scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu 70.pdf/. .~. -., , .' ko~ s~if1 g~~f p( phone:.{). : 632 8192628...

/.

.~. -.,

, .'

KO~ S~IF1 G~~F P(

PHoNE:.{). : 632 8192628

I~EPlmLIC OF THE I'L-JIUPPJNES ;ianhigluthavU"

QW.'ZOBCiy

FIRST D1VISIQN

REPUBLIC 011' THE PRIIPl'lNES. PbiDdlt,

.. vcnUJ-

FERDINAND £. MARCOS, £1" AL., Defeadalltl.

x·.·.··.··-----·.·------·.·····-··x FRANCISCO I. eRA VEZ.

. . 'ccltJoDcr, -yenu. -

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT. ItT AL.,

. Raspolldents.

PlWENT:

~OOl

.Tul. 'Z? 1999 01:47PM P2

GARCHlTOIlENA. PJ. CASTA~EDA Ilnd ONG, JJ.

PROMULGATED:

x ••. ---- •• -.---.-."--- ••• -.-----.-.--~.~~!:!!~~ I.t~SOLUTION

OARCH,ITORBNA, PJ.:

The plaintiff ~pubJjc has filed a mQti~D I ·seeking the approv~ of an.

UNDBRT AlONG dated February 10, 1999 signed by the Chairman of the

Presidential Commission on Good Government where the Republic throu&l'

.the Pre5idential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) would cause the

release of USSISO Million out of the over USSSSO Million held in escrow by

the Philippine National Baok from various accounts in Swiss banks. The intent

of the UNDEl.\T AKlNG is to have this amount respond to an lIgt'eemeltt of. Compromise and Settlement (SB~EMEN11 where Imelda Romualdez

Marcos and her son Ferdinand R. Marcos. Jr., presumably as repraaentatives ,

Of. the &late of Ferdinand E. Marcos. bad agreed that in the vari¥ /-, I In C;vU Cue No. 0 •• '

University Of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

!...~ 0;'2;:99 nt. 19:13 F.U KOH.'\ s~ 1FT GR.o\F H

PtOIE NO. = 632 9192620 • FRgM ; R.. C. DaM JNG0, JR.

.~

.... " .~

Jul. 27 1~9 07:4""", P3

RaollllltJlf CMI Casc No. 014/

1'118_1

decided in the United States7 the "human rights victims" would be paid an

aagregate amount of US$l SO Million. The amount would be in lieu of the

original award by the U.S. District Court in Hawaii for over USS1.9 Bil1ion~

Under this SETrLEMENT the amount- to be paid had been reduced to 7.S%

oflbe original judgm~t.

The PCOO through the. ~norablc MagciangaJ Blm. was an inrendcd

signalOJ)' to that SETn..BMENT. Instead of lianina that document.

however, a separate UNDBRTAKlNG ~ executed by the PCGG through

Chairman Sima. The President has directed the PCGG to obtain this Court's

approval of the UNDERTAKING since the US$lS0 Million is part of the

funds in escrow subject to the disposition of this Court in this case; by that

UNDEllTA'KING, this amount would be transferred to a Hawaii Bank under

the control of the U.S Disbict Court sitting in Hawaii.

At the: hcarin, of the motion on April 23, 1999 rhe StlIIIlIMR III Ngd &

D,t4MMS III D,,,II.!JD" til jJllflllIl A1IIIII. (SELDA) entered its appearance as '

one oftbe Amici CJdltle.2 .

on April 26, 1999 fonner Solicitor General francisco Chavez filed Sl

petition3 seeking to enjoin the peGG from signing the SElTLBMENT ami

to detlare null and.void the UNDERTAKING. Tho matter of the restraining

order or writ of prelimin811 injunction was initially set by' this Court for

hearing on ApriJ 30, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. The PCGG represented by the Office

I Tho followfaa Isave nrW lullmlssiau uAtIIId Ow.: a) SELDA. for dIo pllfntifli in Ihct Ha. CIaa Sol&; CommiU. 011 HUl'IlIn 1UJh&l1IUl D.u

ProcasIl~ Bar orlM PhiJip)IDes: lad the Public fDtUc&t Law Cuter b) A~ JewD It. SaJoap Ind Se4ft'ay A. Ordoncz rot human rl;hls victfmJ Japscm mel Yap. II

weU'as tor KifoslJayan c) My. AapIIO M. MaAm d) Aft1'- Radriga C. Domingo. Jr. mftWbm

J DockcrId as CMI caso N


," Oi,'2i:99 n"E 19:1J F.U

- FRqM : R.: c. DIJ1JNG0,JR. . . KOIL\' SW I FT GR:\F PC

Pf.(]NE NO. : 632 9192620 ~OO;)

]",1. 27 1999 07:48PM P4

"

._. r

.~

. Ranlldlolt

CMICIIS.Nv.OUI PIIICJ

of the SoJjcitor General appeared but petitioner Chavez himself did not,.

although members from the Jaw office which bears his name did So. Mattera

were, therefore, discussed informally in court and it was agreed then to reset

the matter of the issuance of the preliminary injunction to May 4, I~ at

8:30 a.m., with noti~ sent to SELDA, Imelda R. Marcos and the Marcos children. All except SELDA appeared on May 4, 1999 throup their

respective counsel.

All submissions were due and filed on May 10, 1999, except for tho '

Reply of Chavez dated May 1111 1999 and the AddJtlonal Submission' of

SELDA dated May 12" 1999 which were filed on May 12 and 13 •.

respectively.

I

BACKGROUND

From the submissions of the parties, it would ~ppear that cn;1 cases

filed in the United States'by various Filipinos (hereafter, the human ri~ts

victims) against Ferdinand Mara»s and later his estate, and his daupter.

These were heard and tried by juty before the U. S. District Court ofHawai~.

These cases WeN docketed as CV86-390, CV 86-330, No. CV86-207 and'

. MDL No. 840 MLR., and judgment was rendered asainst the Estate, of

Perdin~d E. Marcos for the sum ofUS$I,966,700,000.00 in favor of9,s39.

claimants. It would appear that for the satisfaetion for this judgment. the,

Slint.£MBNT aforestated was entered into and made part of a "Judgm~

dated April 29. 1999 in the Hawaii District Court.


Oi'2i:99 TI1:: 19:1-1 F.U

F~ ': R., C. Der11NGa,JR. KOH.'\ SW I FI GRAf PC

PHONE NO. : 632 8192620

~OO-l

Jul. 27 1999 07:48PM PS

.~

..

Resollllion eMI Case No. OUI

rog_1

It is relevant and now appropriate to quote both the

UNDERTAKINGs and "Judgment" for reasons that will be apparent

presently, viz.:

The UNDERTAKING

1'hls UNDERTAKlNO uccutocf on 10* clay offcbnluy. '"' II (Ii;) Mail-. Metro Mamie, CMdc and emuod into by ucI amanc:

(I) fkESlPENTIAL COMMJSSrON ON GOOD GOVEItNMENT. , 10~ body cnatc4 • ., ExCAltfyc Order no. I Gf Fcbnwy 21 • • '16 .w. ita prindpa.I OIl"ICe &ddrcsI II JItC BIda.. No, 12 eDSA, MlDdIluyOlll Cbr. MDIla. PhiJippbw JIIftftIlted by its Cha1nnan MAODANOAL 8. ELMA (Mhfaaftcr nfcrrCd to u the ttfIRST PARTY'");

(2) PHIUPPINB NATIONAL BANI(. a comlftllfCial bankiAa CQrpotIlioD duly argmized ud emtiq UMu ancI by Yhtuo CIt the IaWi of tho llqIublic of &he PhUippincs, authorized to parform tnlSt tuDcllotls Wou&Ia its 1'Iuatirtl BIDkIDa Group, with prin;ipaI office tddreu ., 'NB FlnaacJal Ccntcr.ltAxu Boulevard. PlAY Ciay. Men Manila, PJdUppbles. RpRIGnted ... in by its StnJor Va Prufclcrtt ad trust Offic:cr.1OSE v. FIRRO (hemnafh:rnr.r.t co II tho .asBCONO PAR.TY");

and

(3) VIBUR. J:OUNDATON, AVERllNA FOUNDAnON. AGUAMINA CORPORAnON. MALa FOUNDATION AND PALMY FOUNDATION. aU orpUzed IN! exwins wuIet tbe laws of 1M PriDcipaUty of LladueuteiD WIth offiet aclcbl&es at AoI1nsso 27,"90, Vdur. ~ Aumassa 27,9490, Vida ~ cal1e Aquoliao dda Quudl .. No ... EdUicio IOItA, Aptnaclo .7-ln1. Pauma Sradlo 3'.9490. V..suz Ucohlwtcin, AUluassc 27.t4SO, Vadu, UecIl..-rn, napacdwly. repracnred .. in b)' their AIromey-ift..'aca. PATRICK FOJrnSH (bcrciadot referred co u the "THIRD PAltTY").

WITNES$mJ; THAI-

WRJJmAS, abc um.od SWcs DIsuI" CoWl for Iho DisIricl of HawaU bad O1IIercd Fmallud~ in aha II'DOUlIl otUSSI."'.100.000.ln &Yot or .. human riJID ¥ictims--pralntltrs in III Fe Estate.of Ferdlud I. MaftOI HIUUD Rlata., UugaUOD ad TrtI}atI, dIlL tI, 1"... Mlut:M-UtllloIlJc, MDL No. 840. No. 86.3to. Ne. u.3JO ud No.8WQ7:

WREIlL\S. the plaiftdfCs IDd aha s&Ibsti~ ceprcseawivea of the .faIdIAt Blllso 1m the afonmonlkmcd'LUlgtIIltHf ,.. IIfIIHII brill Acnamat 01 ColDpI'OmiR ' ad SaUJamlDt dared (sk) UDder which IMy cn:alcd • "tdnllfP &ltWu1tI . ti:t. FJUJ. ftDrD which sarisCiCtiOft or the jadgmanra ,warda 10 Cbc blllMll riabr. ~ '~r. ,latzICitr.lhali be made. In eM amount otUSSISO mntion fo lie IOUIOIId Iiom the • l" , g / lUAds ill tJ\C possuafon oltha SecoRd I'.I'IJ;. "Y

$ no UNDERT AKlNO was .110 .Iped by the PN8 u escrow -a.t and the reprcsonCilive of tho scveraJ SwiM FouMadons when: fwlds had bccft remiIIId (a 1M PND escrow. ,


0;:2;:99 TIL 19: 15 F.U .. -- . IlJ 00;; FRqM : R· o C. DBMJNG9.JR.

KO~ SWIFT GR.U PC

PHOtE NO, : 632 9192620 Jut. 27 1999 07:49PM P6

"

..

/luolUlioll CIvil CtlIa No. 0141

Pgg6J

~~., the RqubUc oftbo Philipp;m:a sympharizts (aic) wilh &be pliahl of the huftWl.nlhla ~&fndfli In Ihc &~cd Iftlaalion throup lb. Scco_ '-.'!Y. dai~ CD utI:" in lisa satiltccdon orlbt Jwfcmem -war4I of Aiel hUInIII rllhts :::-plalatifti. by ,.latIn" uafcnlna ancIIor WlJvUl& VSSISO million or Iha ftandr

. 8MrIN UDCIct 1M £sctow A~ dared A"""t 14. 199'. alIJIaugb cbo IWpublie Is IlOl obliprod 10 do 10 und« fiDaJ J~ of the Swiss Ccnrm cIatecf ~IOMdl'.IW1.MdJ&Doal)''' I"a: ',:"

~ tho TIIird Part)' illibrwfsa wiIlQ1,1o r.bre: ....... ucVw WIiw &!II~ ri-' ad iDc~ 0.,. .aid USSUO NlIlIoa 10 Che .~taMd blllllin IfcIa&a victUN-plaintftJi.

