Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Our martial law experience bore strange unwanted fruits, and we have
yet to finish weeding out its bitter crop. While the restoration of freedom
and the fundamental structures and processes of democracy have been
much lauded, according to a significant number, the changes, however,
have not sufficiently healed the colossal damage wrought under the
oppressive conditions of the martial law period. The cries of justice for the
tortured, the murdered, and the desaparecidos arouse outrage and
sympathy in the hearts of the fair-minded, yet the dispensation of the
appropriate relief due them cannot be extended through the same caprice
or whim that characterized the ill-wind of martial rule. The damage done
was not merely personal but institutional, and the proper rebuke to the
iniquitous past has to involve the award of reparations due within the
confines of the restored rule of law.
The petitioners in this case are prominent victims of human rights
violations who, deprived of the opportunity to directly confront the man
who once held absolute rule over this country, have chosen to do battle
instead with the earthly representative, his estate. The clash has been for
now interrupted by a trial court ruling, seemingly comported to legal logic,
[1]
that required the petitioners to pay a whopping filing fee of over Four
Hundred Seventy-Two Million Pesos (P472,000,000.00) in order that they
be able to enforce a judgment awarded them by a foreign court. There is an
understandable temptation to cast the struggle within the simplistic confines
of a morality tale, and to employ short-cuts to arrive at what might seem the
desirable solution. But easy, reflexive resort to the equity principle all too
often leads to a result that may be morally correct, but legally wrong.
Nonetheless, the application of the legal principles involved in this case
will comfort those who maintain that our substantive and procedural laws,
for all their perceived ambiguity and susceptibility to myriad interpretations,
are inherently fair and just. The relief sought by the petitioners is expressly
mandated by our laws and conforms to established legal principles. The
granting of this petition for certiorari is warranted in order to correct the
legally infirm and unabashedly unjust ruling of the respondent judge.
The essential facts bear little elaboration. On 9 May 1991, a complaint
was filed with the United States District Court (US District Court), District of
Hawaii, against the Estate of former Philippine President Ferdinand E.
Marcos (Marcos Estate). The action was brought forth by ten Filipino
citizens who each alleged having suffered human rights abuses such as
arbitrary detention, torture and rape in the hands of police or military forces
during the Marcos regime. The Alien Tort Act was invoked as basis for the
US District Courts jurisdiction over the complaint, as it involved a suit by
aliens for tortious violations of international law. These plaintiffs brought
the action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, particularly consisting of all current civilian citizens of the
Philippines, their heirs and beneficiaries, who between 1972 and 1987
were tortured, summarily executed or had disappeared while in the custody
of military or paramilitary groups. Plaintiffs alleged that the class consisted
of approximately ten thousand (10,000) members; hence, joinder of all
these persons was impracticable.
[2]
[3]
[4]
The institution of a class action suit was warranted under Rule 23(a)
and (b)(1)(B) of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the provisions of
which were invoked by the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the US District Court
certified the case as a class action and created three (3) sub-classes of
torture, summary execution and disappearance victims. Trial ensued, and
subsequently a jury rendered a verdict and an award of compensatory and
[5]
[8]
the RTC estimated the proper amount of filing fees was approximately Four
Hundred Seventy Two Million Pesos, which obviously had not been paid.
Not surprisingly, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which
Judge Ranada denied in an Order dated 28 July 1999. From this denial,
petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 assailing the twin
orders of respondent judge. They prayed for the annulment of the
questioned orders, and an order directing the reinstatement of Civil Case
No. 97-1052 and the conduct of appropriate proceedings thereon.
[11]
[13]
The Courts disposition on the issue of filing fees will prove a useful
jurisprudential guidepost for courts confronted with actions enforcing
[15]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[22]
[24]
[23]