The high court also reversed the decision of Judge David Nitafan of Manila RTC Branch 52 dismissing three of the cases, which stemmed from the discovery in 1986 of deposits belonging to the Marcoses in several Swiss banks.

In a 15-page decision, the Supreme Court said the dollar accounts of the Marcoses violated a Central Bank circular prohibiting Filipinos from opening foreign currency accounts abroad without the bank's permission.

Nitafan dismissed the cases even without a motion to quash from Ms Marcos, believing that the government had filed the cases as ''part of a sustained political vendetta'' against the Marcoses by the administration of President Corazon Aquino.

The Supreme Court decision, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Martinez and concurred in by the 14 other justices, set aside Nitafan's rulings in 1990 and 1992 on the cases involving the Marcos accounts in Banque de Paris and Swiss Bank Corp.

The three cases were remanded back to the lower court, with an order that it be consolidated with the 21 other cases pending in another Manila court.

Each count carries a five-year jail term, for a maximum of 120 years in prison for Ms Marcos if she is convicted on all counts.

Nitafan dismissed the cases because the crime allegedly happened before the Central Bank circular was published in January 1984.

Bank accounts

 In one case, Ms Marcos was accused of maintaining accounts in Banque de Paris from 1973 to 1985. The accounts were later transferred to Lombard, Odier Et Cie, a bank based in Geneva, in the name of several foundations organized by a Marcos lawyer, Stephanie Cataui.

The foundations were Bullseye, Mabari, Gladiator, Volubilis, International Intelligence Fund, Pretorien and Coges.

The hidden accounts included $15 million in Philippine-issued dollar-denominated treasury notes.

The Marcoses also maintained separate foreign accounts in Swiss Bank Corp. between 1968 and June 6, 1991. The accounts were in the name of Maler Foundation, which was organized by Jean Louis Sunier, a Marcos dummy.

The Swiss accounts have gathered interest over the years and are now valued about $590 million. The money has been transferred to an escrow account of the Philippine National Bank, which has invested it in several countries.

The three cases were filed in 1992 with the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, but was later consolidated with the 21 other cases pending with Manila RTC Branch 26.

The cases were reraffled to Nitafan's sala. But Nitafan dismissed the cases even before Ms Marcos filed her motion to quash the charges.

He said the cases should be dismissed on the ground that their filing violated the respondent's right against being charged with crimes not yet in the statute books at the time she allegedly committed them.

He said the law allegedly violated by the Marcoses, CB Circular 960 dated Oct. 21, 1983, was ''imperfectly published'' in the Central Bank gazette on Jan. 30, 1984.

''Since the date of violation alleged in the information was prior to the date and complete publication of the circular charged to have been violated, the information in this case appears peremptorily dismissable,'' Nitafan said.

Double jeopardy

 He also dismissed the two other cases citing double jeopardy. He said the cases constituted ''one continuous crime.''

Nitafan asked prosecutors to show cause why the cases should not be dismissed. He, however, disregarded the government lawyers' position, including their motion seeking his inhibition from the case.

The Supreme Court said there was no double jeopardy in the three dollar salting cases handled by Nitafan, and that his ruling was ''improper'' and had ''neither legal nor factual basis.''

It added that Nitafan could not rule on the constitutionality of any law. Neither can he presume that a law was ''ex post facto.''

The tribunal said the Central Bank regulation was presumed constitutional ''until otherwise declared by this court.''

The judge was rebuked by the high court for dismissing the cases without Ms Marcos filing any motion to quash. The Supreme Court said Nitafan's action was tantamount to ''taking the side of the accused.''

In Malacañang, Presidential spokesperson Fernando ''Jerry'' Barican said the government would vigorously pursue the forfeiture cases against the Marcoses as no compromise agreement had been forged.

''The administration is confident of the merits and strength of the forfeiture cases of the government. These cases will be pursued vigorously in the absence of any acceptable agreement,'' he said.

Negotiations

 But Barican emphasized that this did not mean that government would drop the idea of negotiating with the Marcoses.

''I wish to stress that the possibility of a compromise deal with the Marcoses remains merely an option that the government is looking at,'' he said.

His remarks came after a senator suggested that government pursue the cases instead of negotiating a deal.

To this, Barican said that President Estrada was still open to the idea of forging a compromise. The President had noted that the government had gained nothing after 12 years of fruitless litigation.

''The President, in keeping government options for the compromise . . . has public interest as his foremost concern,'' Barican said.

He said the President believed that the country and the human rights victims deserved compensation without further delay and without additional litigation costs to the government.

By Donna S. Cueto, with reports from Martin P. Marfil and AP