NOW. THBRBPORa. lor Iftd in CGDSidcwtlon ot &he torecolna JIftC ...... === dse WIU aM CORCfitions ~befow Jet ra.tlt. 1M ,.,..,. bulla htteby .".. u

I. Tbat Iho Swoael Pa...,. boinJ tho ~ ",oal unW It. .f'oremaadoacd &crow A~ II .xccutcd with tho rallt PalQl clat. Au,usf 14. l"Sa dIaD CIUIO 10 bo ,.Iand lAd ~ to dro PllzbtliI/I s.tIJ .. ." FIIIIIII cr.-I un4Ir Chc ......... 1 af CompnmlM .... 1tUlem000t nseasdaud en the F-.II IIIovc. tho IIftOUDt otUSS.50 nalWcn hen 1M cocaJ ~ ajec& ore. aaJeI &aow Apurqcat. to pay • faun ripu vldms COftlempJaW III aha ~ jadgmadI ordao u.s, Dtarict c.t Cot ~ DiIIrid of'Nawall.

2. Tbat the 111" ed/Or tnufcr aftho _oWl IIJeIUioaed In ~ paraanph shall bI.n"CC(cd only upcm ot .\ibjcct CD Ibo rollwJnJ conditiau'

.) The Aaralllaat of COnIpna .... ud Sddtmillt r.Ccnwd co 1ft 1M Rm ~ ahall have &ecft appnwtcl by &be US Disrric:r Court fat tho District or HawaJ1 or my United SII&eIappcUato CAlI; lad

b) thai tho Secoad Party. Wen au _cOllI ..... and fnnIflt or It.e ""DUnI IftCftlIaucd AI the pruadfaa ........ 1baJ1 fIftt abIma alae eoalDnDo or undaIIklftl aftho manqct ot dlpoa1wy (baft1c) "f'" PldllIIIJIj' SdfkIMOII Flmdchat In the evoDt dIat dlt Apccmalt of Compromise ad SttCbeat .. ~. for ~ GIUII, ~ Ihc. humaa ~ clahaal beina paid 01.11 of dso PJuuI/li s.",. • .", ,fItfIl, k sbaJl ,.... to the SIcad Piny eM ~ 01 USSISO ~ topUIu with 1M ICCNId IftCclNt Ibcnan. if ay. wIdcb 1fIal1_ apiA bet ~1Cd by its EMnM A"...,., willr ,. PItII Ptlt(y. ud thb AJI'eealcftt ahaU IIavD GO twchct Carcc adefTecL

3. This UlUlerla1da.1ft4 tho nIAsa u4 crust.,. oruid USSJ50 atlU_ IbID bo abject to Ike IpJtIOVII orlb. SiMtpnMyaa aad other ~t CCMIIt. ad abc Praidaar of .. bpub1i&ot1ho 'blUppiRa.

IN WITNESS WBBIllOr. CIc patios hcr= have beMtitD aftiDd tbcir . JipalUN 1I'd •• ,. deyotFobtuaIy. Its" at (sic) M-nlta. .

PRBSIDENTJAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVSRNMENT

FntPart)'

By. (Sad.) MAGDANGAL 8. ELMA

, ChI&ma

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL DANK TnISt BankiDi Gmup

SeeoIuI PIIty

By: (S&4) JOS8 V. fElU\O

Senior VIcc-PraLlent lad TMt effacer


~OU6 Oi:2i·-99 nr: 19:16 F.U

FJq1 : R., C, OOMI~,JR. KOH:\ st{ I Fr GRAF PC

PI-OE NO. : 632 9192G2a Jul. 27 1999 B7!SBPM P7

RaGlllliDlt eMI Ccu(J No. QUI

The ICJUDGME'NI"

Inro:

