Press Statement                                                                                                 Reference: Marie Hilao-Enriquez
03 February 2004                                                                                                              Secretary General

SELDA seeks to junk watered down bill unless amended
Serious alterations in Senate Bill 1877 favor the Marcoses and the violators more than the ML victims

Martial Law Human Rights Violations Victims led by SELDA or the Samahan ng mga Ex-Detainee Laban sa Detensyon at para sa Amnestiya are crying foul over the serious alterations on Senate Bill 1877, a bill that seeks to compensate victims of martial law.

The altered bill contained in the Committee Report No. 406 submitted on January 23, 2004 in the Senate substantially modified the draft that was the product of the collective effort of the Technical Working Group which are valuable because they reflect the consensus of the organizations of victims who actively participated in the deliberations at the Committee level; the PCGG and the Commission on Human Rights.

"Whereas, before we were pushing for the immediate enactment of the original draft bill, we are afraid that doing so now with this present altered version will not be in the interest of the more than 10,000 victims of human rights violations during the Marcos Dictatorship," claimed Marie Hilao-Enriquez, SELDA Secretary General.

SELDA through its legal counsels from the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) points to some of the glaring alterations as the primary reason for their withdrawal of support from SB 1877:

1. The new bill does not provide for prioritization of the 9,539 class plaintiffs and the direct action plaintiffs in the compensation of martial law victims. Thus, the new bill does not constitute the "most expeditious manner" of compensating the class suit and direct action plaintiffs as originally envisioned by SELDA.

1.1. In fact, the new bill only considers the Hawaii judgment as prima facie evidence that the 9,539 class plaintiffs are victims who are only disputably presumed entitled to compensation. (Sec. 4) The new bill explicitly provides that "any concerned person" may contest the claim that may be filed by any of the 9,539 class plaintiffs as fictitious or false. (Sec. 10 (b)) In contrast, plaintiffs who obtain judgment in Philippine courts, including judgments that are not yet final and executory (e.g., Aberca vs. Ver), are conclusively presumed entitled to compensation. (Sec. 5)

1.2. Reference to the direct action plaintiffs has been inexplicably omitted altogether. (Sec. 4)

1.3. The proposed procedure for processing claims appears to be an adversarial procedure as in a court litigation because the "concerned person" who may be minded to oppose a claim is allowed to present counter-evidence. (Sec. 10 (b)) Besides the detailed sworn statement and supporting evidence required by the bill from a victims who files a claim, further evidence may be required of any claimant by the Claims Board for the award of any compensation. (Sec. 11, N.B., "xxx and without prejudice to any other documentary or other evidence that may be required for the award of any compensation xxx") Moreover, the Claims Board created by the new bill to process claim is described in the new bill has having "quasi-judicial powers and functions". (Sec.15) By implication, the decisions of the Claims Board may be appealed to the Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court. We can only imagine the inordinate amount of delay that "any concerned person" who may want to oppose any claim can inflict upon all claimants by exploiting these provisions of the new bill.

1.4. The new bill does not include the provision that the 9,539 class plaintiffs and the direct action plaintiffs shall receive "immediate provisional compensation" as recommended by the Technical Working Group. Thus, they must wait until the Claims Board finally identifies all the victims entitled to compensation and how much compensation each are entitled to before they can receive any amount.

2. The enumeration of the kinds of human rights violations that are compensable have been expanded to include "illegal take-over of business" (Sec. 3 (a) (4)), "involuntary exile" (Sec. 3 (a) (3)), and other forms of "harassment" (See Sec. 16 (d)). This multiplies the number of compensable victims, potentially slowing down the work of the Claims Board, and reduces the amount of compensation that each victim will eventually receive.

3. Seven NGOs (viz., TFDP, AMRSP, NASSA, MAG, FLAG, MABINI and PLLP) have been favored by being specifically listed as the organizations that shall nominate the majority of three members in the 5-member Claims Board. Glaringly and inexplicably, SELDA was omitted from this list. (Sec. 12 (b))

4. Many other provisions recommended by SELDA to be included in the bill, including explicit language that compensation under the bill shall not constitute satisfaction, quit-claim or settlement of the judgment obligation of the Estate of Marcos to the victims, have been either omitted or rephrased to avoid explicit reference to the Hawaii judgment or to Marcos. (See, e.g., second proviso of Sec. 7, and Sec. 2)

"With the butchered version of SB 1877, our legislators are robbing us of justice we have waited for so long to obtain and are conveniently using us for their political grandstanding to earn their constituents' votes for May 2004." Enriquez declared.

SELDA also decried the fact that both Congress and the Senate display their biases towards favoring the Marcoses. "In our lobbying actions in both Houses, we have seen the legislators' body language. They don't like to compensate the victims , after all. As it now stands, Senate Bill 1877 is the clearest evidence of the government's insincerity and double-talk in the matter of the compensation of martial law victims," concluded Enriquez. However, this does not discourage us from pursuing justice for the victims of human rights violations," Enriquez said. ###