Freezing the funds and fruits of flood control: An overview of the effects and extent of freeze orders

The flood control fiasco has permeated our daily lives, consistently making its way to headlines, conversations, and in typical Filipino humor. It has become a relevant and timely national issue in our country as it placed in hot water both public and private individuals allegedly involved in the massive dissipation and misuse of public funds for private gain.

- AMICUS CURIAE FRANCE KEVIN T. DEGAMO

Despite the frequent use of the term “freeze order” in news reports and official statements, many are still unfamiliar with what it truly means, how it is issued, how far it can go, and what its effects are on the assets and rights of those subjected to its chilling repercussions.

Far from being a mere legal phrase, a freeze order directly affects a person’s ability to access, manage, and use money or property. Freeze orders play a vital role in preserving assets while investigations, such as those conducted in relation to the flood control issue, are ongoing. Understanding freeze orders is therefore imperative in appreciating how the law balances accountability with fairness in the midst of a highly publicized and sensationalized controversy.

As discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Roberto V. Ongpin, et al. (G.R. No. 207078, June 20, 2022), a freeze order is an extraordinary and interim relief issued by the Court of Appeals to prevent the dissipation, removal, or disposal of properties that are suspected to be the proceeds of, or related to, unlawful activities. The purpose or objective of a freeze order is to temporarily preserve monetary instruments or property that are in any way related to an unlawful activity or money laundering, by preventing the owner from utilizing them during the duration of the freeze order.