ESTAT! OP F1!aDJNAND a·MARCOS ) HUMAN RlOHlS LmOATIOH )

~~~~~~~~--------) THIS DOCUMENT JW.ATES TO: ) RUN. ct .... v.1!Iba ofFcrdlnIzsIf Eo Man. ) 0. Vm. cd .... v. 2Gte orpcrdhwtd It Marcos ) TgIIAP Y Imee MDrcGt )

MDL84o.MLR

CASE NOS. CV'6-lto.MUl C\fI6-)3l-ML1l CVI6-201-MLR

2. As IPPW 10 ahc:so AIU tb pUl'menS is appnwc4 .t fair. rasoDIbJo and III the bat iatere$lOr.he c1I5I plaisWl&;

). Pwsuw co panpapb 21 tho Rapublic of 1M Pbllippincs .balI 011 or N&te May 10, 1m, tranmrit co the Pint Hawaiian IMk, Box .''', HGftOIuIu. Hawall 061$-1959

By (iii) akcttDGl§ innsru 10 ABA No. 12IlO1015. ID No. "622. ana fat St9.GOO_ &ncI GIla (or SSI.GOO.GOO to Ibo cradic or die Clctk or dae CoGrt tar tbc UDitcd States DisIrIcr of Ibwall -seneY IacatIGft codI ALe 4421) eM RIA of SISo,oao,aoo cmc buAdNcI fiAy miW. u.s. doIbta (seulemeal filM) he of any Iftcame iDhaitaaca IIICIIc or othIII'tIX which hu bien 011 may be Iniod by 1M Republic: orlha PbIlippius.

.c. Tho _laMAt t\azuI pendJDa 4i1pasilion ablU be invested by dsc CIIIk of CoQI'I In a 1M ... co ldalew maximum oamlnca coDSillan& ",Jda sartlY ~ ~ 1iquj4ity fa pay clafraa Dr daI memhas without amdae doJay aubjccr eo 1M orden or chit CoIut. Alllmctac and euaIDp lball .ccUnWIale .aet ~ pan ot .. ICCIlcmw fbzxL

5. na RepuTJ11G orlbc Philfppfnu shaU fit. in 'Witingany objeclioa fa tJ. clipbDlty of MY clill maaberaat law Iban lD day, hill May 31. J",.

6, Counsel ror tho p1ain~ilf cJau .hall make applicatioD &0 the Court fOr p~ of CDUDHI fie. and reuoaUIe COSCI tom *1 scUlcalcGr fund. CompMlldoa of CIDUIlICt fo1 the pJaiDlifr clUs shall be for ... pcrforma4 dctcrminod by tho CoUll eo be reasoaablo and IsCCOSAI)' co ~ .. toUlaMIll of ~ actioA covered by ddI order.

7. ExpwaI iacumd in acfmiaisrcrib& rhD·dJsb1uRI otdla tcUIcmcallUd. Iccludlag COlO of nollces 10 elm mensbIa aM taSOMblo ~ &0 .pedal m,us or a4nlinistRe. ahaU .. paId.fIam tbe ICttlomont fad upcm approval or tho CoUit.

Pit ",


0;:2;:99 n'E 19;1; Fll

',FRqM ,: R., C. DBMJ~.JR. ~OOi KOJ[\ SW I n GRAF PC

PHONE t(). : 632 8192620 Jul. 'Z7 1~ 07:5aPM PB

'-' .~

IlGDIutltNr eMI CAs. /'10. 0141

9. upon 4eposil or tho JetlJamcnl amd In tho flnt Hawaiian 8aak. Boz 19'9, HonolUlu, Hawaii 96105-1959, by electronic Crms(cr Ia ABA No. 12. 30l0U, ID No. vm (aaency Iocadon coda Ale 462) the elide or Co"" IhIII CftIU AtlICacdon or JwlaCDenI ha Cue Naa. CV'6-lH. CV.5-11) Ad CVIt.207.

10. Upon tIeporit of cbe ltti1cmeat fuU ill ~ Flnr HawailaD Bentr. U. pamaactIl uuuaaloa in Cue~, CVI5-39CJ.MLR" IbejudfdaluailrUftlel ..... July 14 ."S &hall_ YIGIf8d. ' '.

II. . Upaa..-ipt or the .1ICdAMnt fbnd III die ,Inc HaWllIaa 8&QIr., .. pcms&ftUlt ~ ill CaN No. CVt6-3N-MLR. maO be p&l1'pd .. all ... 1M pGftIlrioa .hIll be "auted.

12. n. Court thai. ~ JurJadIc&ion to datlrmfne lA, dJapute II co Ibe JDrcrpmutaa ... ",tfOllIlld breech iI'lba ~ ..... CIlI.

DATED: April_I"" MR,lt. ""

(SOD) MANUEL I".IUW.

tnltreD STA.TeS DISTRICT JUDO!

The SBTILEMENT itself is much too long and the eopies provided to

this Court are qiii!e'lliepble: k;'~ fuU~RPrOduCti~~ (see Annex "B": pf'.

the COMPLIANCB1datea Ma~ 4' :t9'99)i! !! I :1 \ ~\'.J' ~ i i,~ I l~:)LlI Ui~lj" ,.I! ·'.I::,.\lI\.1i I: Ji" \ .: I.· dh' I

U'

THE MOVAN'r·S POSmON

Despite protestatioas to the COIltnu,t at argument. it is clear enoUgh .

tiom the text oftbe UNDERTAKING that the reJease of the USS150·MiDiou

is intimately connected with the Decision awarding USS1.9 BilUon to ~~

:. human rights victims in tho U. S. Dis~ Court in Hawaii aud to .tJle : S~ reducing the award ofUSS1SO MiUion. This is 'patent &om

a plain reading of the WHEREAS. Clauses and of the text of tho

UNDBR.T~G itself as quoted 't oPt,. V ..


Oi,'2i:99 TI"E 19:18 FA!

•. FRq1 .:. R. C. Da1111m.1R. KOE' SW I FI GR.~F PC

PtOlE NO. : 632 8192620

~OO&

'-'

]~l, 27 1999 07:51PM P9

Retollllitllt CillilCtutNo. 0141

Pili"

It is in this context 1hat the ltepublic now qlcs this Court to be

allowed to deduct or to exclude the sum USS ISO Million from the amount

under litigation which is over USS590 Million in the forfeitu~ prOCHdiuli

(Civil Case No. 0141).

The reasons proposed by the Republic to justif;y this release. as best as' .

this Court can discern flom its .various submissions, are that:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The UNDBRTAKING was executed in behalf of the

Republic out or sympathy for the plight of the human

rights victims;

The UNDBRT AKING is in compliance with the Swiss

Federal Supreme Court's decision, as well as with me

Foreign' Policy ~tion of the Republic, which the

Executive Department through the President has the

authority to undertake;

Without the resolution of the human rights victims'

problems, the Philippines will be exposing itself to

~laims from the human rights victims;

Since the USS1SO Million is to be talam from the sums

.still in litigation, it is not covered by It. A. 6657 [Sec.

63(b)] nor by Pro~lam~tion No. 131 which requires th~t

the receipb from assets recovered and from sales of iD· .

, gotten wealth recovered through the PCOO shall be one of the sources of funding for the Agiarian Refonn Fund.

Thfs TIlIitJIIIIk for this is, according to the PCGG •. that the

funds in litigation are not yet recoViff"ilkOtteQ . ..U;·~/

wealth" and arc, thus, Dot yet covered by. 7

.. ".


Oi:2i:99 nl: 19:111 f.U

•. F~·: R .. C. DeMJNGB.JR. KOB." SW I F1' GRAF PC ~009

AQ'lE NJ. : 6J2 819262e Jul. 27 1999 07:51PM Pie

IV

DISCUSSION

1.. The DecisioD oCthe Swiss Pedera) Supreme Court

RClo/ltiiOll CfoIiICru.NtJ. QUI

Pili. 9

. The .PCOO has urged that ~ ~UthorizatiOD of the release it now pray. . ·for. in the amount of US$1 SO million (out of the app1'OXirnately USSS90

. million in escrow in this case) is in obedience to and in compliance with the

. various decisions of the Swiss Fedaral Supreme Court. Since the I~ in

~w simject matter of Civil Case No. 141 is in the custody of this ~mt through the Philippine National Bank by virtue of the several decisions of

the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, the PCOG says it is incumbent upon this

Court to release so mueh of those fimds as will satisfy the claims of ~

.hu~ rights victims.

The Republic also argues that. in effect, it is under obligation to

. respond to the judgment of th~ adjudged human rights victims; furthermore.

~ Republic claims that under the Swiss Court decisions, action cOuld be .'

~en. against the Republic under exis~g United Nations treaties of which '.. .

the Philippines is a signatol)'.

Here it is useful for us to go to the earlier decision of the Swia

. , Pederal Supreme Court over the matter of which we ftO~ refer to as the

. APaml,a case.' This is different from the decisions of the Swiss Federal .

.,

, SuPrerM' Court submitted by the Republic in CCIIIIICC!\~~\~~' altltough their dispositive portions are aU of identical ~' .. d(

, A=ci D. CAftru Muiral.rid lAd MadGZl datal April Z. .". (pp. 145-1SD. VoL m, ftIcanI)

'Sec c..pliinca dated April2.S. 1999; ADnCXCI A ID4 ".1. B IDcf "I, III dated Da:cnllMr.l,. 1991: AauxJe2!s"'DlcGlDllGr22.I991; AnnolceaCaadC-I. D. D-I. D-2111c1D-3 Iht.UclItCdJanu.ry7, 1"1.

-.... '


0;--2;:99 nr: 19:19 F.U • FROt'I : R. _ C. D0M I NG0, JR.

KOIr''; SWIFr GR.~F PC

PHJNE t(). : 632 8192620 Jul. 2? 19ge 07:52PM PI1

.'

/lua/IIIID,. Civil Cas~ lio. 0141

'",tID

.. We summarize the narration in the Aguamina decision about the

antecedents invoJving the release of these funds (pp.2137-5137, pp.160-163, iCi.) -

Appareatly the hpublic bad made preyjoU$ requcata to the Swiss authorities over various assets found to have beJonaed to the Marcoses and demonstrated Co have been of "illegal provenance." These ha4 '*" blocked- or iiOatn by the Swiss authorities. These funds and assets. however, remained in Swjtzerland. On August 10, 1995. the Republic filed another request for the early transfer of these blocked funds to the Philippines. The District Attorney of th~ Canton of ZW'lch bad responded affirmatively to this request on the assets over which "Imelda R. Marcos add the heirs of Ferdinand E. Marcos had any formal economic rights" (p. 4/37, p.162 ill.).

Imelda R. Marcos as well as the Estate of Ferdinand Marcos. various creditors. banks and foundatioDS includinG the AguamiDa Corporation appealed this ruling. This ruliq of the District Attomey of Zurich was overturned by the Superior Court of the Canton. Bventually this appeal reached the Swiss Federal Supreme Court which in tum O\'erruled the Cantonal Court. In that case, the dispositive portion of the decision of the Federal Supreme Court read as follows:

The Federal Supreme Court thc:n:fon: rules:

1. the appeal ill adminbtJatlve matters is appmwcl and the decision of diG SvporIor Court ofthc CaJ1ton of Zurich elated Pelmwy 20.

'. 1997, in the matter of the Apamina Co!p01'8lion v. the omcc of the District AltomI)' of the ~ of Zurk:h (UK 950182) ia CI\IUhccL The matter is refarecl back to tho Superior Court fot a rec:ilsbilHJtiDD of the c;osts oftha canlOnaI pn»ceedinp.

• *,. '

2. The Ordas or the Oftic:e of the District Attornet fur d= . Carlton otZurieh of August 21. 1995 ItprdiDs Crc4it Suisse aDd Swiss

Bank Cotparalion P.huts (RBC 11384186) is ccmfbmcd and amended with the following conditicmr.

a) The Republic of tho Philippines gummtees to decide about the sclZUtC Dr rcsti,uticmofthc aueb 10 1be endlled panIa. respc:cdvely, in judicial JWOCCCdiDgs which sadsiY the

. procedural principles as established in lit 14 of the

and polidc:al tipts . f _ -

Intemalional Pact O~Decembcr 16. '6\/diq civU

.' ..


0;.'2i:99 n'E 19:20 FA!

•• FRO!'! :. R •• C. OOMINGe, JR. ~Oll KO~ SWI IT GRAF PC

?tOE Nl. : 632 9192620 J,,1. Z7 1999 07:52PM P12.

"

RuolullDlt O_il Case Nfl. OUI

I'0tt II

b) The ~c~ublic of the Philippines infonnes (sir) the Swiss AUtho~lheJ about the present slate and regularly about all csscnuAI developments

- res~i~; the judicial procccdinp for collecting and restllution and

- reaardiftg mcuwcs anel proc:ccdiap to indenm1fy the viGtims of hwaan rights vloJatioDJ UI1dc:r the Marcos regime (art 2 ciph 2 and led art. 14 UN.Pa(.t D, art 14 and J (I para J of the UN·Aarccment .pinsl torture and olber ClUeJ. jnhumaD or humlDatIDa treatment at punishment cIatocJ December 20, 1984).

pp. 35·36131. Dccilion; pp.193-194, Vol. VIU. Record.

. Thus there is 110thing in the dispositive portion of tho decision that·

. hold the funds subject matter hereof liable for compensation to h~

rights victims generically nor, specifically. to those whom the US District .

Court in Hawaii had made an award.

In this d~on, the decision ~n Alaamina abovo adwrted to was

. specific that these funds wer~ not subject to the award made by the Hawaii

Court.

According to the Swiss Pederal Supreme Court:

, •.• In the present case. howevor. there is DO CODIl=on bclwccn the OffCNe which probably acncraced tho assets seized In Switzerland ad the daimS of the c:rcdItors. This is true both of the Bltadunent as mamancd iu Eo6' ",,4/., tIu 1M,.,. ",lIts vic:tbtu w1ddJ JI1Ut! IltlllUd,4 the "'11"l116li110".4 dtrllflliU 6, the Distnd 01"" II/ HIDfIIIlL lherefol8, acconting to aatlonallaw (Art. 60 Sc. 08) both ptUliu wold4 /urt1e lUI

clllilnf., ,b. tJdjll4ktJIlDII o/lhGIl tads (c:f. BGE 122 IV l6SBa m 2b p. 374f). .

- p. 2Sf31. UI.. cmphaIIJ ~£_ ¥

• • secdoa o,d= Swba cIadsiota

: ..

..


OJ··2;:99 TI"E 19:21 F.U

'FROO : f(: .C. DeMINla.1R. KO~ SW I IT GRAF PC

PI-DE /I(). : 632 8192620 Jul. 27 1999 la7:53PM P13

.'

'"

.

RUQlullon eMI C4s. No. 0141

P~¥./l

As part of the judgment in the human rights violation ~ases, the

Hawaii Court had apparently issuod an injunc:tion aaailllt th~ Swiaa Bank

Corporation and Credit Suisse forbidding tbeae banks to "transfer, assian,

debit, distribute, charge. hide. or in any oth~ way dispose of .wets

belonging to the Mar~os estate" (p. 182 id., page 24/37 oltho deoision). The

Swiss Federal Supreme Court declined to honor the validity of the Hawaii

Court's injunction insofar as ~e ~rcos fimds wore concerned in thb wiJC:

The first preliminary JnjunctioD ofthc District Court ofllawafi wu issued iii 1991. thus (lit) after this clecision or dsa Fadcal Supn:me Cawt. It rcfcm:d &0 the assets deposited in SWiczerland and was dhcctcd asSwiss banks which were not party of the proccediDgs in Hawaii; dearly.tt soulh, to prevent the delivery of the assets 10 the ll&pubIic of .. Philippines and thus to defeat a lcpJ assiltance measure which had bCCD valiclly ozdcrecl by the com.,.tcnl Swiss authorities. The Swiss authmities have repeatedly intant.ncd to 1he United States Ulthorities ID4 COUItB ill this maHar. pomtiftg out that ,II. Swiu mllJlUllllUWau IIMallnS 1lIIIS'

