|
To the editor, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 16, 1998
Dear madam editor,
I have been reading the last three columns of your esteemed columnist, Conrado de Quiros on the recent events in the human rights class suit. If I had not knew him
personally to be an activist and a human rights victim himself, I would have just dismissed his views as malicious lies. However, precisely because he was and he is,
I would like to explain a few things about some of the things he said in his columns. I would also suggest he checks his facts and get the other side of the story
from his friend Rep. Etta Rosales and others who have been involved in the class suit from the start.
Running through the three de Quiros columns is the theme of justice—which he equates with the criminal prosecution of the Marcoses. There is no quarrel on this—we in
Claimants 1081 and in the human rights community consistently demand it. Attys. Swift and Domingo, in the many conversations we had with them, showed their deep
understanding and empathy for this.
However, justice comes in many form, taken in other contexts. In the case of the class suit, its nature of a tort case (civil case for damages) was dictated by the fact
that, under US law, aliens can only be prosecuted for acts outside the US under the Alien Tort Law of 1793, which only covers civil damages and not criminal
prosecution. For the latter to be done, it must be filed in the Philippines. And for it to prosper, the accused must be residing here. Of course, the criminal
prosecution of Marcos was already impossible in 1989 when he died.
The 1986 initial planning for the class suit was done in coordination among concerned human rights organizations—who later became members of the Campaign Committee on
Justice of the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) and in which SELDA played the lead role. The decision was made to go on with the class suit,
with the view that, while Marcos cannot be criminally prosecuted in the US, the process of the class suit and the consequent public attention will expose the
dictator's gross human rights violations to the world. The damages that may be obtained—no matter how far-fetched it was at that time—was agreed upon as further
justice in the form of indemnification to the victims.
Justice in the first sense was served when the US jury ruled in September 1992 that Ferdinand Marcos was liable for gross human rights violations. We are currently trying
to realize justice in the second sense through the obtaining of damages from the Marcos Estate.
We human rights claimants do not counterpose justice with the monetary settlement that we may obtain. Precisely, it is justice by indemnification.
A settlement of the damages in the class suit, by its logic, ends the class suit. By no means, however, does it "forgives" Imelda Marcos and other perpetrators of
human rights violations during the Marcos dictatorship nor does it ends their possible criminal prosecution. Forgiveness, I personally believe, is an individual act
of every Marcos human rights victim and I (nor anyone else) would not be so presumptive as to preempt it. Criminal prosecution I leave to those whose thirst for
vengeance has not yet been quenched.
We do not begrudge President Estrada for his openness to and his support to indemnifying the Marcos human rights victims. On the contrary, we would be very appreciative if
he delivers on his promise to us of a settlement by Christmas. It would be a happy Christmas particularly to the vast majority of the poor claimants among us. If he
does this, he will become the only president who did not oppose the class suit and the Marcos human rights victims.
We are very much grateful to Atty. Swift and his legal team for bringing us this far. We see it as both a legal and moral victory for all human rights victims.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.)
Ramon Casiple, Acting Secretary-General, Claimants 1081, Inc.
oOo
To the editor, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 15, 1998
Dear madam editor,
This is in reference to the "orchestrated and vicious smear campaign" that Danilo Vizmanos and his cohorts in the CPP-NDF and SELDA are waging against the human
rights litigation lead counsel Atty. Robert Swift, his local colleagues, and our organization, Claimants 1081 (PDI, September 13, 1998, Letters).
We beg to differ from these politically- and monetarily-motivated entities in their hysterical call for the Estrada government to course the share of the human rights
claimants from the Marcos Swiss assets through SELDA and Atty. Capulong. This patently illegal and immoral act is contained in Section 3 of SELDA's submission to
Sec. Ronaldo Zamora on the implementing guidelines for the Article 5 of the GRP-NDF human rights agreement.
The whole world knows that the Marcos human rights victims reached this stage where three governments (Philippine, US and Swiss) extended recognition to their plight and
their claim for indemnification through the Hawaii human rights class suit. It is also of public knowledge that Atty. Swift and his team of lawyers, aided by the
whole Philippine human rights community, were the ones responsible for the victory in the class suit.
It is utterly reprehensible for CPP-Sison-SELDA to sneak in at the last moment and use the peace talks to gain control over any possible settlement on the case. It is
therefore correct that President Estrada affirmed his government's recognition of the US court processes and initiate settlement negotiations with the human rights
claimants' lawyer, Atty. Swift.
There is no significant material rift among the vast majority of the human rights claimants. Among our 3,000 plus members and also in our nationwide consultations with
other claimants the past two years, there is unanimous support for Atty. Swift and his efforts to conclude the historic case.
What is actually being reported in the media is that some officers of SELDA, with the CPP and Sison behind them, postures the organization as a claimants' organization.
This it did by building on its former role in 1986-1992 as the lead organization within the human rights community aiding Atty. Swift. This it extends by becoming a
"counsel" for those claimants it beguiled to sign "special powers of attorney" and then by making the preposterous claim that it now represent
over 60 percent of the claimants.
From this spurious vantage point, they spread the lie that they only want to ensure justice for the victims and that they eschew any monetary gain. Twisting the truth, they
would conversely accuse Atty. Swift of going only after the money and not for justice. Incidentally, justice in this particular case was served when the 1992 grand
jury ruled that Marcos was guilty of gross human rights violations and that he is liable for damages. As this is a civil case, justice precisely took the form of
monetary indemnification. This does not preclude the filing of criminal charges against Marcos by the Philippine state or SELDA or anyone for that matter.
They would portray the attorney's fee for Atty. Swift as immoral and huge and even challenge him to make his efforts pro bono. But they would conveniently forget that
SELDA, the other human rights organizations, and the named plaintiffs in 1986 agreed to pay Atty. Swift within the context of a class suit and that Atty. Swift and
his team will advance all the expenses of the class suit. It was also clear from the start that it is the court which will decide on any lawyer's fee. They would
also conveniently forget that Atty. Capulong or any of his PILC lawyers did not and do not have anything to do with the class suit. Most of all, they would
conveniently forget that SELDA was not the plaintiff and that it, along with PAHRA, TFD, KAPATID, FIND, MABINI and other human rights organizations, was only there
to support the class suit.
What is immoral and unjust is the consistent attempt of a political group, the CPP, using its people in SELDA, to get control of the damages due the human rights claimants.
(Sgd.)
Ramon Casiple, Acting Secretary-General, Claimants 1081, Inc.
|
