Marcoses laud ruling on human rights case

MANILA, Philippines - The family of the late former president Ferdinand Marcos said yesterday they were vindicated by a ruling handed down by a Makati regional trial court judge junking a petition to enforce a 1995 judgment by a Hawaii court awarding $2 billion in compensatory and exemplary damages to human rights victims.

In a statement, Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., son and namesake of the former president, said the RTC judge recognized the arguments his family had presented many years before.

Marcos was responding to the 11-page decision by Judge Bonifacio Pascua last June 25, saying the final judgment in the case filed against the estate of the late president is not yet conclusive and that he is treating the Hawaii District Court’s ruling as “presumptive evidence of a right of the petitioners against the Marcos estate.”

Pascua ruled that the plaintiffs have not presented any new evidence and that they anchored their cause of action in Hawaii based on the Torture of Victims Protection Act (TVPA) signed by former US President George H. W. Bush on March 12, 1992.

Under the TVPA, “a court shall decline to hear a claim…if the claimant has not exhausted adequate and available remedies” on the case.

Pascua said instead of presenting rebuttal evidence to counter defendant’s theory of non-exhaustion of remedies, plaintiffs pleaded for a decision.

“It is very apparent that they are in deep haste to conclude the case, as records show that their counsels at the onset of this presiding judge’s handling the case, always hammered on their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their case.”

He added that the 1995 Final Order issued by the Hawaii District Court displays the glaring absence of the list of plaintiffs under each of the selected class claims, such as torture subclass, summary execution subclass, and disappearance subclass.

“Despite the lapse of 18 years after the promulgation, plaintiffs have not come up with a credible and validated list of claimants. At best, the filing of this case is therefore premature, owing to the absence of a legitimate list of claimants to whom pecuniary award may have been adjudged,” Pascua said.

He added that while the plaintiffs aim to enforce the judgment as far as the defendant’s assets in the Philippines are concerned, the Hawaii court ruling requires the delivery of the money to the District of Hawaii for custody and final distribution.

“This court cannot be compelled, let alone commanded, by a foreign court of equal jurisdictions to take directions apart from the processes available locally,” he said.