FACT CHECK: BBM’s claim his family ‘had no chance’ to answer the P203-B tax case is false

Oct. 01, 2022

CLAIM: President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. wants to reopen the P203-billion estate tax case against his family.

In an interview by celebrity Toni Gonzaga over the newly launched Manny Villar ALLTV on September 13, Bongbong said when the case came out, they were never allowed to argue because they were all in the United States, detained at the Hickam Air Force Base.

“Open the case and let us argue it so that all of the things that we should have been able to say in 1987, ’88, ’89 that we were not able to say, we can clarify the properties that they say belong to us”, he said.

The Toni Gonzaga Studio channel on YouTube has over 6.34M subscribers. Her Exclusive Interview with Bongbong has garnered over 3.7M views, 228K likes, and 23K comments as of October 1, 2022.



Bongbong and Imelda Marcos are the co-administrators of the Estate of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Based on the Tax Code and implementing regulations, the payment of estate tax is imposed upon the administrator of the said estate.

In 1993, when Bongbong was congressman of Ilocos, the Supreme Court (SC) furnished his office the warrants of distraint and levy of sale.

Bongbong filed a petition questioning the P23.3-billion estate tax assessment issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. But in a January 13, 1999 SC Resolution, it narrated that the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition on November 29, 1994. The CA ruled that since the tax assessment had become final and unappealable, “the manner and method in which the tax collection is sought to be enforced can no longer be questioned.”

Bongbong appealed CA’s decision to the SC. However, on June 5, 1997, the SC’s Third Division rejected the appeal affirming in all respects the decision made by the CA. He then filed a motion for reconsideration but on September 29, 1997, it was denied by the SC Third Division.

His mother, Imelda, also filed a motion to refer the matter to the SC en banc. But it was denied for lack of merit.

The SC said: “The foregoing notwithstanding, the record shows that notices of warrants of distraint and levy of sale were furnished the counsel of petitioner on April 7, 1993, and June 10, 1993 and the petitioner himself on April 12, 1993 at his office at the Batasang Pambansa. We cannot therefor, countenance petitioners insistence that he was denied due process. Where there was an opportunity to raise objections to government action, and such opportunity was disregarded, for no justifiable reason, the party claiming oppression then becomes the oppressor of the orderly functions of government.”

The Marcoses again filed a second motion for reconsideration but was still denied. The SC declared its decision is final.

In an SC ruling on January 13, 1999, it stated: “We do not see any cogent or compelling reason to allow the same issues to be opened anew in the instant petition. As a settled rule, once a judgment or an order has become final, issues therein should be laid to rest.”

The SC Third Division issued another resolution on March 9, 1999, declaring that the Marcos estate tax assessment case is final and executory.

The principal amount of P23.3 billion pesos estate tax had long become final, executory, and unappealable as of December 1991 when the Marcoses failed to protest the assessment within 30 days from receipt of the assessment.

Davao Today is part of #FactsFirstPH which brings together various sectors that are committed to promoting truth in the public space, and exacting accountability on those who harm it with lies. For those interested to join the initiative, email info@factsfirst.ph.

comments powered by Disqus