CA affirms ruling junking USD2-B compensation claim of rights victims

MANILA — The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed its earlier ruling junking the plea of human rights victims during the term of former president Ferdinand Marcos for the enforcement of a United States court ruling awarding them some USD2 billion in compensation.

In a three-page decision dated Jan. 3, 2017, penned by Associate Justice Normandie Pizarro and concurred by Associate Justices Samuel Gaerlan and Jhosep Lopez, the CA’s 12th Division affirmed its July 17, 2017 motion and found “no new or substantial matter” that would warrant the reversal of its former ruling.

It ruled that the Hawaii Court gave no chance to the unnamed claimants the full litigation needed by law and no chance was given to the Marcos estate to confront each and every claimant.

In its resolution, the CA upheld the ruling of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) and said that the final decision of the Hawaii court was void over “lack of jurisdiction”.

“In merely using a scheme of statistical sampling to determine a compensation schedule and to compute an aggregate judgment for compensatory damages, the Hawaii Court gave no opportunity to the unnamed claimants the full rehabilitative potential litigation and overlooks the individual harms purportedly suffered, as well as giving no opportunity for the Marcos Estate to confront each and every claimant. Consequently, the Final Judgment rendered therein is not binding as to the right to due process of both parties was violated,” it read.

“Further, the final judgment was constitutionally infirmed because, although the complaint in MDL 840 was filed under the Alien Torts Statute (ATS), also called the Alien Torts Claims Act (ATCA), the same was disposed of on the basis of a different law (presumably the Torture Victim Protection Act).

This invalidates the disposition considering that a decision that does not conform to the form and substance required by the Constitution and the law is void and deemed legally nonexistent,” it added.

In its July decision, the appellate court held that the final judgment rendered by the Hawaii Court on Feb. 3, 1995 awarding a total of USD1.964 billion in damages to human rights victims during the Marcos administration is not binding because the said court had no jurisdiction as the right to due process of all the unnamed claimants, as well as the respondent Marcos estate, had been violated.

“To our minds, the failure of the final judgment to meet the standards of what a valid judgment is in our country compels us to deny its enforcement,” the CA said.

It added that the Hawaii District Court certified MDL 840 as a class suit, which meant that the parties who filed the case both for themselves and those they seek to represent share a common legal interest, “that is, the subject of the suit over which there exists a cause of action is common to all persons who belong to the group”.

Meanwhile, the CA said the Hawaii Court failed to ensure that the 10 Filipino citizens who initiated MDL 840 – Celsa Hilao, Josefina Hilao Forcadilla, Arturo Revilla Jr., Rodolfo Benosa, Danila Fuente, Renato Pineda, Adora Faye de Vera, Domiciano Amparo, Christopher Sorio, and Jose Duran — were truly and legally authorized by the other purported claimants.

“In the absence, therefore, of such authority, the final judgment rendered by said court is not binding because the right to due process of all the unnamed claimants, as well as the herein respondent estate, had been violated,” the CA said.

The appellate court added that the final judgment failed to meet the standards for a valid judgment considering that despite the complaint in MDL 840 being filed under the Anti Torture Claim Act (ATCA), the said decision was, however rendered on the basis of a different law, “presumably the Torture Victim Protection Act”.

ATCA is a law that grants jurisdiction to federal district courts over all causes where an alien sues for any harm resulting from a violation of international law, no matter where the harm occurred, or who inflicted the harm, so long as the plaintiff serves process in US territory.

The CA said that the final judgment in MDL 840 utilized procedures, such as the classification of the purported claimants into subclasses, which are not provided for under the ATCA.