Rights victims who
won a favorable judgement in Hawaii clarifies position on the
so-called recoveries from the sale of a Monet painting
By SELDA
August 19, 2013
QUEZON CITY – The Samahan ng
Ex-detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto (SELDA), the organization of
former political prisoners which initiated the filing of the historic
class action suit for human rights violations against former Pres.
Ferdinand Marcos and family, today welcomed the efforts of recovery of
the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses to collect on the judgment of
the Hawaii court.
To clarify, SELDA
Chairperson Marie Hilao Enriquez, whose parents – Maximo and Celsa
Hilao – are the lead plaintiffs in the historic suit, recalled that
the Hawaii Court ruled in 1992 in favor of the victims; the ruling
became final and executory in 1995; providing for a $2B exemplary and
$776M compensatory damages for the Hawaii claimants. This meant that
any recovery of Marcoses’ property by the Hawaii claimants’ lawyer, in
this case, Atty. Robert Swift, can be undertaken to collect on the
judgment imposed by the Hawaiian Court. Therefore, as long as the full
judgment rendered by the Hawaii court has not been fully satisfied by
the Marcoses, Atty. Robert Swift can identify Marcos’ illegal
properties for the benefit of the Hawaiian claimants (meaning those
who are included in the 9,539 victims validated by the Court in
Hawaii.)
We welcome the news that the
victims included in the Hawaii case, would benefit from the sale of a
valuable painting that Imelda Marcos acquired during the martial law
years. We recognize Atty. Robert Swift’s efforts to go after the
Marcoses ill-gotten wealth to collect on the judgment of the Hawaii
court. However, we would like to reiterate and remind Atty. Swift and
other lawyers that before any settlement and distribution of monies
from such takes place, the victims must be consulted; their views on
such obtained as they have a right to know who this “secret buyer” is
(for all the victims know, the buyer may also end up a Marcos) and
what the provisions of the settlement are. Even if the Hawaii court
determines the fairness of the settlement by asking the victims, the
latter can only reply intelligently if they are well- informed of the
agreements.
We also hope that the
original 9,539 victims validated by the Court in 1994 will be included
in the beneficiaries of the said recovery. We do not like a repeat of
the 2011 so-called check distribution to the 7,526 victims “from the
settlement agreement reached by Atty. Robert Swift and the Marcos
crony Jose Yao-Campos for the 2 pieces of real estate properties in
the US of Imelda Marcos.”
The 2011 check distribution
disenfranchised 2,013 victims who seemed delisted arbitrarily by the
lawyers in the Hawaii suit. We demand that the original list of 9,539
and NOT ONLY the 7,526 victims will benefit from this boasted sale of
the Monet painting. As the judgment has not been fully satisfied yet
and the lawyer can go on recovering or making settlement agreements
with the Marcoses, we condemn the disenfranchisement of those delisted
from the original 9,539. Even if the original claimants have died,
they are still represented by their next of kin and families as well
as other relatives.
Further, Enriquez asks, “I
understood that the Hawaii class suit or the MDL-840 is a consolidated
case of three groups who sued Marcos in the Hawaii Court in 1986. The
three groups were the SELDA group of 9,539; the group of 21 Filipino
expatriates in the US led by Vic Clemente and Fluellen Ortigas and the
group of three of Prof. Jose Maria Sison, the parents of the former
representing his disappeared brother, Francisco Sison and Jose
Piopongco, whose radio station was ordered confiscated by then Pres.
Marcos. I understand that all three groups won the historic class
action suit and therefore, all three must be included in any
settlement agreement or recoveries to collect on judgment. That is why
it is not only 9,539 victims who must benefit from the recovery of
Marcos’ wealth but the three groups who won in the landmark case.”
Atty. Robert Swift and his
co-counsels must be able to explain this to the victims and to the
public as well. SELDA informs the public that any recovery of Atty.
Swift to collect on the judgment of the Hawaii court pertains and will
only benefit the claimants in the Hawaii case and not the entire list
of martial law victims in the Philippines as covered by the
recently-signed but unimplemented RA 10368 or Human Rights Victims
Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013.