| Home Kapatiran
Links
Contact Us
Archive
Issue Number 23, November 2003
|
Kapatiran Issue
No. 23, November 2003
WHEN
WILL MARCOS VICTIMS GET JUSTICE?
- Murray Horton
Celsa Rapi Hilao died in July 2003, aged 89. She and her
late husband Maximo, along with eight others, were the
lead plaintiffs in the historic class action suit filed
against Ferdinand Marcos, in 1986, on behalf of 9,539
human rights victims. The case was called Hilao et al
versus Ferdinand Marcos. This case has been reported in
virtually every issue of Kapatiran since 1995,
when a Honolulu jury awarded the claimants a total of
$US1.9 billion against the Marcos estate.
Some background is necessary. The Marcoses - world
champions in thievery, murder and torture - were
extricated from the besieged Malacanang Palace by the US,
when millions of Filipinos rose up in People Power and
peacefully overthrew the dictator, in 1986. They, and
their illgotten loot, fled to Hawaii. For that reason,
they could be sued under US civil law - hence the Hilao
et al suit was filed in Honolulu. The plaintiffs sued
according to a formula of $US3 million per murder victim
and $US1 million per torture victim. By the time the case
was heard, Marcos himself was dead (he lies, still
unburied, in his ancestral homeland in Ilocos Norte,
northern Luzon, because his megalomaniac widow, Imelda,
wants him buried with the other Presidents of the
Philippines).
Four Marcos Victims From One Family
Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 (it lasted
until shortly before his 1986 overthrow). The Hilao
family paid a high price. In April 1973, four of Celsa
and Maximo’s nine children were arrested for being
anti-Marcos activists. Two of them spent nearly four
years in prison, without charge or trial (a third, Marie
Hilao-Enriquez, who spent almost two years in prison, is
now the General Secretary of SELDA, a group of martial
law victims, and one of the leading human rights
activists in the Philippines). But the fourth paid with
her life. Liliosa, or Lily, Hilao was a journalism
student and editor of the student newspaper at the
University of the City of Manila. She was dead after less
than two days in custody. The authorities said that she
committed suicide by drinking cleaning fluid. In fact,
she was raped and beaten to death - among other
atrocities, cigarettes were stubbed out on her face. She
was 21. Her death became a cause celebre and has remained
one for the following 30 years. Maximo Hilao, a fisherman
from Bulan in Sorsogon (in the Bicol region, in the far
south of Luzon) died in 1988, aged 89. His widow, Celsa,
or Sisang, replaced him as the lead plaintiff in the
class action suit. Marie described her parents as
“the rare kind who respected our views and
decisions…She would even remind me to stay alert
during rallies and wear rubber shoes so that I could run
much faster” (Philippine Daily Inquirer [PDI],
24/7/03; “Mother of 4 Marcos victims dies at
89”).
The search for the billions looted by the Marcoses
(estimates range from $US5 billion, up to $US10 billion)
started as soon as they were overthrown, in 1986. The
government of Cory Aquino mounted a worldwide search and
fairly soon, more than $US350 million was found, in Swiss
banks. But then began a tug of war. The Swiss, obsessed
with their reputation as an “ask no questions”
haven for money from all around the world, were not
prepared to give it up without a fight. Years dragged by.
In the interim, the Honolulu court awarded the $US1.9
billion damages to the human rights victims in the Hilao
et al case and the judge, Manuel Real, ordered a
worldwide freeze on Marcos assets so that they could be
located and seized. In the mid 1990s a deal was reached
between the Swiss banks and the Philippines government -
the $US350+ million (which had multiplied greatly, due to
interest) was transferred to an escrow account in the
Philippines.
Aborted 1998 Deal
But the condition was that nobody could touch it until
Imelda Marcos (as head of the Marcos estate) had been
convicted of criminal offences by a Philippine court.
