March 03, 1999
| | |
| ||
| March 03, 1999 | atimes.com | |
| ||
| Southeast Asia ANALYSIS: Despite legal win, no accountability from Marcoses By Johanna Son MANILA - A court settlement between Filipino humanrights victims of the Ferdinand Marcos regime and the Marcos heirsis a rare legal victory, but whether it answers the need forjustice is quite another matter. Therein lies the irony in last week's announcement that acompromise settlement of $150 million had been reachedin a class suit lodged before a Hawaii court by nearly 10,000Filipinos. By any measure, the compromise was a major achievement thatshould encourage other countries in their efforts to recover fundssalted away by corrupt leaders and pursue legal action againstrights abuses. The Hawaii suit makes legal history: It is the first time classaction has been used on behalf of alleged victims of human rights. It also represents the biggest success Filipinos have had - in all the 13 yearssince Marcos fell from power in a civilian-backed military revolt - in getting any semblance of justice andcompensation from his heirs. But the taste of victory has been soured by the insistence ofthe Marcoses' heirs that the former president, who died in Hawaiiin 1989, was never guilty of any human rights abuses. A provision in the compromise accord, which must be ratifiedand submitted to the court by March 30 to take effect, says theMarcos estate is ''released fully'' from any charges of humanrights abuses. ''This just isn't true. Let us not twist history for 30 piecesof silver,'' said human rights lawyer Rene Saguisag, also a formersenator and former anti-Marcos critic. ''No wonder the Marcoses have become bolder and more arrogant.They could use this agreement and brag that no criminal and civilcases have been filed against them,'' he argued. Critics, including a number of the human rights victimsthemselves involved in the Hawaii suit, want the offendingparagraph releasing the Marcoses from any liability to be stricken outof the document on the compromise. More than legalese, the notion that the Marcoses are agreeingto settle but not admitting guilt or showing any repentancegrates on many Filipinos. Recently, Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., the late dictator's only son and now the governor of the family's home province of Ilocos Norte,derided human rights victims as golddiggers. Far from being victims of human rights, he said the plaintiffswere ''victims of their own greed.'' Added Marcos: ''They don'twant justice; they want money." Indeed, the Marcoses' American lawyer, James Paul Linn, hasbeen quoted as saying: ''The Marcos family agreed to do thissettlement with no admission of guilt but in the spirit of peace,reconciliation and unity of the Filipino people." The compromise was reached in connection with a 1995 verdict bya jury in a Hawaii district court, which awarded $1.9 billion in damages to the plaintiffs, consisting of those torturedor summarily killed by Marcos government agents, and their heirs. The $150 million will come from the $590 millionseized from the Marcoses' Swiss bank deposits. This amount hadbeen turned over to the Philippine government and put in escrow,to be divided among the victims in the event of a final judgmentor settlement. But the road to implementation of the deal is not easy, orshort. The compromise has to be approved by, among othters,President Joseph Estrada, the Sandiganbayan graft court and theU.S. district court. Before that, the human rights plaintiffs have to formallysignify approval or rejection of the compromise. It does not helpthat there are several clashing groups of claimants, some of whomreject the compromise. Rod Domingo, lead Filipino counsel for the plaintiffs, says thelegal team will seek the deletion of the clause that exoneratesthe Marcoses. He says the Marcoses' insertion of the clause releasing themfrom all liability was immaterial: ''What is true and undeniableis that the Marcos estate has been found by a final judgment tohave violated the human rights of 10,000 Filipinos." Loretta Anne Rosales, head of one group of claimants among the10,000 human rights plaintiffs, said: ''It is not a question ofbeing fair or of getting too little.'' Rather, it is a matter of categorically pinningmoral and legal responsibility on the Marcoses. This, however, might prove elusive, since the Marcos family hasnever admitted guilt. The Marcoses have also been emboldened by a string of legalvictories at home in which more than 20 graft casesagainst them being thrown out by the courts. Imelda Marcos, the late president's widow, was found guilty ofcorruption in one case in 1993. But the conviction, which wouldhave sentenced her to more than 20 years in prison, was reversedon appeal by the Philippines' Supreme Court last year. Ironically, the Marcos family has obtained these favourabledecisions under a democratic political system set up after Marcos'souster - even as family members used the freer political space in place since then torun and get elected to public office. Meantime, the Hawaii settlement - now in limbo due topolitical and legal objections - has become an impressive show oflegal ability but as yet an unproven means of holding adictatorial regime morally accountability for its abuses. Not a few voices here are saying it is time for closure on theMarcos chapter, with the Hawaii court settlement coming soon afterFilipinos marked earlier this month the 13th anniversary of the''People's Power'' revolution that ousted Marcos. But to many of the human rights plaintiffs - and the regime'sother nameless victims - the question is whether they must choosebetween a legal document and some money, on the one hand, and an apology from theMarcoses that is unlikely ever to come, on the other. (Inter Press Service) | |||||||||
 |
|
Front | China | Southeast Asia | Japan | Koreas | India/Pakistan | Central Asia/Russia | Oceania Business Briefs | Global Economy | Asian Crisis | Media/IT | Editorials | Letters | Search/Archive |
back to the top ©1999 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd. |
