What the Hell Was Imelda Celebrating?
February 25, 2005
After last month’s 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the landmark case against former President Ferdinand Marcos, former Philippine first lady Imelda Marcos quickly gave it her personal spin. She claimed to have felt “exulted” by the decision and publicly celebrated it with her supporters in the Greenbelt section of Makati City near her luxury condominium.
The first class-action human rights suit ever filed in the United States was prepared by lawyers Robert Swift and Rod Domingo on behalf of 9,500 Filipino plaintiffs tortured under Philippine martial law imposed in 1972 by Marcos.
When “People Power” overthrew Marcos in February of 1986, he fled to exile in Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Swift and Domingo filed their complaint in federal court in Hawai‘i in 1986 and personally served their summons and complaint to Marcos in Hawai‘i that same year.
In the course of the protracted six-year litigation, the human rights lawyers obtained a verdict of civil liability against Marcos in September of 1992 for the torture, execution and disappearances of more than 10,000 Filipinos.
In separate trials ending in January 1995, the Honolulu lawyers obtained a nearly $2 billion award, which became the largest personal-injury verdict in history.
Federal Judge Manuel Real, the presiding judge, thereafter froze Marcos’ assets for distribution to his victims.
As a result of the judgment, Swift and Domingo were able to seize Marcos’ Honolulu home valued at more than $1 million to pay for part of the attorneys’ fees in the class action.
While the Honolulu case was proceeding along, the Philippine government, through its Presidential Commission on Good Government, also actively sought out Marcos’ “hidden wealth” assets to sequester and return them to the Philippines.
In the searches for Marcos’ assets, the Swiss government also identified $683 million in assets in Swiss bank accounts.
Despite vigorous legal opposition from Imelda Marcos, the Philippine government succeeded in transferring the funds from Switzerland to the Philippine National Bank, which has held the money in escrow until a proper court determined where the money should go.
In 2003, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the $683 million should rightfully be transferred to the Philippine government because the Marcos family could not prove it was legally acquired.
The Honolulu lawyers then negotiated with the Marcos family for the plaintiffs to accept $200 million of the $2 billion judgment. Of this amount, however, $40 million would go to pay the attorneys’ fees while 9,500 plaintiffs would share the remaining balance.
Real accepted the stipulated settlement and issued an order for the Philippine government to turn over $200 million of the Swiss money to Marcos’ victims.
The Philippine government objected to the court order and appealed the decision, thus paving the way for the recent 9th Circuit judgment.
The $2 billion civil judgment was issued against Marcos personally and not against him in his official capacity as president of the Philippines because his acts were without legal authority. The 9th Circuit decision did not void the $2 billion judgment, ruling only that it cannot be obtained from the $683 million, which the Philippine Supreme Court ruled properly belonged to the Philippine government.
The 9,500 plaintiffs can still seek other assets of Marcos’ not in the hands of the Philippine government to satisfy the civil judgment. For example, FinanceAsia has documents verifying the attempted transfer of $13 billion by Marcos’ daughter, Irene Marcos Araneta, from her Swiss Bank UBS account to her Deutsche Bank account in Dusseldorf, Germany, in February of 2001.
If Swift can recover these assets, he can satisfy either the entire $2 billion judgment or the reduced settlement amount of $200 million.
But the plaintiffs may not need to wait that long. The Philippine government plans to apportion the $683 million as follows: (1) $150 million to indemnify the martial-law torture victims, (2) a portion for attorneys fees and (3) the bulk for agrarian reform.
Rep. Etta Rosales, the chair of the Philippine House Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights and the principal sponsor of H.B. 4535, proposes to give 5 percent of the amount earmarked for the torture victims to Swift and Domingo.
So just what the hell was Imelda Marcos celebrating?
Rodel Rodis, president of the San Francisco Community College Board, is a lawyer and a columnist for various Filipino newsweeklies.
Comments
Got something to say?