Easier said than done. Imelda had beaten earlier
corruption charges in a US trial and although convicted
and sentenced to prison by a Philippine court, won the
case on appeal. She remains unpunished by the Philippine
legal system and has never spent one minute in prison. On
the contrary, she is currently the elected Congresswoman
for her native island of Leyte, and two of her children
also hold elected office. Imelda admits to no wrongdoing
by her late husband, either with regard to corruption or
human rights abuses. She has mounted a vigorous (and
totally bizarre) campaign to prove that he was legally
entitled to all those billions. She reckons he earned
them all by dint of being a brilliant businessman. She
has never apologised or expressed remorse, and has never
paid one cent of the $US1.9 billion awarded to the human
rights victims.
There were now several parties involved in the saga of
the Swiss money (which is only a fraction of the billions
looted by Marcos. The rest remains unaccounted for). The
Swiss banks, the Marcoses themselves who claimed that the
money was legitimately theirs, the Philippine government,
the human rights claimants (who split into two rival
factions) and the lawyers, both in the US and the
Philippines. Twists and turns became the norm. For
example, in 1998, Claimants 1081, the smaller of the two
rival groups (named after Marcos’ Proclamation 1081,
which established martial law), agreed to a deal with the
Marcoses to cut the damages payable from $US1.9 billion
to $US150 million. This deal would have also freed the
Marcoses from any further liabilities, civil or criminal.
It was approved by President Joseph Estrada (a Marcos
supporter, who was overthrown by People Power 2 in 2001,
and who is in custody himself, on trial for his life on
corruption charges of Marcosian proportions). But the
deal was struck down as unconstitutional by the
Sandiganbayan anti-graft court and the Macapagal-Arroyo
Administration has refused to honour it.
2003: Government Offers Victims $US200 Million
The Philippine legal system is glacially slow. Court
action to establish the ownership of Marcos loot had been
started in 1986. In July 2003, a mere 17 years later, the
Supreme Court ruled that the Swiss money belongs to the
Government. It had now grown to $US683 million.
This ruling came just six days before Celsa Hilao’s
death and the old lady was virtually comatose. Her
daughter Marie Hilao-Enriquez said: “But she still
shed tears of joy when I whispered it to her. She heard
me, I can tell” (PDI, ibid.).
The Marcoses said that they will appeal. As for the
Government, for nearly two decades, it had earmarked any
recovered Marcos loot for land reform. That sounds good
in theory, but in practice, the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program is deeply flawed and has achieved little.
What it has succeeded in doing is transferring even more
land and wealth into the hands of huge landowners such as
Danding Cojuangco, a Marcos crony and one of the richest
men in the Philippines (he is best known in New Zealand
for paying record prices for race horses at the annual
yearling auctions). Kapatiran has devoted as
much critical attention to CARP as to the Marcoses over
the years.
However, in light of the Supreme Court decision,
President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo said that she ask
Congress to pass an enabling law, setting aside $US200
million of the Swiss money for the human rights
claimants. In Philippine currency, that translates to
eight billion pesos out of 38 billion. This proposal
immediately enraged Marie Hilao-Enriquez. SELDA is the
main group of claimants demanding immediate approval of
Senate and House bills allotting ten billion pesos to
compensate the victims. So there was an immediate row
about the Government’s offer being two billion pesos
short.
Then, Claimants 1081 proposed that the money be used to
compensate all human rights victims in the Philippines,
not just those from the Marcos dictatorship. This would
definitely open a Pandora’s box. This proposal is
headed by Etta Rosales, a Congressional party-list
Representative. Rosales is leader of Claimants 1081 and
stands to personally benefit from any Marcos payout.
There has been public and political pressure on her to
waive her claim, as has already been done by the two
other party-list Representatives who are claimants (Satur
Ocampo and Crispin Beltran). Fellow party-list
Representative, JV Bautista, said: “I do not
believe, as a human rights victim myself, that she should
receive something for the work that she has done as a
member of Congress. She should not benefit from a law
that she has co-authored. She should renounce her
claim” (PDI, 26/9/03; editorial,
“Quick renunciation”). The editorial agreed,
saying that Rosales should quickly renounce her personal
claim, “if only out of ‘delicadeza’ (sense
of propriety)”.
