For “30-year long delay” that violated their right to speedy disposition of cases, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the alleged ill-gotten wealth case filed against Agricultural Investors, Inc., the late Enrique Cojuangco, former Pangasinan congressman Marcos Cojuangco, and Rafael Abello.

In a resolution issued last Tuesday, March 17, the anti-graft court partially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the civil case filed against them by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on July 31, 1987 under Civil Case No. 0033.

Civil Case No. 0033 was a civil action for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the defendants through the misuse and misappropriation of the Coconut Levy Funds.

On March 24, 1999, the Sandiganbayan ordered the subdivision of the causes of action in Civil Case No. 0033 into eight subdivided complaints, docketed as Civil Cases Nos. 0033-A to 0033-H.

In Civil Case No. 0033-C which was subject of the Sandiganbayan’s March 17, 2026 resolution, the PCGG alleged that the late Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. and his business associates and relatives manipulated and misused the Coconut Levy funds to enrich themselves through supposedly anomalous and grossly disadvantageous agreements and settlements between the United Coconut Planter's Bank (UCPB) and defendant Agricultural Investors, Inc.

The questioned agreements and transactions were made allegedly in connection with the development of Bugsuk Island in Balabac, Palawan as a coconut seed garden for the benefit of the coconut industry.

In their motion to dismiss, the remaining defendants in Civil Case No. 0033-C told the anti-graft court that their case is similar to the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court (SC) in the case of Cojuangco vs Sandiganbayan. In that case, they said the SC ordered the dismissal of the case due to an oppressive delay in the proceedings that seriously infringed on their constitutional rights to due process.

Despite the objection of the prosecution, the anti-graft court partially granted their motion.

The Sandiganbayan said: "The remaining defendants have correctly invoked the doctrine of stare decisis (from settled precedents, there must be no departure) because their situation is the same as that of defendant Cojuangco."

It also said that the remaining defendants also suffered from the same delays, postponements, and suspensions of proceedings as Cojuangco in Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan.

"This Court recognizes that both plaintiff and defendants were heavily prejudiced by the delay," the resolution added.

The dispositive portion of the resolution: “Wherefore, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss of the herein defendants is Partially Granted. Civil Case No. 0033-C is hereby Dismissed as against defendants Agricultural Investors, Inc., Enrique Cojuangco, Marcos Cojuangco, and Rafael Abello due to inordinate delay in the proceedings that constituted a violation of their right to speedy disposition under Section 16, Article III of the Constitution.”

The 14-page resolution was written by Presiding Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Gener M. Gito.