,. ,rillril,y _" IIJld .. lIoUrtd IMIUrua qf A.m"" «I1II1S to 'II,. Swb6 Clllllpllllia tllUltin SWiltolad III 4111vu lb. 61flCku IIIOIIia ,. 1M Vllil84 SItIJu UlUlilUl. " ',atA II/ Swiss s~. If'in the pesat case the federal Supmne Court reftounc:cd the lesal assistance - which had been ItIftcccl In principle as early as 1990 - this woulcl ~lc individual creditors to prevent mutual assistance ~s of Swluerland by appoaJina to American comu. eve though the uscts azc depoai~ on Swiss tenilDlY aud the legal assIstaKe conforms to tM principles of the IMAC IDd the international law.

• p.34/37. p. 191.1d., emphasis supplied.

Immediately after the above statement of the Swiss Court. a quor.r is . posed: ,

••• Ho~. the question lCInIirls whether the bdcest ofhumall rights vl~OD$ under the Marcos rcchnc shoulcl N considerM •••• (id.)


0;:2;:99 n"E 19:22 F.U

'FROM ;. P.. C. OOMING0.JR,

KO~ S\l'If1' GR.~F PC

PHl)o£ t.O. : 632 8192620

~OlJ

Jul. 27 1999 07:54PM P14

.'

RDohnttJIt CivilCtUINtA 0141

Page Jj

)

aa) In the present proceedings, special attention must he paid to the auaJ'I,D,", of1he UN·Pact n, which was aecadad &y &alh Switzerland and the Republic of the PhJJipplnes. Art. 2 of this Pact binds the apeement COlJDtrics to respect the human riptl as established in the Pact and to wammt them to all people in their territories and under their jurisdiction (para 1). Each ap."..'" CIIIIIItIy Ill1dutda III 1IttIIt. til. IIgtd Dr "III". prtWlsllJlU" au ... " *' _llIrell til. 'irltts • rtcop1u4 1ft tile Pm {JIII'tI.2). It IIJIISt ",. .",e that -= JIll'" wit •• 1'1,,,,, 0' liIJertia IU I'fIllted 6.1 llIe Plld have 61m ";0111,,4 clla loti,. G ~1ll14 appal. nDJ 1/ sud viDltltilm sluJuId Iuwe ".,. commllt64 6,p ,..1* IIC1ln, '" orldlll C.plIdll fplI(tI JilL 11). Whoever files such an appal must have the opportunity to have his or her rigltl cslablishecl by the compatent judicial, administrative at lesisJatlve otlan or by any other coMpetont authority acccmIing to tha laws of the IapOCtivc COUIltly (pam 3 lit. b). ll18 nebts ad liberties rcfcrrcd to fa art.l prticuJ.rly _llIde 1M ri&ht of life (art 6). die prohibition or tmture. cruel. iI,human or humiliating lreatment or punishment (art. 7), and the risht of personal liberty (art. 9). Art. 14 para 1 of tho UN-Pad n ~ta that criminal charges as wen as dvil claims aftd liabilities are dcciclecl in falr.and pubJk proceedings before independent. impaztial and lawN! COUlU. Both Swi=rllftd aM the Republic of the PhiJippifta have Jiven a declaration according to lit. 41 UN-Pact II. wbJch eaables them to mutually control Ibc observance of the Pact and to appcaJIO the UN Committee of Human Rights.

xxx xxx xxx

- pp.11-28137 (pp. 18S-] 86,14.), emphB$is supplied.

Furthermore. on the same page the Swiss Court concludes thus:

•••• On the either hand. neither from the UN·Pact D !lOT ftom the UN-Against 10rture is it possible to clerWe aD'I rights oC abe ~ to attach ro =tam assets far previous campe.usatiDa. n""tl'~' Ii. tIIdlmI DIe tbe .M~IU HIl"" lIS • IIUIfIIr of prbIcIJII, "'c o611~ at_ III ptulidptIU lit ti, pnI/JIIIe ,,,,cn4Jap 'If 1/19. wat 10 IUS. FUtlUuuuI MtInIIs' "...IItzl rapoulbllUy /'" IrIi1lulll rlgllls tllDhlthuu t:II..utJe4 durinlldr tMuIn, D,. tAq "tIV~ to cItdm tItmutges I""" ,. Pia • iiu . gove",.IIlI'" lite ttl",,,. cp.,,,,m.tl6~ ill 0'61111$ .', • • '.0/

• p.191J7, id., emphasissupJ~~)'

.' 0"


0;:2;:99 n·E 19:23 FAX

~ :·R. C. D0MING0,]R.

KOl£' S"IFT GR..o\F PC

PtoOE NO. : 632 819262e

~O1-l

Jul. 27 1999 07:54PM P1S

Raallltion eMl CIu. 110. 0141

PGp/4

From the above, it is clear that expectations of the Swiss Pederal

Court's decision is access to judicial processes in tI¥ Philippines. nat to any

specific award or to specific assets.

The fact is that the victims of the Marcos regime have asserted that

right to legal processes and have won albeit not in the Philippines. The

remaining option available to these pJ~tift' victim& in the Hawaii decis'OD . . . in the Philippines is to proceed against the estate oeMarcos or to enfOIU: the .

judgment of the Hawaii Court in the Philippines against the Marcoses. one of the options adverted to by the Swiss Court has been exercised by a. ~t against a former Philippine official - Pres. Marcos, later his estate and : .

against his daughter 1mee ManotOe. The Philippine Govenuncnt was n.Gl

included in that suit.

In the context of existing procedural rules. the human rights victims

. may enforce their cJaims for comperasation in the Philippine courts, although .

. it must be noted that at this time, no proceedings have been initiated . {or the

: implementation of the Hawaii decision against any Marcos property in the It • • •

Philippines.

It is clear, however, from the decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme. .

Court that any link between the awarded claims of the human rights victims.

as decided by the Hawaii Court, and the funds now in escrow subject oflheSe

~proccedings ad upon orders of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court does not

2. Esposure of the Republic: to Caims by Ko.all Rights Victims

The statement thai human rights victims might sue the Republie is at

this time a matter of speculation. At aU events, no substantive or Jm:llCe<llWlfr


Oi.' 2i :99 n'E 19; 2;) F.U

V~ :-R. C. D0Mlt-m.JR.

KOH:\ SW I rr GR.~F PC

PHONE NO. : 632 8192620

~015

Jul. 27 1999 B7:55PM PiG

:

RaollllUM CMI Cnse No. Dill .

P./J

Jaw has been demonstrated by the PCGO to support this apprehension.

Certainly, those who have obtained judgment froqt the Hawaii Court have

cast their lot in that action. Whether they will initiate a new action against

new defendants over the same cause is open ~ question. Whether they can

even legally do so at this time is speculative.

Under Philippine Jurisprudence, the rule on class suits has been .

defined and the consequences thereof established .

..... What makeJ the situation a proper case for dass suit is the cin:umstance that there is only one right or cause of action pertaiDiDg or bclonaing in common to many persons. not sepvatcly or aeverally 10 . distinct individuals.

--The "true'. class action. which is the invention of equity, is ono which involves the CDf'orccmeat of a right which is joint.. common or secondary or derivative X X (It) is & soil wherein. but for the class action device, the joillckr of all interated paniC$ would be ossendal.· (S9 Am. Jar. 2d, 415)

A "buD dass acticm"-as distiDpishcd from the so-called lIybrltl a1Id 1he $pIIrltJIIS das aeliDD in U.S. Federal Practice-"involVCI principles of compulsory joinder. slucc X X (were II DDt) for the numerosity or &he Glass manbcrs all should x x (be) before the court. Included within the tru class suit x " (are) the Jbareboldcrs- derivative IUit and a class action by or 8gaWt an unincolpOrated usociation. X x A Jap., III II trw dtus 611lt, tfJi,tlrtr /lIWIrd/t D' ull/tIVtI,d1tl ttl tile dlJl$, Is 6ill4illg .., res jtulimla priltdpla IIJIfJII dlllt ",1IrdMs o/tlle c/"., wlldlfr . II' IItJt they tnM ",/",. ,II. ~UII. It is the nondivisible Dature of the ript sued on Which dctamjncs bath the membership of the dus and tbs re$ jrulletJla df'ea of the 8GaI c:lotennination of the right." (See Moore, Federal Practice, 2d ceL, Vol. lB, pp. 23-l57. 2l-~8.)

1he object ot the suit is to obtain I'Clicf for or qaiftSt IlUIDCIOUS pcnons as a group or as an integnl atity, and not as separate. distiftct inctividuals whose dghts or liabUitic:s 118 sepa.rate ftom and indcpendcm of those affecting the others..

.. Ro: Rcquost ofthc Heirs of the Passenacrs Of~ ~ / (U9S~:i:7 "7 cmphasts """1'" 6i

.. . '

. ,- .


0;:2;:99 TIt: 19:2-1 Eli

• rncr1! . P.. ,c.. D0MJ NG0. JR.

KOH." SW I fl GRAF P(

PHat I'll. : 632 8192620

~U16

]~l. 27 1999 07:56PM PIS

,

RcoIlIl;Oll CMJCtu~No. 0141

PtIK,,16

Whether human rights victims for the period 1972 to 1986 carl still

initiate a separate suit against anyone else anywhere else is. therefore,

doubtful.

Please note that Philippine procedural law is heavily based OIl·

American pmcedurallaw. As the citations in the above excerpt show, tho·

basis of this Philippine deci~ionon class suits is ArneriQln Jurisprudence.

Thus:. we can understand why the wxt of the "Judgment- rendered by the

Hawaii court approv~n& the SBTTLBMENT provides that upon deposi~ by

the Philippine government of the USSISO Million:. the plaintiffs human rights

victims "sball forever refrain from initiating.· maintaining, 01' pm~iD~

against the Republic, or against the Marcoses for that matter on any claim tor

violation of human rights arising between 1972 and 1986 (par. 8), In the

context of the above ruling, the Hawaii decisioD "is bindins under ru jM~

principles upon all members of the class, whether or not they were before the

Court ... 0" (Re: Request of the Heirs of the Passengers ofDofta Paz.IUP':a.

atp.627)

'3. Sympathy for the Plight of Ramaa Rights Victims

The PCGG's statement of sympathy of the human rights victims. is

curious at best.

On the one hand. tho PCGa alleles that it is pursuing before thi~ Court

the satisfaction of the claims of the human rights victims in the Hawaii ~'

out of sympathy for them; on the other hand, it is constricting the c~ o~

tho hurrUm rights victims to 1.S% of the judgment against judgmeot debtors

in that case, and thereby forever barring any claim that they may have as J. II human rights victims for rhc full amount of the judgment. This qJud~


· .. - ... _. - .... _.. _.

FRq'J : :R. ,c. OOMING9.JR. PH:INE NO. : 632 9192629 Jul. Z7 1999 0?~SSPM P17

.'

Rtnlw/on CivllCll#lIo. QUI

P"I.11

which the UNDERTAKING of the PCGG seeks to implement releases the

Marcoses (up to the fourth civil degree) or the Marcos Batale from over 90%

of the total value of the award already made in favor of the buman ri&hts

victims.

In "payina off' the human rights victims under the ~.

what are the human rights victims really getting? The answer is, very l~ttll :.

~ven less than the 7.5% stated in the SE'ITLBMENT.

The SELDA has told the Court that the lawyers arc making ·tb~

following claims for their fees:

Robart Swift Rodtigo C. Domingo, et aI. Belli & McLean Brovm. Pabbm & Scadet Paul Hofftnan, Elen Lutz AlUlltalpb Sfeillhardt

- for a total of over US $40 Million.

S 34,585.000.00 S 445.375.00 S 3,458.'00.00 S 2.000.000.00

S 542.470.00

The pcoa has not denied this. That amount is more than one-fo~

(1/4) of what the Republic seeks to allocate in its present motion for th~

benefit of the hUman rights victims.

But that is.not all which will be deducted from the USSlSO Million.

Other expenses are still to be declud~ il., those for notices to all the.

claimants and other human rights victims who may still appear, as we~·1 ~ th~

compensadoft iOr the special masters or administrators and their expenses in

the examination of each of the individual human rights victims in·

determining who.ofthem. and how much e~h :>~t~, is entitled to receive

out oftbe nomaining US$11 0 Mi~ I or

.... ~ ........ '~~


PHlE NO. : 632 8192Q0

4. Benefit to the Mareos .Estate and to Other Mareoses up to the Fourth Civil Dearee (hereafter tbe wMarcoses'J for brevity)

1,,1. 'Z? 1999 e?:S6PI1 Pig

RatrlUlitm Chi/Oar. No. 0141

'Ilpll

Indeed, if USSISO Million were all that was. available &om the

Marcoses, then jt ~uld be argued that tho government's Motion secldDS the

'release of the USS 1 SO Million would be an expression of sympathy by tho.

Republic for tho plight of the human rights victims. In other words,' ~e

agreement would be telling the hUJDaJl rights victims: get what can be ~

while there is still something to take.

There is no showing. however, that this is so. On the contraly~ it'is,

obvious today that none of the Marcoses are living in any demo~le . . degree of poverty. Rather, recent political and social events have shown that,

the ,Marcoses are still substantially endowed.

Worse, there is no showing that the Marcoses biJve been subjed.ed to .

examination of a judgment debtor equivalent to the one found in Sec. 3~ of

Rule 39 of our Rules, which has its counterpart ih the Federal Rules an4' fro~ . : which our Rules have been adopted. In other words, there has been n~.

showing whatever that the Marcoses have no other money wltli which to

satisfy the award that they are obliged to pay the human rigbts victims.

