G.R. No. 176944 ; March 6, 2013
RET. LT. GEN. JACINTO C. LIGOT, ERLINDA Y. LIGOT, PAULO Y. LIGOT, RIZA Y. LIGOT, and MIGUEL Y. LIGOT, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, Respondent.

FACTS

The Republic, through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), filed an urgent ex-parte application for a freeze order against the properties and bank accounts of retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto Ligot and his family. This was based on an Ombudsman complaint alleging that Ligot, during his 33-year military service, amassed unexplained wealth vastly disproportionate to his lawful income. The Ombudsman’s investigation revealed Ligot’s declared net worth in 2003 was approximately ₱3.8 million, but he and his family allegedly possessed over ₱54 million in undeclared assets, including properties held under the name of his brother-in-law, Edgardo Yambao, alleged to be a dummy.
The Court of Appeals granted the application and issued a 20-day freeze order on July 5, 2005. Upon the Republic’s motion, the CA subsequently extended the freeze order indefinitely. The Ligots challenged this indefinite extension via a petition for certiorari, arguing it constituted grave abuse of discretion. They contended that the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), as then worded, only authorized a freeze order for a maximum of six months, and an indefinite extension violated their right to due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a resolution that effectively extended the freeze order on the petitioners’ assets for an indefinite period.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, finding that the CA’s indefinite extension of the freeze order was issued with grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on statutory construction and due process. At the time the freeze order was issued, Section 10 of the AMLA ( Republic Act No. 9160 ) explicitly stated that a freeze order “shall be effective immediately” but its “effectivity shall not exceed fifteen (15) days,” and that the Court of Appeals may extend the order “for a period not exceeding six (6) months.” The Court emphasized that the law’s wording was clear and mandatory; it set a definitive maximum period. An indefinite extension, therefore, had no legal basis and contravened the express limitation in the statute.
Furthermore, the Court held that such an indefinite freeze violated constitutional due process. While freeze orders are provisional remedies intended to preserve assets pending investigation or litigation, they are a form of property deprivation. An indefinite freeze, without a clear endpoint or periodic judicial review, effectively sanctions an open-ended seizure without a final judgment of forfeiture. This deprives the owner of the use and enjoyment of property for a potentially perpetual period based merely on a finding of probable cause, which is unreasonable and oppressive. The Court clarified that the remedy for the government, if it needed more time, was to initiate a civil forfeiture case under Republic Act No. 1379 , where the assets could be subject to a writ of preliminary attachment under the Rules of Court, not an indefinitely extended freeze order under the AMLA. Consequently, the CA’s resolution was annulled and set aside.