The Marcos assets
and the torture victims

AT A RECENT reunion of my batchmates from Philippine Science High School, we teased each other about high school crushes and how we looked back then and how much we gained since then. We also fondly recalled the many classmates who cannot attend any of our reunions now because they were killed during martial law.

We thought of softspoken, unassuming Alex Villones, gregarious and carefree Lazaro "Lassie" Silva, and class comic Pastor "Sonny" Mesina. They were among the more than 10,000 Filipinos who were salvaged or tortured by minions of the Marcos Dictatorship during their 14 year reign of terror from 1972 to 1986.

I thought of them again when I read about how Imelda Marcos had "exulted" at news of the recent US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which declared that US courts have no jurisdiction over the $683 million of Marcos Swiss deposits which the Philippine Supreme Court in 2003 declared as money forfeited in favor of the Philippine government.

A friend narrated the sight of Imelda Marcos and retinue of about 50 sycophants, together with her tall white American lawyer whooping it up in the Greenbelt section of Makati, celebrating the 9th Circuit decision.

But what the hell was she celebrating?

The Ninth Circuit decision was in the case, In re Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, which was the first class action human rights case ever filed in the US. It was filed in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1986 by lawyers Robert Swift and Rod Domingo who caused their summons and complaint to be served on Ferdinand Marcos while he was in exile in Hawaii.

In the course of the protracted litigation, the human rights lawyers obtained a verdict of civil liability against Marcos in September of 1992 for the torture, execution and disappearance of more than 10,000 Filipinos.

In separate trials ending in January 1995, the Honolulu lawyers obtained a compensatory damage verdict of $767 million and an exemplary or punitive damage verdict of $1.2 billion against Marcos, the combined $2-billion award being the largest personal injury verdict in history.

Federal Judge Manuel Real, who ruled in favor of the human rights plaintiffs, also issued an injunction freezing the Marcos assets to assure their distribution to the Marcos victims. As a result of the judgment, Swift was able to seize the Marcos home in Honolulu valued at more than a million dollars to pay for the attorneys' fees in the class action.

While the Honolulu case was proceeding along, the Philippine government, through its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), also actively searched for Marcos assets to sequester and to return to the Philippines.

In the course of the simultaneous search for Marcos assets, the Swiss government disclosed that it had identified $683 million in Marcos assets which Marcos had deposited in Swiss accounts.

Despite opposition from Imelda Marcos, the Philippine government succeeded in transferring the funds to the Philippine National Bank where it was to be held in escrow until a court determined if the money should go to the Philippine government, the Marcos family or the Marcos victims.

In 2003, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that the Swiss money should go to the Philippine government because it was graft money as the Marcoses could not prove it was legally acquired, and by definition, graft is money that cannot be proven to have been legally obtained.

The Honolulu lawyers then negotiated with the Marcos family for the plaintiff victims to accept 10 percent of the $2-billion judgment or $200 million. Of this amount, however, $40 million would go to pay the attorneys fees while the balance would be divided among the 9,500 identified victims.

Federal Judge Real accepted the stipulated settlement between the plaintiffs and the Marcos family and ruled that the Philippine government should turn over $200 million of the Swiss money to the Marcos victims. When the Philippine government was served with the court order, it appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, thus leading the way for the recent judgment.

The $2-billion Honolulu judgment against Marcos was issued against Marcos in his personal capacity and not in his official capacity as president of the Philippines because his acts were without legal authority. The Ninth Circuit decision did not void the $2-billion judgment, ruling only that it cannot be obtained from the $683 million in the hands of the Philippine government.

For example, the German press reported that Marcos heiress Irene Marcos Araneta had transferred $13 billion of Marcos assets to German banks from various accounts in Switzerland. If Swift can get a hold of these assets, he can satisfy the $2-billion judgment.

Meanwhile, the Philippine government has decided to apportion the $683 million to be distributed as follows: (1) $150 million to indemnify the martial law torture victims; (2) a portion for attorneys' fees; (3) and the bulk to go to agrarian reform.

Representative Etta Rosales, chairperson of the Philippine House committee on civil, political and human Rights, is the principal sponsor of HB 4535, which proposes to give 5 percent of the $200 million earmarked for the torture victims to lawyers Swift and Domingo.

Among the torture victims, a dispute developed between those supporting American lawyer Swift and those backing Philippine lawyer Romeo T. Capulong, himself a martial law victim. Capulong and his Public Interest Law Center (PILC) oppose the payment of any fees to the American lawyers, claiming that they did nothing to merit payment.

The debate in the Philippines also continues over whether any of the Philippine government's money should be used to pay the victims as they were victims of Marcos, not victims of the Philippine government.

Columnist Conrado de Quiros believes that "indemnifying the victims reminds this forgetful country forcefully of what took place during martial law. Martial law did not just rob the country of its money, it robbed the country of its people. Many of them the youth, who died shouting freedom in their loud and pure voices in places God and government forgot. Indemnifying the victims is seizing this country by the scruff of its neck and forcing it to look at itself through a mirror."

My classmates -- Alex, Lazaro and Pastor -- had their vibrant lives snuffed out from them in the prime of their youth. They cannot proudly share photos of their kids with us in reunions and share their hopes and pains because they were robbed of their future.

Their families deserve to be compensated and they deserve to be recognized as victims and as heroes too.

Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com.