The U.s. District Court in Hawaii in its "ludgment" dated April2~ •.

1999, lias explicitly stated that, qUpon receipt of the setdement fund in the . FirSt Hawajjan Bank, the Order of Contempt in Case No. CVB6-39O-~

. .' . \ ' . . . :-:

" .. : ..

shall be purged and aJl :fines and penalties shaU be vacated." (par. 11) The

IOvcmmen.t has not clarified any question o~ this matter despite prodding by j

this ,Court. If newspaper reports are to be believed, this is because Imolda ~('

Marcos has re1iIsed to pay the judgment debt and bas refused to ~ Y


, '.

AGE NO. : 632 Sl9262a 11.£ 1. 'Zl 1999 fiJ7:5'7PI1 P:zB.

RUtJIuI_ Cml elll. No, 0141

Ptll."

herself to proceedings which would show that the Estate of Ferdinand B.

Marcos could not pay the judgment

Further in the ··Judgmenr' we read that "the permanent ~\Dlction in

case No. CV86-390 MLR, the judicial assignment dated July 14. 1995 shall

be vacated." once the l1SS1S0 Million is deposited in the Fmt Hawaiian

. Bank (par. 1 0, "Judgment") ana thereafter satisfaction of judgment shall be

entered in the cases in the Hawaii Cowt. The injunction spoken about by tho

Hawaii Court is directed against Swiss Banks to prevent tho movement of

any Marcos funds away from those banks. (See excerpt on p. 12. ... )

The implementation of the "Judgment" which the PCGG seeks this

Co~ to facilitate p~duces consectuences immediately upon receipt of the

, USS 1 SO Million from the Philippines by the designated ~ank in Hawaii, to

wit!

.... ~

• The release of the Marcoses (up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or' affinity) from any claim arising from human rights violations from 1972 to 1986.

• The release of the Marcoses from the almost usn Billion judgment against them.

• The vacating of the injunction in Case No. CV86-390-MLR and the judicial assjgnment therein, (whatever that

, assignment may have been) as well as the purging of the order of contempt and the release fiom the fines and penalties (of which the o~ ~oJicijOr General proclaimed total unawanmess.

T ~" uy

.---


"uw~ .>n.Lr.1 \U(Al" r\. Ijg020

~ :.Ft. C. OOMI 11GB. JR. .rul. iO 1999 S7:!7PM P21

~ Clvi!CtueNo. 0141

'tlge20

In other word~ insofar as the Hawaii judgment is concerned. the

Mareoses shall have becomo totally free upon the release by this Court of the

USS150 MilJion.

There is no question that by filins the instant Motion. Ihe PCGG

supports aU of the above consequenc:es which are extremely beneficial to the

Marcoses and of minimal ~~efits for the human rights victims. In die ,

UNDERTAKING submitted by the Republic for aftinnadon by dUs Co~ .

the Republic becomes a panicipant in the implementation of the SEm.E-.

MENT which had raduced the original ~ of almost usa BiWo~ to·

a mere 7.S% dtereo( and which will release th~ M8ICOSeS ftom any

restitution of Marcos ftmds anywhere else in the world.

It may be argued that the propriety of discharging Mrs. Marcos fro~,

the orders of arrest and the writs of injunction by tbe Hawaii Court may not '.

be of interest to this Court in this proceeding. This is far from correct.

The issue that ~as dogged the PCOO all these years is the

determination of the full c~nt of the "Mareos wealth" and in what places ~ :

the world this wealth is located.· The re1~e of the Mart.oses fioni I:flY '.

inquiIy by an American court which carries the ful1 weight - the "clout' - of

the United States government removes a power1W tool to ferret out :that

Marcos wealth. Once the Marcoses are released from the compuisolY

processes of the Hawaii Court, an extremely valuabJe benefit will have been bestowed to the Marcos heirs. The Marcoses wiU have been fieed' tram the. need to respond to queStions the answers to which the Philippine govemrDent

through the PCGG and the Filipino people have been anxious to hear. This releal8 would, th_fim:, be a b~OS~ to '0 human rights vic:lims them8e1~

and to the Filipino p~D '-r


5. Ji'oreilh PolicY Direction

J"l. Xl 1999 07:58PM P22.

RutJlutf41l CMlea.Na. 0141 '.ZI

The PCGG has argued that the Executive Department. especially the

President, can and does direct the foreign policy of the eountry as well as the

initiatives in foreign relations. That is true enough.

As all acts of government, however. foreip policy and the .. implementation. thereof does not belong to the Bxecutil'e Departmenl in

isolation. There is the law and the Constitution that must always 'be followed

and the courts whose interpretation and implementation thereOf must, ~

, -acknowledged.

Por ; example, no agreement may be entered into by the 'Executi~e ,

Department which would violate this country's freedom from nucJ,~

weapons as enunciated by the Constitution (Sec. 8, Art. n, Constitution). ~o

funds may be spent in the pursuit of a foreign ·policy initiatil'e ~ as may

be provided by law or appropriated by Congress, nor may amb~rs be

. appointed unless approv~d by the Commission on Appointments.

How the release of USSISO mi1liOl~ now in escrow with the·~

relates to a foreign policy thrust, or even what be the foreign pol~,?; IllltJative

the release of this sum is supposed to be part of is not stated nor explained by .

thePCGG.

Merely saying it is so does not make it so.

6. The Authority of the peGG

How dJ :: yC PCGG on this matter sllllld legally?

Not too -_1_

"

-----_ .... University Of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection

~ :. R •• C. OOMINGe.JR. Ptoe NO. : m Bl9262e

" ' ,

llGoIrdliJlt CIvIl CcwNo, 0141

P.l1

The Presidenti8I Commission on Good Govemment is charged by the

enactments that created it with the "re~oyery of aU UI-gottcn wealth

accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. MIlrCOS, his immediate famUy.

relatives. subordinates and associates, whether located in the Philippines or

abroad:· (Sec. 2[a). Executive Order No.1). This is the reason for its .

existence. This is its primary fimction and its duty,9

In the execution of its duty, the PCGG has the authority to seqUeSter ; :~

what, it J»im# jllli' believes to be iU .. go~ wealth or property. It ~y ~~ ~ however. only in a manner akin to an attachment or a receivership, with ~e, PCGG actina as the receiver or holder of property in auIlNJia ¥.I~ It =:~~' , thus, dispose of aequesterecl property only as may be authorized by, 'tb~, '

" " COurts, primarily the Sandiganbayan. As in attachment or receiverslUp. th~

sequestered property may be disposed of. or converted into some other, form, "

(1.& into cash), but only in order to preserve it (usually from deteri~~) or

to preselVe other sequestered property of the so.c:aUed "cron)'", Such:as (~

'purposes of paying off a mortgage of a much more valuable sequ~,

property. On" a case h~ ~ filed in court. the PCGG may not I'8le188 'any ..... property from sequestration without .court approval. That release mUst be foc

8oodcause. ,

..

Once judgment is rendered apinst a defendant Clcron)'" in an ill-gotten··

wealth case. whether by compromise or after trial, the sequestered properlY. :

would 'be. ~d actually becomes, ·'recovered. ill-gotten wealth .. and thus th~

property of tho government. The disposition of this recovered ~I-gotteit

wealth is subject to existing law. As it is against the law for the govermnaif

to dispose, of property that does not belong to it. the government may Dot

dispose of its own property except as may be authorized by law.


~. : .Ft. c. Da"IINGa.JR. PHJNE NO. : 632 8192620 .Jul. ;0 1999 07:59PM P24·

" ,

. ~

RUo/UII01f eM/c._iliA tJUI

,,.13

Sequestered property. which is property still under litigation. is not yet

government property and it may not be disposed of exeept, as aforestatecl, in

the context of property under receivership or otherwise in RlSIDditJ "1ft. Thus,

it may neither be disposed of by the alleged "crony" because it may be

adjudged "jll.gottenn and could, therefore. SO to the government; nor may ito

be disposed of by the government because if the governtnCllt fails to prove its ,

"crony ill-gotten" character, i~ s)1ould go back to the "crony."

The USSlSO Minion subject matter of the UNDEltTAICJNO is 0

sequeatered property. It is part of the funds in several Swiss Bllllk acco~t; now amounting to about USS600 Million which have been found to be'

owned by the Marcoses and which fUnds the Swiss Fedeml Supreme Co~rt'

bas found to be of "illegal provenance."

In the words of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in the Aguamiaa

b) Today'! state ofJenowlcdge does Dot allow serious doubts about the ,1Iaglll pro",,,,,,," of the seized IDODI.. The iDcom9leteness of the records makes i3 (.tit) Impossible: to attributC the: indi1lidoal assets to specific ofTeascs. and it is possible therefore that also lop assets of the MarGOs families were deposited with the foundations. Hgwe,tet. such legal asset, could, u established corrc:ctIy by the claimant, GBly be minor sums compared to the tOtal amount of the aaetS seized. WillI rapid (II tI,e ovuwl,dmi"K ,""Jorlly 0/ tll~ tJneJs $~ tla, /lleu ~ $IIJ1kklll/y deu to tJIIOIiI th, nuunrptloll' Dllln iUepi p",I7111.nu. Under these elrcumsram:es an arly mtltutioll of the U80IS is pas.ible in priftciple if there are sufficient guarantees that tho decision regardiDl scizun: or testitution, respectively. will be rendeled in pJOCCedtngs acamIiac tD law and order. The decision whCtbIl' to scize, or testltute the mmries seized must be takeR in the PhiJipinc. where the criminal actiODS ~ committed. (pp. /11J7 ond 181J~ Aguammll dednon dales Deee",bar 10, . 1991. p. 17S, Vol. VIll, Rec",d; ,,,,phtRlllllpp/i,tI)

This finding of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is a judicial

declaration oftbe ill-gotten character of these funds. Because of that finding, tti, the Swiss Court has remitted these fimds (or disposition by this Court ~rl''il


"

...• ~

~y ...

PfOE NO. : 632 919262S .Ttd. :t'l 19.:19 ea:BIiFM P2S

RISfIIvIion Ci"il CIUW No. 0141

'.'4 ease. The evidence in the hands of the PCGG must have been strong enough

to persuade the Swiss Federal Supreme Court to release these funds. And

thus did the PCGG file this case for forfeiture of these amounts.

7. Sequestered Property outside the Law?

Republic Act No. 6657 pravides for the disposition of tho pn=eds that ,~

,go to the government nom the so-ca1Jed tn-gotten wealth cases in ~a '

'manner:

Sources offtmdblg or appmpriations .haU includo the (ollowins:

a) PIocccds ofthl: sales of the A.5Icts Privatiration Trust;

b) All JeCCipts from assets rccoveralancl from sala ofm-&oltal \VC8lth Iccoverecl tblough the Presidential CornmDWoD on Good Govemmcnt;

xxx xxx xxx

Thus, these funds should (orm part of the funds for the ~ ',of ..

, impleD)enting the agrarian refonn law,

The PCGG asserts before this Court that these funds are iU-S~,' p~perty and properly subject of the jnstant praceedings for forfeiture und~ ','

"R:.A 1379: that i~ when it filed the instant case. It has aftinned that Its

evidence is strong: that is why i~ filed, a Manifestation and Motion dated, ,"

, , December 3, 1!J98 urging that the case be set for trial without any fUrther pie- ": " " ,~al.ll· In the next breath, however, the PCGa tells this Court tha~n~ .. ~ , there is as yet no judgment by this Court that these funds are j , /- "/

U'p. 123-124. Record. VoL IX. ne PCGGlllcS; " ••• ••• • •• 1. II b in 1M bat interest orebe Republic fO lnunedlatoly pocad wlda the crill of

rho OCIO to provo 1210 nature of.ltfllpNpttties rought'to be farfiifccI iD • favar or the StIIo, Siwa cho f.u:t Ihat cfDfendanti ~licldy .clmla.d ia theft IDSWCI' to die pc,blola tholr ...whoa of the praptftfc:s IUbJ-et of Ihfs acticm. I.... 1-9 A~ ~ ,

le ••


PtOE NO, : 632 9192620

,

.Jul. 27 1999 ea:9I2IPM P26'

Resofulitm ChilCmeNo. 0141

P(JrelS

property, the funds are not subjec;t of any statute so that the government

through the PCGG may move to dispose thereof without statutory authority

or Jbnitation. In other words, the PCOO tells this Court that even if the

PCGG is convinced that this USS ISO Million forms part of ill-gotten wealth.

"it" is not covered by ~ law or regulation in the disposition of these funds

because the PCGG or the Republic bas not yet won the case.

The logic is obviously askew. This is, at best, a fine point of sophistry.

Let us follow, however. the PCGG's point of sophistry. Tho sum o(

USS 150 Million is not covered by existing law because it is not yet

"recovered ill-gotten wealth". But if this money is not yet "recovered ill·

