Yesterday, the widow of dictator Ferdinand Marcos suffered another legal setback: the Sandiganbayan thumbed down her appeal to dismiss graft charges against her involving the creation of four dummy corporations and an electronics company between 1978 and 1984.

Just last Monday, Mrs. Marcos and her son, Ilocos Norte Gov. Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., lost a case before the Supreme Court and were ordered to pay P23 billion in inheritance tax on property left behind by the late dictator.

And just like what the High Tribunal had ruled, the Sandiganbayan said Mrs. Marcos' motion "does not raise any new matter and is merely a rehash of the arguments set forth in the motions to quash."

"The motion for reconsideration is bereft of any merit," wrote Justice Cipriano del Rosario.

The Supreme Court said in its tax ruling on Monday that the Marcoses raised "no new issue sufficient to warrant a reversal or modification of the ruling."

Mrs. Marcos was accused by then Ombudsman Conrado Vazquez of conflict of interest when the former first lady, who was a member of the Batasang Pambansa from 1978 to 1984, put up the Maler, Trinidad, Palmy and Rayby foundations as well as the semi-conductor firm Asian Reliability Corp.

Vazquez said the 1973 Constitution dictates that no mambabatas (lawmaker) is allowed to take part "in the management of any business."

But Mrs. Marcos said the case could no longer be pursued because 10 years had already lapsed before the litigation was filed. Besides this, she said she could no longer be charged since she has already been "relieved of any criminal liability."

She added she had ceased to be a member of the Batasan and that the 1973 Constitution had already been superseded and abrogated by the 1987 Constitution.

But the Sandiganbayan noted that this was this same argument she had raised when she appealed her case earlier.

The Sandiganbayan said the 1973 Charter banning public officials from engaging in any business "remained operative" because only the "structural and functional organization of the legislative and executive departments" were changed in the 1987 Constitution.

The anti-graft court's ruling thus paves the way for a pre-trial graft hearing on the 69-year-old widow. The hearings could start on March 15.

On Monday, the Supreme Court released a ruling ordering the Marcos family to pay P23 billion in inheritance tax for the property of the late dictator.

The court denied appeals by Mrs. Marcos and her son against the government's seizure of 30 parcels of land, including the Leyte properties.

The court also said the Marcos heirs filed their appeals too late and before the wrong venue. It said the Marcoses should have questioned the Bureau of Internal Revenue's tax assessment office instead of seeking a restraining order from an appellate court to stop the tax collection.

"No other person than the petitioner is to blame for the expiration of the period within which to question the assessments before the revenue office," the court ruled.

Last year, Mrs. Marcos had a string of court victories.

In November, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed a 1996 ruling by a Hawaii jury awarding $22 billion to a company representing a Filipino treasure hunter who claimed the former President had stolen tons of gold from him in 1971.

It was the latest legal victory scored by the Marcoses in their 12-year battle to clear their name from accusations of corruption, abuses and greed.

In October 1998, the Supreme Court struck down a trial court's 1993 verdict sentencing Imelda Marcos to 12 years in jail for corruption.

Mrs. Marcos, known for her extravagant shopping sprees during her husband's days in power, expressed confidence that she would also be cleared of charges, still pending before local courts, accusing her of helping her husband illegally amass wealth.

"I am just ecstatic about this," the widow of former strongman had said.

"I hope the world is finished in their relentless persecution of Imelda Marcos. I hope they give me a break, a mental peace for a change."

The former first lady, however, was not available for comment about yesterday's ruling by the Sandiganbayan.

By DELON PORCALLA