US Judges Imposes Worldwide Freeze
Judge Manuel Real, the Hawaii district judge who presided
over that trial, issued a September 2003 ruling putting a
worldwide freeze on the $US683 million Swiss money, and
threatening to cite for obstruction of justice any
financial institution or person that does so. At same
time Judge Real reinstated the 1998 $US150 million
settlement agreed between Claimants 1081 and the
Marcoses, saying that he wanted to make sure that the
victims get their money. Of course, he has no
jurisdiction in the Philippines - this is a power
struggle between a US court and the Philippine government
as to who controls the Swiss money. The PDI
described this as a decision that “infringes on
Philippine sovereignty” (ibid.).
Things became further complicated when, as a result of
Real’s action, a Singapore branch of a German bank
refused to return $US22 million of the Swiss money that
the Philippine government had invested with it, until a
Singapore court has ruled how it should be disposed of.
Not surprisingly, this did not impress the Philippine
government who determined to use all means to recover
that amount.
The American and Filipino lawyers from the Honolulu class
action suit are also eager to secure a multimillion
dollar cut. Robert Swift, Claimants 1081’s US
lawyer, was instrumental in negotiating that aborted 1998
settlement. “Some Filipino officials have accused
Swift of colluding with the Marcoses to block the release
of the $US683 million to the Government. Maybe. But what
is becoming increasingly clear is that Swift is
interested only in protecting his own stake in the case.
Rosales and Claimants 1081 should now consider dismissing
him as their counsel. With no victim to represent, whom
will Swift ask Real to protect with an injunction. Then
perhaps both the Government and the victims can finally
lay their hands on every dollar due them” (PDI,
ibid.).
So, it’s business as usual. This case has dragged on
since 1986, and the lead plaintiff is now dead. None of
the surviving claimants are expecting to see their money
any time soon.
Lessons Of Martial Law Not Learnt
Because of the mindboggling sums involved, the
never-ending saga of the Marcos loot has had all the
attention for nearly two decades. But there are much more
sinister legacies from that era and until they are put to
rest, the Philippines will not be able to move forward.
“But more than economic plunder, the Marcos
dictatorship seared the soul and weakened the moral fibre
of the nation. Corruption became a normal way of life.
People became inured to torture, human rights violations
and the suppression of their rights and freedom” (PDI
editorial, 23/9/03, “Collective amnesia”). This
editorial reported disquiet at a recent opinion poll,
which found that fully 40% of Filipinos support the
imposition of martial law to solve the country’s
numerous problems. Hence the title. It concluded that
there has never been any consistent
“de-Marcosification” and cites a 1999
conference paper which listed some of the
“legacies” of the Marcos martial law as
suppression of human rights; widespread poverty; the
degradation of the nation’s institutions; and a
culture of dishonesty, cheating and lies.
Other countries, ranging from South Africa to Chile, have
held truth and reconciliation inquiries into the decades
of dictatorship that afflicted their peoples; still
others, such as Argentina and South Korea, have
imprisoned the dictators and their cronies. At the
extreme, dictators such as Romania’s Nicolae
Ceausescu, have been summarily shot. But not in the
Philippines. It has not dealt with its monstrously
distorted recent history and its people are forgetting
the lessons from those dark times, because the
country’s leadership has a vested interest in not
pursuing the subject. The cliché is true - those that do
not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat
them (even New Zealand has learned this and is
attempting, however imperfectly, to deal with its 19th
Century history by means of the Treaty of Waitangi claims
process). The question of who gets what from the millions
or even billions of the Marcos loot is a secondary one -
what the Filipino people need, in order to be able to
move on from the Marcos nightmare, is justice.
(There is a family connection to all this. Celsa Hilao
was the maternal grandmother of my wife, Becky. The
murdered Lily was her aunt, and two of her other aunts,
and her only uncle, were the ones imprisoned. I only ever
met Celsa once, on my last visit to the Philippines, in
1998. She was then well into her 80s and not in good
health. Unfortunately Becky was not able to go to the
Philippines to attend her grandmother’s funeral.
And, in case anyone is wondering, no, we don’t stand
to make any money out of the Marcos loot, if, and when,
there is any payout).
Murray Horton is Secretary of PSNA and Editor of
Kapatiran. He has visited the Philippines several times,
most recently spending a month there in 1998.
Go to top
|