go.tten wealth,.. then it does not yet belong to the government; if so, the

, government cannot yet seek to dispose of it So what is the PCOG doing

here?"

Indeed, in the view of the peaa. this sum Is part o~ a greater amount

, ." alleged to be of "illegal provenance. tt The PCGG is, therefore, bound by i~ '.

C,harter to keep this money under the control of this Court and to work'"

towards its eventual deliveJ)' into the national coffers by winning the iDstant

l~Wsuit for forfeiture under R.A. No. 1379. It has no authority to give up tho' ... " ""

figh~ over these funds or any portion thereof for any reason except for a to~ ,

"C~mprcmise agreement in this ea$~.

It is illegal for the PCGO to yield the USSlSO Million of this money to

the Hawaii Court in order to pay for a judgment debt against the Marcoses

themselv~t who are the very defendants in thjs forfeiture case. Furthermore,

it- is disposing of what CDuld be money of the Republic; yet it is disposing of

this sum in a manner contrary to what tbe law provides with respect t;O

recovered ill-gotten w~~ .~ ~e funding of the-Comprehensive

Agrarian Refonn ProIlt'll--l-_ r 0/


-: . F.RCt1 : cR. ,C. DeKIN:i0.JR. PtOE NO. : 632 8192629

RUMutlon eM/CtucHa. 0141

P.,11

By asking this Court to affirm its own UNDEllTAICINO. the PCGG is

making sure that the money never becomes "recovered ill-gotten wealth"

and that it never becomes property of the Republic. It is "shore clrcuiti ....

R.A. 66S7. It is making sure that existing law never operates over the US

$1 SO Million. The pcoa is making sure that the goVernment Ilever pas the

.. USSISO Million. and that it is never disposed of by any law that may now 01'

· hereafter be enacted by the Legislature. In ordinary language. the PCGG is · . .-pre-empting any act of Congress over this sum.

8. Payment by the Government of Marcos Debt to the Filipino People

The instant Motion of the PCGG is in very simple terms intended to

pay a liability which the Republic is not bound to pay, whether lepUy or

morally.

. It must always be bomo in mind that the obligation to compensate the

~uman rights vi~tims under the decision of the U.S. Distriet Court in Hawaii ...

~B~nst ~e Estate of MarCos in Hawaii is as much a moral indietment as it is '.

ti financial obligation. The late Pres. Fentinand Man:os haa been adjudged ..

responsible for the death of, and injury to, thousands of his own countrymen. .

'the Estate of Marcos, therefoR, has not merely a legal but a moral obligation·

to satisfy that judgment with its Dwn mDney. Money of "illegal provenanee" ...

or ill-gotten wealth is not money of the Marcos Estate - it is money that is to

b~ cOnfiscated trom that estate in favor of the Republic. It cannot be used i9 pay debts of the Marcos Estate, much Jess the debt owed to tho human rights

· vietims - Filipino human rights victims to be precise.

The govemm~t of the post .. EDSA Philippines shouJd not be made to '} /

assum" the moral obligation bnposed by that hlllllan rights j~rft' "Y flayment In this hUIII.n rights case is more than just a material rearituli1"

]

J ~


FROM,: R. C. DeI1II'GiI,J'R. PHONE NJ. : G32 9192620 .Jul. Z? 1~ ea:e2PM P29

RUtIiuIItuI eM/ Gtsc Na. 0141

Pllltl1

the death of or physi~Bl injuries inflicted upon a Filipino; it is primarily an

acknowledgment of a moral guilt to the Filipino people.

It must be clear in the mind of the ~CGG that the adjudged ~uman

rights victims did not suffer death or iDjwy during those years of Martial '

Rule in order to make moneY. or in anticjpation of payment fifteen or twentY ' : years Jater. They did not sue, ~n order to make money or to get rich; rather. :

they sued to afftnn the wrong done to them and to have thole who have dono

thom wrong held publicly responsible for that wroDg.

There is no question that the adjudSed human rights victims could

.. 'make use of whatever money they will receive today. But money was not ~I

.' that the lawsuit in Hawaii was about; eertainly. that is not th.e meani~g of

, 'sqCh a judgment by the US District Court in Hawaii.

Imelda R. MaRaS has pointed with pride to her acquittal during the '

: R:ICO trial in New York. With pride because that was notJusI a ~hinpp~ne, .'

: court. it is an A1nnit!tI", court. The decision of the u.s. District ~~ in,

, : a_waii is also a decision of an American court. It was arrived at by a jury

after an open trial; the judgment has been affirmed by the superior courts ,of .

'the American judicial system. The responsibility (or the wrong has heen

fixed by an American court. For those who hold Philippine courts in lo~:

eSteem, it cannot get better than this

It is not for this Republic now to assume that responsibilitY or any

portion of that judgment in favor of human rights victims in order to bring

about a ~plete rel?tf:.f ,gt~tate of Marcos from any liability. That'

would be im"f"eO or

"

i


FROM. : R. ,c. OOI'tJN:i9, JR. PHlNE NO. : 632 819262B Jul. 'Z1 1999 ee:82PM P29

..

9. Parens Patriae

RIltllIIlioIt CIvIlCm.No. 0141

h,.JI

The PCGG justifies this cOncem for the human rigbts viaims as the

duty of the State under the concept of pllnlU Jlllritll. This is incorrccl

PIltIfIS jJttIriM is the concept of the S_ taking care of'the physiCally, or

, ' : mentally or legally incomp~ such as minors. orphans and the memaJly , '

.'

deficient, 01' insane.

As to the dactrine of ptl1'tllS JIII"itle (fathcI' of hi. country). ita relevancy to this case is doubtfbl because the recipients ollho suppoat granted by the lower court are no lonler minolS. The c:Ioctrllle reras to Ihc inherent power and authority or the state to provide pro~OJI of the pason and property of • petSGft IIDII lUI }1I1I. Un4er chat cloetrillO. tho state bas the sovereign J)OWa' of paniiaDlhip oYer persons under disability. X X x. (67 CJ.S. 624; Government of the P.I. VI. MoIIte de Pledad.lS Phil. 728, 747; 31 Words and Phrases ludidully Dctincd, Per. BeJ •• pp. 99-100).

Vasco vs. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 162, 166

Another decision of the Supreme Court restates the rule of pmrtu /JIl1I'i4I. '

Moreover. where minors are involved. the State ~ u fJtIIIJIl JklIMt. To it is cast the duty of prctccting * right. of persons or iDdividual who because of age or incapacity are in aQ unAvorable position. 'Vfs4·vls other partiCl. Unable as 'they arc to tala: due em: of what concerns them. they have the political CGlIlMunity to look after their welfare.

Nery VI. Lotcuzo. et ale 44 SeRA 431. 438

The' adjudged human rights victims are neither legally nor mentaily , ,

: incapacitated; m~ch less are they lesqlly incompetent They havo more ~ ,¢/. adequately shown their competence in taking care of themselves. They ¥ 0/


Fn. : .~. C. DeMINGa. JR. PHONe JI(). : 632 S19262B .11,ll. Z'I 1999 EUl3PM P39 . .

..

RatJlutiolr Chili CIW No. QUI

Pag.19

filed their cases as victims of hW1\an rights violations and they bave won

those cases. They can, and they have taken care oftbemse)\fes.

Obviously. JItImU JHIhiIlt does not appJy to effect payment or the

judgment due to them.

So what about the poor ~uman rights victims who have been suffering.·· .

: for the last thirteen years? They have suffered for so lon& why can th~ na~: :. . '.'

have something DOw?

These are valid questions and they have a simple answer: the Man:as

Estate as judgment debtor has not paid them up to now and1he M~ Bstat~ . "

has not explained to the Hawaii Court, or to anyone for that maltef. why it ' ...

has not done so. That is why the human rights victims. or to anyone for that .

matter, are still without any compensation.

No accusing finger can be pointed to the Republic nor the courts on .

this. And no sentimental dramatics can alter that fact, nor alter the duty.:

.. imposed upon those adjudged guilty of that wrong.

If the Republic wants to spend money for the poor and the afflicted, .it

. may spend money for that purpose provided that it is duly appropriated ~

. Congress as provided by the Constitution. If the government wants to assist ' ..

. : (not cOmpensate) individuals or groups of human rights victims ~

. martial Jaw years who are in need of financial assistance today. it may do so:

. as the Constitution provjdes. But the Republic cannot volunteer to pay for ..

. the injury .to its own people, and then cause the release from any liability th~ .

~ th!P ~ caused the injury - the adjudged violator of hUmin. GUoi'· . . ~ & .

?'


f'RbI:I. : .R: C. DBMIfG. JR. ROE NO. : S32 819262a .1~l. 71 1999 08:83PM P31·

. . o·

...• '

'.

There is no question that the PCGa could enter into compromises with

defendants in ill-gotten cases; and these compromise agreements may be

entered into under circumstances or conditions that are prescribed in the Civil

Code with respect to contracts, £1.., they must not be contrary to law, morals,

good customs, public order or public )'olicy (Article 2306, Civil Code; Fint . . Philippine Holdings v. SfJndipnbayan, Second Division. 202 SCRA 212-

. 221). Compromise agreemen!S .are,.after all, contracts within the context of a

judicial proceeding (Art. 2028, iJ.)

. As the ·matter is presented to this Court, no basis for co~ise ~

· been demonstrated. But even if it were, we must look at the agreement with .

. great care .

Jurisprudence tells us that the essence oC compromises are m~~ :

· . concessions by the parties to avoid or tQ end litigation (Pe,.lquet v. R~, 21 ..

. SCRA IS03. 1512)

The Supreme Court bas told us that the essence of a compromise is : · . mutual concessions by the parties to put an end to litigaticm.. I~ quoted wi!-h" . : approval the Sandiganbayan's own Justice Cipriano del Rosario when he'

. wrote, "One must give if one must take. If only one takes all. then one·must .

: first win. But in a compromise, all w~ by taking some and giving some."

. (Republic V3. Santliganhayan. 226 SCRA 314, 327).

At this time all the Court is presented with is the releaso of USSI50 ....

. Million in order to release the Estate of Marcos nom a judgment debt .of . ~

almost US~2 Billio~ before Interest and penalties. and to reJease their funds· .

. from a worldwide injunction or disposition of their 1Unds, and thus put all the ':

. money of the esta~ at free disposaJ while the remainin& approximately

. : ~~Vll to be litigated. Obviously. there is no give and take


FRCr1,: R: C. DBM1NG0. JR. . . PHONe Nl. : 632 8192620 JI.&I. 27 1999 ee:94FM P32

10. Subrogation?

Ruolltlillll ';~I Cau No. QUI

rDpJI

The PCGG tells this Court that, at aU events, the govemment can pt

back the US~lS0 Million after it wins this forfeiture: c;ase. This statement is

seriously deficient in logic. If the government wins this cas~ all the memey

in escrow will bo declared eeill_gotten" and tho money will be forfeited iD

favor of the government The forfeited money. by then wiD become

. government money. Government money'caDnot be used as payment fo~ what

. the .government has already advanced. On the contrary. the money forfeittd . .

woU:!d·be short of the US$JSO Million used to release the Marcos Estate fiom

. itS obligation to the human rights victims. And if the lovemmeftt loses' this

case and the MIm)~: Estate wins it. why will it c:ede anything to the

Philippine Govemment? No pi~e of paper has been presented that :would

say so. The PCGO's argument about subrogating the Philippine Government

to the rights of the human rights victims does not hold.

IV

CONCLUSION

There is neither stamtory nor constitutional justification for the release

of the USSISO Million now in escro~ to pay the judgment debt of the

M~eos Estate. Furthermore, the Republic cannot compensate its own

citi%ens for the grave injury done 10 them and then release &om any liability

the one or the ones responsible for that grave injury.

WHEREFORE. the Motion (or Approval of Undertaking dated April

16, 1999 is DENIED for lack of meriL

The prayer of Francisco Chavez in his petition to oqjoin the Republic

from using the USSISO Million ~In as a settlement of the Clai~' .V human rights victims against the Estate of Marcos becomes MOOT


Quezon City, PhiJippines.luly 7, 1999.

"\liE CONCUR:

: a".", .. ~.(...:. C!*r!If, - 4 ~ .. CATALINO R. CASTAmDA, JR.

. Associate Justice

~,'fA. ~l~ '7'~

'* " Ijlnar.:ci.i1GUCt'IO.l.4 • ..sI"rlM

Jul. 2? 1999 ea:84A1 P33.

Resohlticn Civil Case 0141

Pagcl2

.~J GRE S.ONG

A9s0ciate Justice ~~QII'N~'

., ... -"'!'.:;.".--~


~ ,., • R: CL. D0MINGB, JR. AGE fI(). : 632 9192629 -, .

... '

..- . o

