In re ESTATE OF FERDINAND MARCOS, HUMAN

RIGHTS LITIGATION.
Maximo HILAO, et al., Class Plaintiffs; Vicente
Clemente, et al., Class Plaintiffs; Jaime Piopongco, et
al., Class Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
ESTATE OF Ferdinand MARCOS, DefendantAppellant.
[G.R. No. 25 F 3d 1467; Decided on June 16, 1994 ]
TOPIC: Foreign Judgments
PONENTE: Judge TANG

AUTHOR: Drei
NOTES: (if applicable)

FACTS: (chronological order)

1. This case is an appeal of the Defendant Estate (the Estate) from the District Courts (DC) order preliminary
enjoining the Estate from transferring, secreting or dissipating the Estates assets pendente lite. The Estate is also
challenging the district courts jurisdiction on the subject matter under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and
Alien Tort Act claiming further that the plaintiffs do not have a cause of action and that assuming there is a cause
of action against the Estate, has already abated upon Marcos death.
2. This case is a consolidated case of class actions (Hilao v. Marcos and Trajano v. Marcos) against Marcos. Said
cases were initially dismissed by the DCs which the Court (US Court of Appeals) reversed and remanded back to
the DCs.
3. Imee Marcos-Manotoc (MM) defaulted in Trajano v. Marcos. MM moved to set aside the order of default and
moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Alien Tort At and immunity under the
Foreign Service Immunities Act which went into appeal and were denied. The DC entered judgment against MM.
The Court affirmed the judgment.
4. In an earlier case (Republic v. Marcos), the preliminary injunction was denied due to a settlement. The Plaintiffs
(Ps) immediately moved for preliminary injunction to prevent the Estate from transferring or secreting any assets
in order to preserve the possibility of collecting a judgment. The same was granted by the DC.
5. Pending interlocutory appeal, the trial proceeded on judging the liability where the jury found in favor of the class
and the individually-named Ps (except for Wilson Madayag). The Estates motion for JUDGMENT
NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICT (JNOV) was denied, and judgment was entered in favor of the prevailing
plainitiffs. Modifications to the preliminary injunction were entered wherein: (1) the jury verdict, insofar as the
liability is concerned, is set forth, (2) the legal representatives of the Estates were to fully and completely answer
for the Ps interrogatories regarding the assets of the estate, and (3) the plaintiffs are to be permitted to take
discovery regarding these assets.
6. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $1.2 billion in exemplary damages; compensatory damages are to yet to be
determined by the jury.
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether or not this case falls within the exceptions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).
2. Whether or not the subject matter and cause of action of the Plaintiffs fall within the scope of the Alien Tort Act.
3. Whether or not the tort claimed by the Ps for personal injuries or wrongful death abate upon the death of either the
Ps or Ds.
4. Whether or not the DC has authority to enjoin the Estate from transferring, secreting, or dissipating the Estates
assets pendent lite.
HELD:
1. NO. Marcos acts of torture, execution and disappearance were clearly acts outside of his authority as President.
Like MMs, Marcos acts were not taken within any official mandate and were therefore not the acts of an agency
or instrumentality. The FSIA does not immunize a foreign official engaged in acts beyond the scope of his
authority. The act of state doctrine was ruled to be not applicable to both MM and Marcos. In fact, it was held in
Republic v. Marcos, the alleged illegal acts of Marcos were not official acts pursuant to his authority as President
of the Philippines. The Republics Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO) against Marcos
did not involve a justiciable political question as argued by the D because Marcos does not appear to have had the
authority of an absolute autocrat he was not the State but merely the head of the state, bound by the laws applied
to him. Jurisprudence of the matter has ruled that the illegal acts of a dictator are not official acts unreviewable
by the Federal Courts.
2. YES. This action for torts committed by the military intelligence officials through torture prohibited by the law of

nations, is within the jurisdictional grant of Sec. 1350 and the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate Article III.
3.
RATIO:
1. FSIA does not immunize a foreign official engaged in acts beyond the scope of his authority. The act of state
doctrine was ruled to be not applicable in the actions of both MM and Marcos. In Republic v. Marcos, it was held
that Marcos alleged illegal acts were not official acts pursuant to his authority as President of the Philippines. The
Republics RICO suit against Marcos did not involve a justiciable political question because Marcos does not
appear to have had the authority of an absolute autocrat. He was not the State, but the head of the state, bound by
the laws that applied to him. The illegal acts of a dictator are not official acts unreviewable by the federal courts.
2.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):