MARTIAL LAW VICTIMS TO RECEIVE $2,000.00
EACH FROM U. S. COURT IN SIX MONTHS
September 20, 2006
U. S. lead counsel Robert Swift and Rod Domingo, Jr., Filipino co-counsel of the 9,539 victims of human rights violations during the Marcos regime jointly issued a statement that the initial and partial distribution of compensation to victims of martial law in the sum of $2,000.00 each will be implemented in six (6) months despite the monkey-wrench thrown in by the Philippine government and the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
On the eve of the September 21, the 34th anniversary of declaration of martial law, Swift and Domingo issued the assurance to all qualified members of the class of human rights abuses despite efforts of the government to further delay the distribution of the Marcos funds obtained in the Merrill Lynch vs. Arelma case where the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award of $35,000.00 to the victims. The favorable decision released yesterday by the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc jointly filed by the Philippine government and the PCGG.
Counsel for the victims excoriated the government for betraying the interests of the victims. Lead counsel Robert Swift said: “The recipients are the victims of torture or the family members of the summarily executed or disappeared. Most live in abject poverty. What honest Philippine government denies to its own abused citizens an opportunity to resurrect their lives? For 20 years the government has done nothing to help them. Now it continues to oppress them. I was informed today that the Philippine government intends to further delay distribution by filing a petition with the United States Supreme Court.”
Rod Domingo, Jr., Filipino counsel for the victims, commented: “The PCGG knows it has no meritorious claim to the money and is simply using all sorts of dilatory tactics as a whip to punish the victims. “
PCGG Chair Sabio and the Philippine officials have completely shown their lack of concern for the victims of the brutal human rights abuses committed since the inception of martial law thirty four (34) years ago. What is more pathetic is the fact that the government has paid over $1.0 million legal fees to topnotch American lawyers to deprive the Filipino victims of just compensation. In the Arelma case alone, the rights of the victims were upheld three times by the U. S. Court. While the government keeps on losing and the victims keep on winning, all the legal technicalities are resorted to by the now-beleaguered Sabio who is a known Marcos man.
But the dilatory tactics being employed by the government will finally come to an end, Swift and Domingo predict. Victory will be sweeter by then. And the Philippine government will yet be proved to be the worst human rights violator in the world, Domingo added.
Brief Background
In 2000 attorneys for the victims filed suit against Merrill Lynch, a New York brokerage house, which for 28 years had invested money for an unknown Panamanian corporation secretly owned by Ferdinand Marcos. The original $35 million deposited with the US Court in 2000 is believed to have grown to least $40 million. The victims had years earlier obtained a landmark $2 billion judgment against Ferdinand Marcos which they were attempting to collect on. Because most of the Marcos wealth was hidden, attorneys for the victims have had to initiate litigation in several countries. The chief obstacle to the victims recovering the Merrill Lynch money was the Philippine government which claimed the money but never offered any proof. Despite its lack of evidence, the government repeatedly sought to prevent a U. S. Court from adjudicating the case, forcing over nine appeals to the Court of Appeals. The government even sought to remove the distinguished U. S. jurist, Judge Manuel Real, from hearing the case.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals derided the "rough and rapacious rule” of Marcos “who often exercised arbitrary power" against the victims of torture, summary execution and disappearance. The Court found that the Republic’s claim to the money was barred by the statute of limitations. The Court also noted the “symbolic significance of some tangible recovery” of money to victims of abuse; and “the fact that the Republic has not taken steps to compensate” the victims “who suffered outrage from the extra-legal acts of a man who was president of the Republic.”
Rod Domingo, Jr. further states: “The baseless assertion of Chair Sabio of sovereign immunity has from the very beginning been unavailing. The recent U. S. Court of Appeal’s decision completely debunked this unfounded defense of Sabio.
The pertinent provision of the Decision is illuminating:
“[3] The general rule is that a sovereign need not forfeit its immunity to protect its assertion of indispensability. In the usual case of interpleader, the sovereign is immune and indispensable and so can cause dismissal of the action. When the sovereign is a foreign state, prejudice to it is a powerful consideration. However, under the guidance of immunity and good conscience, it is not the sole consideration. [4] The Republic’s right in the United States to claim the spoils of office from Marcos has been unquestioned since 1988. As an equitable consideration, the Republic’s failure to secure a judgment affecting the assets was a factor to be taken into account. [5] To protect a party as indispensable, Rule 19 requires an interest that will be impaired by the litigation as a practical matter. As a practical matter, it was doubtful that the Republic had any likelihood of recovering the Arelma assets. The res was in the United States. It could not be finally disposed of except by the judgment of a court in the United States. [6] The presence in this action of victims of the former president of the Republic also had to be noted. The symbolic significance of some tangible recovery is not to be disregarded, and if the recovery is distributed pro rata among the individuals, it would have monetary meaning for the poor among them. [7] In terms of the factors set out by Rule 19(b) as included among those “to be considered,” the Republic would not be prejudiced because it had no practical likelihood of obtaining the Arelma assets and so there was no need of lessening prejudice to it; judgment rendered in its absence would be adequate. [8] Neither Arelma itself nor the Philippine National Bank had an interest to be protected. Merrill Lynch risked being sued again, but it indicated no dissatisfaction with the judgment. The judgment of the district court had to be affirmed.”
Domingo said, “the victims should not now or ever believe that the present government will ever render any assistance to the martial law victims since it considers them as enemies of the state. This government does not protect but condones human rights violations. If you do not believe me, talk to Esperon who just recently acquitted Palparan, even as the hardly credible Melo Commission has just started its investigation.”
“By April next year, distribution of $2,000.00 to each qualified victim will be implemented, not under the auspices of Sabio or the Philippine government but upon orders of the U. S. District Court,” Domingo emphasized.
|