~~~~.Ifrt. "., RepubJlcofthePhDlppmes r

~arbilbtlmgar QIlIIODClty

trlRST DIVISION

:REPUBLIC OF THE PillL1PPJNES. I'IaIIIlUr.

-venus .. CMLCASB NO. 0141

~----~--~----······------·-~-s

I'RANCISCO L CHAVEZ. PetltIoDcr.

CIVIL CASE SD 1(0 •. 0185

CONCURRING OPINION

, ~A8EDA,JR., J.:

SectIon Q(b) of RepabJk Ad N .... tM/I. ollcrwJle ~ ~. the

. CoJJIpreheJllJve ApwriaD Jlefoma Law 011'88, pro"fl4es:


FROM:': R. C. lleMll'Ga.JR. . ' ... . PHONE 1'1). : 632 9192620 1 ... 1. Z1 1999 ee:esPM P35 .

. : .

. ,".

...

G

x----~----~--~-x

"II) AD reeeIpts f'nml ..... ncovered and &mil ..... of8J..lOfteJa wealth hCO¥end thruarJa tilt PresfclcntIaI CommiJlIon 011 Good Govemment."

'Dda providoD Iw Bot heretofore· ... repuJ.I or ....... r,~I1·,:"i' .i,~ \'1 :J~ '! 1;\il':":~;~;'~'lfr II'it:' I I il '" ... ,,\. ..1.1 ,',' .... I, .,' I',' .

1I~~~~JaaI"'bi~llorf __ eaethat .. .avwdepod

of US$5JO IIIIIIIoD (0II1II palt of the Marcos' ID-cotfeD· wealth ad· ,,~

. ·tOd'eItI:d·1n favor 01 a. State, the 1DOIl"1 nnat lie ... esclallvcly • ftmd :dat:. :. £o.pnllenslve ApuWa RerOftb Pro,ram. CoateqUJItl1, tIut IImnaft 11~.·

.t~ ~ot, ~er tile eslatJnllfat1lte, .. paid fnIJIl the deposit the Ibo~ of. .

. U~I50 dim they apeecl to .... e .. compeuadCIIL BY. "Choat R.paItIIC. .

Act No. 687, IIIda pa,ment wonIcl .. dearlY fa vIoJdoa ot tile coaatJfu._ . . "';wf.tIaB tJaat IfCn)O maftey.w .. Jndd O1lt.or.the Treasuq _apt III ~~ 'of

~ .,~priatIoa made by ...... (Sec. D [I), Art. VI. PhIIIppbae eo..tltatIoD.)

AceoNlq to dte PJaJdenflal COJIIIIIIaIon OIl Good Govemment,

die. ammmt or .USSJ50 lldllloa (wfdch Is • portion or Ole USS90 million tan~~: r . MeI'OW) lallDtCawend IIy IIIe law "--lilallOtyet _not ...,...weaIdIV g ,,'

. --" .~:.:


FROM·~ R', <1:. DeMJN30.JR. FtOE NO. : 632 8192620 J"I. 27 1999 09:96PM P36 to .' • . ..

. .

Conc:arrinc OplDlon Page J '

~'

TIle pI'O~ willa tIdI IIIl1Wwat Ja a.t ......... to ... . GIftleftJdp ot, the deposit has yet to lie RtfJ... If fhe deposit tarna oat Co lie .. eo-- ..,... .. It II PI" ~1Ie)' 01' proper9 aU C8IDlDt .. urn tor aay

pahJic p1UpOJe a~er dian fIaat Provliled IJy RepaMlc .Act Nil. ten. nmdaJ.-lor

l1li)' pIfvate purpose. TJae .... depoaft or __ ,.n fIaenoI caDDOt .. tile ~Idcc& or . 'l1li)' eoDIpnmlse ~,""" .. t f1lvoifJn, ... dIsposIlon to priYafe parIa IDre ttle

~ naJds .... · 'I'M UaltlUlyor .... MaftOIC8 Co ........ 1faIda .... ~. 'priYate oltllpfioll. TIlerero.re.lIl7 sacIa compraadle ....... t.wiIIlJe valid Or.aD

." daDe anlywltboat raJIIIIq afend oftlw CGJllCItutlOJI and Repulalle Act No. ~

·In the eYat • IDai jutlJd.l cletennIaatlOD lalUlle that fJae ucmw deposit !allOt.OJ.

;' :r~~:; ,- -:, =: :: . 'f .... ;:,.. l,)I,:"'/j.: : •. 'i;~ • :,,'

i . tJJdllthe/I\\~1l\II~~~/.~releaseoldleDlone;~ • . ..... ,," '" • ' .•• , '.\ II ,o", 'I

,lie mepl UDJ.gotta or ~ IIhot., , '.

TIle audenlped IJIIlpdldza with die pOpt or tile Iumaea djlJta '

~ InIt It iI tlot.ttldn this COlIIt's pawer to rule .yODd file amIdt ordae'Jaw. . ' ;: . 0·.

Quezon City, July 20, 189i.

.. -' ~& e...- ~:;-S~ , ~'.

CATALINO R. OASTAREDA, JR.' '"

Aasocdate Juatice


FRoM.'': ·R. C. DeMltGa. JR. PHONE tfJ. : 632 8192620 ...

....

Civil Case$ No. 014 t M~ 018S Republic oflhe PhiUpplnes, Plaintll/. ''Br:trIS

Jt"erdinDnd E. MQl*CI.Js, et nL, Deje",rJDII",

. x---- .. ------ .... ----_____ ~ ____ .. _. __ ... -- .. --------------x

. SEPARATE OPINION

:ONG.J.:

, concur in the results.

At fint glance. the moticm filed by the Solicitor GcnOra1 Oft '-harf of flus .

. Republio _king the approval orthc Unds11l1khtg elated P,bruBIY 10, 1999 signed ' .

. by the Chairman of the Presidential Commission em 000cI ~vamncut ,PCCJO")'

: app:a11l to he proper and the most practical means of comp8IISating the Iminan, . rights vietUns oftbeit' ~laims as decided with finality by tbe United States District: .. o'

f ~\1l't of Hawaii, consideritJg 1bat:

1. The nleao of US $150 Million out of1he US s,,90 . . Million held in escrow with the Philippine Nation.1 Bank to

indannit)t the humaft rigbU clainw\ts in the: class suit for damages

before the Uaitccl Stales DiSlrid Court of Hawaii appealS to be tIle

most praclical and immediate mode or realizing the payment of'sacb

compeiPrition to tho human rights victims, who may nOW aIRtady be

in the twilight yean ofthcit lives.

AllhousJa. as corradly pointed out by lhtIlJoaarabJc Presiding

Justice Francis a Garchitorena oflhis Court. the amollnt of US S t SO

Million is only MOund 1.$% ofthc US $1.9 Billion awarded to the

hUmlll rights victims by 1"0 United Stab District Coutt of Hawaii.

the ability of said J1Uman rights victims to eftecbvely and IopJly

collect laid amount of US $,1.9 Billion outside of the. proposed

pa.yment usmg the us $1'0 M"alU~ or tho poaibility orlbeir being

IIble to do 10, to my mind, .pJI"'In 10 be NIl\OIe. Ffrn, thea. mi;bl be v .

.....

. ~cl· $


... -'

~lltIrtI'f! Oplll/Olt

Rcpu6l1r: "". AIkreo". el tIl. CMI CfAIU No. 0141""" DIBS Ptlg,~of"

PHCNS t«l. : 632 8192629

z····················z •

.1ul. ;n 1999 ea:Ci5?PPI P3S

difficulty ill ~orcinl and executing 1110 U.S. JudsmCld before "

Philippine Court, where a new adiol1 in the Philippines bas 10 be

insti~ to ~ the foreign judpJcnt. [q. Rule 3!), RuJo 48;

Petkins vs. Bengusl Con~ol;dtlfed, 93 Phil. 1034 (1'.53); Phfh.t1

/lIvatmlZlft Corporation 11.r. Court of AppMh. 214 SeRA 102

(1997)1 Second. GOrJSi~ the mapiwdo of tho amomd. of the

claim, there may be difficulty in raising and paying the J1J'OPCI" dooket

fees, which is a PfI""COnditi~ lor the proper court to acquire

jurisdiction over the sul~ matter. lcf. Rule 141, Section J; Srutm

Vs. C6II11 0/ AppetJu, 278 SCRA 214 (1997)) Tlrtrd. and more

impmtaDtly, such adiem wiD, of necessity, again. iIlvolve Il pmfractccl

litigation.

It has also been suggested that 1he buman rights victims may

go to CcmgJess for reliefs. However, such a proposal is far too

speculative in charade.- :mel may not be constitutionally feasible.

especially since publi~ funds may not be disbursed far private

purposes.. ref. Artide VI. Section 29. 19~ Cm,slituticm;PMCIlal VI.

Ssr:rdltlry Df Public WD7t.r, 110 Phil. 331 (1960); 81 C.I.S. Sc:c.

133, ill p. 1141)

2. nJt: President of dJo Republic or tho Philippines has

alrNdy approved the Undertaking dated February 10, 1999. let: M'lmorandum dated April 1 '. 1999 fiom the PJ"CIident addrcssec:I to

the Chnirman otdlo PCOO (Ann6X B affhOUDllo"jb,. A.pprtIWll of Undertakl"g dated April 16, 1999)J Such approval by the Pp,sident

of tbG Undsrlalctng, wbi~b is neoessariJy intertwined with 1110 U.S.

Judgment, is a poUtical ad that aught to be respedccI by this Court to

avoid emharraSsment on. the part oCtile President in the exercise orhis

preroptive in the conduct offoreign relations.

3. The U"dflrlaJ.:tng· has the appraval not only of !he

·V


Fe<J1.;..: .G. C. OOMIN30.JR. PHlNE NO. : 63a 8192620 .11£1. 27 1999 08:17PM P39 . /' .

SllptlI'tno Opl",,,,, Rt1pU1Jlc If". AlM'Co6, u ttl. Ci .. 1 Cluu No. OUI GI,,1 D18S PtrBtI'qf1

Prcsick.-nt at Ole Pbilippines. bllt also the explicit s\apport of tbe

Senalc of the Philippines. which passed a I'CSGJution sIatiIIg that Ill'

proceods fi'om escrow funds should be utilizud for other PUIpOIO caly

"after satisJYjng 1M IQgaI claims of verified human risJ8 viCllims

during martial law • ., [if. ~e Reso .... ian No. 349 dated Man:Il 9,

1999)

Dnu, it ~"OUJd 4ppoar fb., tho matter J'*on1cd to 1his Court

involvathe oxercise of a lUghly political act for which the diJcnIIiDft

~ by the Exccutivo Department, in a~ tho nmitlance

of U.S. S1S0 Million to the U.S. Court to compensato the human

ripls victims. and the sentiments of the Philippine scnato favaring

the same under the principle of separation of power, abouId be '

rc:spec:tccl by Ibis C0l11t.

