these allegations in cases involving sequestered assets claimed to form part of his unexplained wealth.
However, many of these cases languished in the courts for decades without final resolution.
In June 2025, the Sandiganbayan dismissed one of the long-pending cases against Kokoy Romualdez after nearly forty years of litigation, citing inordinate delay. It is important to understand what that dismissal means. The ruling was procedural. It did not amount to a judicial declaration that the assets in question had been lawfully acquired. Neither did it establish that the allegations were true. It simply reflected the constitutional consequences of an extraordinary delay in prosecution.
There is therefore an undeniable historical, familial, and political connection between the Marcos ill-gotten wealth cases and the Romualdez family because Kokoy Romualdez was one of the prominent Marcos-era figures investigated by the PCGG.
Yet from a legal standpoint, one cannot presently equate the two.
The Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth has been confirmed in numerous final court decisions, resulting in the forfeiture and recovery of billions of pesos in assets by the State. By contrast, the billions worth of properties linked in public discourse and on social media to House Speaker Martin Romualdez, including properties mentioned in this column recently, remain matters of allegation, media reporting, and public scrutiny rather than subjects of final judicial findings. Those who believe it is true, must prove the allegations.
In a society governed by the rule of law, this distinction matters.
Judicial findings are based on evidence tested in court and affirmed through due process. Allegations, however widely discussed or even obvious, remain allegations until proven to reflect the truth.
At the same time, history teaches that unresolved questions about wealth and power do not simply disappear. Public officials and political families inevitably face demands for transparency, especially when their influence extends across generations.
The pursuit of truth requires both memory and restraint: memory not to forget what courts have already established, and restraint not to declare as fact what has yet to be proven.
#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonNews