|
 1. What is the Hawaii human rights
class suit all about?
The human rights class suit is a damage lawsuit filed against the Marcos Estate in behalf of Marcos human rights victims—those who were victims of
involuntary disappearance, summary execution or salvaging, or torture during the Marcos dictatorship. It was filed at the instance of Philippine human rights
organizations in cooperation with Atty. Robert Swift in the United States, where Marcos took refuge after he was toppled following the EDSA revolution.
The nature of the law suit is a class action suit where the named plaintiffs represented class members who were, in turn, categorized as victims of
involuntary disappearance, summary execution or salvaging, or torture. It is estimated that at least 10,000 people suffered these forms of human rights
violation under martial rule from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986.
The class suit is based on the US Alien Tort Law of 1793 which allows the taking into court for damages those foreign entities now residing in the US who
committed their crimes elsewhere. The present class action suit is a consolidation of three separate suits, including the original class action suit of 1986.
On September 24, 1992, the Hawaii Federal District Court rendered a judgement that found the Marcos Estate guilty of the human rights violations it is
accused of.
2. What are the objectives of the Hawaii class suit?
The objectives of the Hawaii class suit are two-fold: first, to expose through court proceedings the massive human rights violations committed by the Marcos
regime, and second, to demand for just indemnification of the victims of human rights violations under Marcos' rule.
The first objective has been fulfilled following the historic 1992 decision of the Hawaii District Court that found Marcos guilty. The second objective is now
being worked for, but a lot still has to be done in relation to said indemnification. The Philippine government itself refuses to pay indemnification to the victims.
3. Why was the class suit filed in the United States, not in the Philippines?
The then Aquino government refused to recognize the claims of the victims. There was also the recognition of the reality of a strong influence from Marcos
men both in the judiciary and the military that may impede court processes.
The fact also remains that Marcos fled to Hawaii and was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The American court had the jurisdiction over him
until the day he died in Hawaii, after which the information was changed to indicate the Marcos Estate as the defendant.
4. Who are involved in the filing and prosecution of the Hawaii class suit?
Atty. Robert Swift initiated and filed the class suit in behalf of named plaintiffs representing human rights victims of the Marcos dictatorship. Philippine human
rights organizations provided the list of named plaintiffs. They also designated the Society of Ex-Detainees Against Detention and for Amnesty (SELDA),
an organization of former political prisoners, to act as the lead organization in behalf of the human rights movement in the case.
The late Atty. Jose Marie Velez, SELDA vice-chairperson and later its chairperson, was Atty. Swift's co-counsel. Atty. Rodrigo Domingo, Jr. is the
third co-counsel and the local representative for the case. Atty. Sherry Broder was appointed as the co-counsel in Hawaii. When Atty. Velez died in 1991,
Atty. Ruben Fruto was appointed to replace him after SELDA's general counsel, Atty. Romeo Capulong, rejected Atty. Swift's offer to become a co-counsel.
There are no other lawyers officially representing the class suit. The other lawyers appearing for the prosecution such as Atty. Belli, Atty. Hoffman or
Atty. Capulong are lawyers for the other two cases which were consolidated with the class suit by Judge Manuel Real of the Hawaii Federal District
Court. Atty. Swift acts as the lead counsel of the consolidated suits, aside from the class suit.
The Hawaii Federal District Court does not recognize the SELDA special power of attorney, which attempted to appoint SELDA and its general counsel as
representatives of the class members.
The law office of Atty. Swift spends for the necessary expenses in connection with the case, with the human rights organizations supporting him in relation to
data and other services necessary in the Philippine end. Atty. Swift will be reimbursed and paid later for legal services if the case wins and damages are
awarded. The court will decide on the lawyer's fees and reimbursement of expenses based on the total damages to be awarded by the court.
Class suit members do not need to get a lawyer to represent their claims nor pay anything to lawyers who provided any pro bono legal services to them. The
counsel for the class members is Atty. Swift and his co-counsels.
5. What is the role of the Philippine human rights movement and human rights organizations in the Hawaii class suit?
The Philippine human rights movement participated in the Hawaii class suit from day 1. It was part of the initiative that decided on the filing of the case and
supported it throughout the long process of litigation.
The Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), the Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND), the Society of Ex-Detainees
Against Detention and for Amnesty (SELDA), and the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) figured prominently in the support for the class suit. The
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) and its member-organizations carried the class suit as an issue throughout the period of the litigation.
There is no truth to the claim of ownership of the class suit by any organization. The class suit would eventually belong to the legitimate claimants who are the
class suit members. Human rights organizations participate in it to support the suit, including ensuring the protection of rights of the class members who
represent the human rights victims.
6. How did the Hawaii class suit proceed from the time of its filing up to its present stage?
From 1986 up to 1990, the class suit proceeded with difficulty, facing one obstacle after another as the Marcos defense questioned before the US courts
all the way up to the US Supreme Court the latter's jurisdiction over the case. The Marcoses argued that Marcos is immune from suits as head of state or that,
since the alleged crimes were committed in the Philippines, the US courts had no jurisdiction over the case. These points were all rejected by the US courts and
the trial proceeded in 1992.
After a 5-day trial on September 24, 1992, the jury ruled Marcos guilty of human rights violations and thus liable for damages. The jury awarded $1.2 billion
for exemplary damages in February 23, 1994.
The court dispatched special masters in October 1994 to interview 137 representative claimants. Based upon the recommendation of the special master, the jury awarded
$766.4 million for compensatory damages on January 18,1995, in the process validating 9,074 claims.
The Marcos Estate has indicated it will appeal the verdict and decision of the Hawaii Federal District Court. Moves are also being done to get an out-of-court
settlement, together with the Philippine government. The latter has filed a claim of its own on the Marcos assets and is opposing the claims of the human rights
victims.
7. Who are the class suit members? How does one become a class suit member?
Class suit members are the claimants representing human rights victims of the Marcos dictatorship. The latter comprise those who were victims of torture,
summary execution, and forced or involuntary disappearance between September 21, 1972 and February 25, 1986. Additionally, claimants should
have registered their claims with the Hawaii District Court in the human rights class suit against the Marcos Estate between February 23, 1993 and February
23, 1994 to become class members.
It is no longer possible to register a claim under the Hawaii human rights class suit. The jury has already approved the claims for compensatory damages on
January 19, 1995 and has ruled that 9,074 claims are valid. The claimants representing these claims constitute the class suit members.
8. How does one confirm his/her class suit membership?
Any claimant can contact Atty. Robert Swift or his Filipino co-counsels Atty. Rodrigo Domingo, Jr. and Atty. Ruben Fruto.
Atty. Domingo's office is located at: 5th Floor, Dominion Building, 833 A. Arnaiz Avenue (formerly Pasay Road), Legazpi Village, Makati, Metro Manila. Tels:
817-47-54, 893-31-45, 819-26-36. Fax: (632) 819-26-20.
|