4. The approval oftlU's Court for the rcmiUance of the US

S150 Million 10 the U.S. Court tor distribution to the human righfa

vi~ is nccesstUY anly because the 1bnds ana in culltJtiltl legis by

litis CoUl1, and its release is specifically made subject to tho appmvaJ

of this CoUll in arlditiOJl to the approval of the President of the

PhiJippmcs.

A second hard look, however, puts into doubt the propriety of the

Vlldmaldng, cspccia.ry taking into tI~rzt tho explicit provisions of Section

.63(b) ofRcpublic Act No. 66S7, otherwise known as the Couqxeheusiw Agrarian

Rcronn Law C·CARLa') .. which provides UUlt "!!II receipts ltom asseIs r=avcred

and fiom sala. of iII-gattcm wealth recovered tbrougb the POOG" shall be used'to

ftlnd &be CamprdacnsJw Aprian Refonn Propm. [underscoring supplied]

.....

It is lrUe that if the mOiley. i.e., the US $590 Million. which includes the US

$'50 Million sought to be Jdcascd, is not proVC'lI to be iU-gou.m wealth. then iCs

.~p WIll mICI1 to 1/10 aIaIe o(f_ President Fenlinond E. Marcos, ~


.'

Sttp"".,. Opinion n-publlc Y.& M",t:fJI, _I nt. C,,,ut:~No. ()/~14n4DIRj P"ao~~7

~ .. -----.. ------.----~

sbaD dum be DlWWCI1Ibta ror tho judgm~tt apins! it in mor of'1he bum:ao rish'* viCliD'Ul.

fJawever" iC the i'rtoney i. proven to be iU-SOUon wealth. then the money

JhnU ltc fmoiled in fiw"l" oftbe OOftlmneut. In such case. no portion of~ US

~90 MJUiOJl can he u.ccf to COIJlpen5Ate the Jnunan ri",* "leU,.. \Vifhollt ~8 . at"outof'tho explicit provision. of"RepubUc: Ad No. 6657 as CIlloted Abo-.

Ccmsidcring thal.1bo issue Qft v.itCl1b ... or not tho .ruada ftI'O ilt-gatteft weallh

9f'tne ~al'COac.I has not yet been rcsalvcd by this Court.. a pAl'tial rdcue of" . , limds at this pomt m time would,. tharef'o",. &0 pNmDbltL

With raped to tho specific pt'Ovid~ of Ihe All"""""" q Cwnp~ml.ye , and Setdamllnt wbic;h \WnI dillCUlI8Cd in ibo main opinion pemMd by tl1a llollcmablo .

fJreIri~ing Justiall Franof. Eo Oarehitoreaa. ll11rivD at tho foUawing coaclusions:

I. With rcmsrd to til., mpt"atiOli that 1ho US $1'0 Million

wiD nc:IC be subjcd to any incama. inh.ntauc:c. catA10 or Gthcr laX

~ich I ... bcca 01' may ~ levied in the PhiU,.,ina (Section 2.3 oitM A.I:""""'.'" of eo"'P'OmI8. d"d S.,tl.",."tl. I SF" with tho

observadon of lb. (oIGnomblo Praiding Jusd.cc. cansidcriag that the

i..ue on tho propriety Gf"the Republic waivinB 51lCh taxes has Already

~ raolvcd in tho negative in ChovlfZ VI. PCGG. 0.& No.

130716. Dcocmhc:r9.1998:

·Sct~ GIIefel' 110m No. 2 of Gte GCIftCr'II A... ,cad,. 1bo PCQO commJIB to exampI fmrn aU fnnns of ,td&:C the J'1'Ot'OIIi- to be -.inecl by Ihc Ma~ hain. 11Iia Is • c;loar vfola1ian of tho CoNIiIUIion. The power ro fAX and '" gr'8nt exsmpdona ;. w.tod in tho Consr'oA ad. re i\ certain extent. in. tIuI local Jo"'.1tvo botUa. Secl.iaft 21(4). Ante. VI of Iho C".onaitutloa,. ~fi~ly ~daa: 'No la"" 8J'8IdinS ftlO' 'ax oumJlffGII IlluIU be paacd ~ovt 1ko ~.:c 01 .. m.,rity of aIIlbo Mombets or Cft~.· Tho PCGC ..... hsolutaly no po"'" tet annt las •• rnpUoas.. .. en uador tho COVel" or Its autftorlly to compromlso lO.pttan OWftD'11l casesV'


tot<uM : R. ~. JJeMINGe • .7R. fa- .:'.- 1.10 .r'd. :n 1999 ee: 89PM P41

• f" •

• '. S~,. (Jp1,,1.:u,

e'

'.

n.pu6lll:,,1. U~~ "tJ/. C/1"IC~IN,., tJUl4lffltJl8~ P"~JqF7

R'Val g,.ncina that Co.narou G:IIKb • JaW exempting ,he MatCalIaa aTom JtaYiaa _08 OJI .,.. ptopartiea. such law will dafilde.Jy not paM 1tte lost of tho aqua! ~ cll~ ~"Ilte am <4~. My spoaial".. oE,. «amptioo III fnIW 0I1Iy of lho MIK08 heint wiD CODIIirDtd ... IcaIsI.ticm. It will ~ tho COftSdlUl.loA.l ruto ,hat -I...aicm. .... n he tmifonn and CCJuitabla. •

Ndthct' ClIft Iho 8tipqlQcm be aDMfnlacl til tan";lhiQ the pcwwer 01' die 00ftImiafancr t:I J"tamal ....,.uo r., cant ....... _ ,..... Such autharity may be ..a.c.s Oldy

When (1) thero '" '._'InII_t. dtIttM QII 10 .. wrllt/i01 cF I. t:ltzhrt aaafaar Iho taJIpayor. -nd (2) fk ~" ...... poUIPm cJCftscmAialu It c1tur hul611n)J f4 pdJI. Definilcly. naidtcr J'CCIVllilo fa ~ In die cue f4 the Marcotc.. hccausa uadCl' &he Aarull.onf they are ctreotiwly CftIICCCIlna th., ".Ucf&y or d&e cWftuI .,.m.t IIIeir proparW. PM V£ wIIicla IIK:.Y wiD be allowed '0 nbiq. ~ caa .... PCOO pat o£ lax aanptien taU within ..... penni' CJf' \he commilliDnClr CICt ... to 01' canUl a .. UADiIy. 'IIU power ami be ..... ciwcI oab' whtm (1) 1M tax ~ to .. \II\iuad)' ell' ~ ulClaCd. ar (2) the act&ninbll'adoft

,aIlCI coD&tfOft CGIII iavcM:cl do lUll juttify thA calIcctiOft oC thg fa dac. In Chi. inabn=, flI. cancaUatiOIl ffftax Bahifiry .. ckmc CM:P bofCtI'CI dte detcnft&t.lla:n orrho amotIDlduc. ID :my ownt- criminal 'Wio1A1ioa of tho Ta. Coda. fal' \\IIdda !cpl _Oft. h ..... been filed in cou:rI or In whioh tb,.d is imlvJwd. GamlOC bo comprcnWod.'"

2. Cd 1ho waiv~ andlM immuaity soupt to he sranted ~ the Man:oses under SeGtion 5.2 of tbe Ag, • .mttn, of Compro",l.e

Q"tI Ssttlem.nt. I don-t see any conflict with tho nali"a in ChGWIZ y.r..

PCGG. SUprD.

Unlike in tho previous compromise apemcnt bmw.n the

Republic and tho Mnrco ... whi~ ~I the wbject of CAtNU "..1..

PCqG. mp'tJ. where dte pvemment SO light to waive all claims and

OOUDtel'cl4ims. '"whether put. pretcnt, or 1bturo. matorcd or

inchoate", die Republics. ulld« .. ~ A.B'~'" of C()mp1"tJ""le lUtd Sertl4tmenr. is DOt. making auy such, waiver.

1mt0ltd. if. is tho individuaJ plniatifJ) in rho U.S. class suit whn aN

.~ne OIl tho roJease ClCth~ ~.ft:O~ (up to Ute f01.lf'tb ~ Y


.'

0' •• . ~ . .:' .: . '.:" :''':.

~.PlPV'~ 0P'If'OI' ntlflll6/i~ I'.f. MII~nz. et 41. CI""CJ.uNo. nUl _4018S P"Rfl6uj1

PHCINE NO. : G32 9192629 J'cd. Z1 1m ea:a9PM P42 .

consanguinity or affinity) with tespect. to allY and all c:laims which

they may have asainst the Marcoses. and only with respect 10 those

arising betWCCll J 972 and 1986. Thus, tho ruJing in lite Chmw Gase

which nullified the stipulation on waiver of andlor jl)lInunify 1tmn

present and future cJailns in favor of the Mareoses finds no

application in ihe instant gao.:

3. As for 1he dissalutioa of dIe potdImlent iqjuacti021

iaued by the United States District Court of Hawaii over cenain

Swig Bank acc:ounls rSedioft S.3 offJJeA"se",ent ofComp1T11llisB

ad Senk"'.'1. the SlUIle. CO' my ftlind. would havo Jitile or 110

consequence.. As observed by the Honorable Proaiding Justic:e

" Francis E. Oarebitorenll of this COl1i1. citing the ApalrJiJJtI case. the

:Swiss Federal Suprano Court declined to honor the validity or the

Hawaii Court', injunction insofar '21 the Marcos fUQds were

~cemcd. [seepage 12 ofdleReloiutiDII datcdJuly 7. 1999]

'. It is true that this Court is not bcioa caBed upon to detennine the validity or or ~pprovc the Agreement ofComprD1!IfstJ and SBttlemtmt already duly approyccl

by Ute United Slates District Court of Hawaii. Tn f~ lIte instant procecdiop is not

d. proper fonlm to determino and resolvo 1he validity or invalidity of the

Ag,.eement ofCo1lJpromis. and Settlement, considering 1hat this Court would then

,be ~vely asked to nnder an advisory opinion (ef. Separate Opinion of

. Ho~omblo JI1SIice Jasa C. Vitug ill Chll.Wl!Z Y.f. PCGG • .r"pra). Instead, the wlidiCy

~or ~idity) of tbe torms theroor may be scrntinized -.m! passad lIpOD by a

Philippine CC1Ut only when specificaUy raised as an issue in ... actual controversy

when tho lame is songht to be enfotcal in the PhiJippjnas.

, However, r find i~ as does the Hcmorabfc Presiding Justice Francis E.

Garcltitpreua of this Court. essential to discuss dIe foregoing specific p-ovisiQns of

thcAg,.Bllmml ofCDmp7omi.flZ and Selfle'tlfmt. which arc so intertwined with the

~ lit hand •• md ~ich will necessarily come mta play upon approval by ~

"


,'.

.. . . ~ .' S~,~ Oplllltm R.puW,c V.I. UtlfCD6, ., III. CiWI CNeI No. 0141 /mel 018.1 Pd,,'qf1 .············-.······z

PHONe Nl. : 632 Bl92629

Catut "Ctho U"dsrtDktng.

Xu.l. 27 1999 eeaEIPM P43

kcordiagly, albeit the Motion to Approve the Undertaking OtIten,sihJy'

appears to he ptOpcT add' well tllken under tile circumstaftcea, I resolvo 10 deny the

, ., . ~ bY, reason oflhe tOregoina.

. ..• ,

WlIEREJI'ORP'1 PREMlSJI'JI CONSIDERED. I volclo cfenytl18 ~ ':.'

Quezon City. Philippines. July 24. 1999.

U ~O~G G~

• • # •

' .. , ..


scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu 70.pdf/. .~. -., , .' ko~ s~if1 g~~f p( phone:.{). : 632 8192628...

Documents