MARCOSES: Unbeatable in shameless use of hidden wealth

Nobody beats the Marcoses in shameless use of Hidden Wealth. They’ve been at it since 1965 which was why Marcos had to declare Martial Law in 1972, otherwise Ninoy Aquino would have hammered him in a Presidential Election in 1973. They extended their greed up to 1986 where in that period Government Loans became synonymous with Imelda’s shopping sprees in New York, Paris, Monte Carlo and London where their children were ensconsed in rented villas complete with salaried drivers, cooks and bodyguards and forcibly enrolled at Cambridge and Oxford. Fifty six (56 yrs) years na, they are still at it, only more desperate now.

Kung gusto mo na patuloy na mag ienjoy sila ng Tagong Yaman at habang buhay kang naglalaway na gumanda ang buhay mo dahil wala namang Tallano Gold na ibabahagi saiyo at sa mga anak mo, bumoto kay kay Marcos Jr at Daughterte.Kaya kung may natitira ka pang kaunti na katinuan at sumagi man lang sa isipan mo na ang boto sa Mayo 9 ay hindi na para saiyo, kundi ito ay para sa kinabukasan ng anak mo at ng mga apo mo.


May be an image of 1 person, standing and suit


The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the decision of the Makati City Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) which denied the petition filed by several victims of human rights violations during the President Ferdinand Marcos regime seeking the enforcement of the final judgment of the US court awarding them USD2 billion in damages.
In a 19-page decision penned by Associate Justice Associate Justice Normandie Pizarro, concurred by Associate Justices Samuel Gaerlan and Jhosep Lopez, the CA’s Twelfth Division affirmed the Makati RTC dismissing the complaint for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment filed by Priscilla Mijares, Loretta Ann Rosales, Hilda Narciso Sr., Mariani Dimaranan and Joel Lamangan in their behalf and on behalf of the class plaintiffs in US case, Class Action No. MDL 840 consisting of approximately 10,000 human rights victims during the dictator’s regime.
The appellate court held that the final judgment rendered by the Hawaii Court on February 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 declared.
“Rules of comity should not be made to prevail over our Constitution and we cannot allow foreign impositions to trample upon our sovereignty,” it added.
It explained that the Hawaii District Court certified MDL 840 as a class suit, which should mean that the parties who file 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.”
But the CA noted that in the final judgment issued by the Hawaii court and being sought to be enforced here, the purported claimants were classified into three subclasses according to the basis of their claims namely, torture, summary execution and disappearance victims.
Such classification of the claimants, according to the CA, is an obvious recognition that “no common question of law and fact exists between/among the claimants.”
“In other words, each claimant in MDL 840 had a right, if any, only to the damage that such individual may have suffered, and not one of them had any right to or can claim any interest in the damage or injury which another suffered,” the CA said.
“Hence, MDL 840 was not and should not have been brought as a class suit.
Furthermore, the CA held that 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.
It noted that Hilao, et al did not identify the other claimants they purportedly represent and also failed to present any power of attorney from any of them.
“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 explained.
The appellate court added that the final judgement failed to meet the standards for a valid judgment considering that despite the complaint in MDL 840 was 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, as long as the plaintiff serves process in the US territory.
The CA stressed 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. (Christopher Lloyd T. Caliwan/PNA)

SC extends ‘status quo order’ on Marcos burial to Oct. 18


 The Supreme Court on Wednesday extends Status Quo Ante Order (SQA) in connection with the burial of late President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) in Taguig City as ordered by President Rodrigo Duterte.

Marcos was reportedly set to be buried at the LNMB on Sept. 18.

The high tribunal initially issued the SQA, which stopped the government from proceeding with the planned burial of Marcos at the Libingan, last Aug. 23, effective for 20 days or until Monday next week, Sept. 12.

The order, which was directed at Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and AFP chief-of-staff Gen. Ricardo Visaya, will lapse days before the scheduled burial on Sept. 18.

After the two oral arguments sessions on the consolidated petitions filed by groups of martial law victims against the planned burial at the heroes’ cemetery, SC spokesman Theodore Te said that the SQA, which is set to expire on Monday, has been extended until Oct.18 to allow the justices to resolve the case on merits.

”After the oral arguments were concluded, the Court En Banc met and agreed to extend the Status Quo Ante Order issued on 23 August 2016 (served on 24 August, expiring on 13 September 2016) up to 18 October 2016,” Te said.

The justices made the decision after the government defended before the high court the decision of President Duterte to allow Marcos’ burial at the Libingan.

The SC concluded the oral arguments at 5 p.m. and ordered parties to file their respective memorandum in 20 days before they resolve the case.

During the continuation of oral arguments, Solicitor general Jose Calida, who head of the government’s counsel assured that the interment would have no effect on claims of human rights victims during martial law as well as pending cases against the Marcoses before the Sandiganbayan as already confirmed in previous session by the human rights victims claims board and office of the Ombudsman.

Calida made assurance during the interpellation with Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno that the burial of Marcos will not affect the claims of the human rights victims.

Calida reiterated the government’s position that Marcos is qualified to be buried at the Libingan considering that he is not only a former president but also a former soldier and war veteran.

“From the vantage point of the government, of President Duterte, it is the fact that Marcos was a former president and also a soldier and military veteran,” Calida said in response to Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen’s interpellation, prompting the latter to say that “when we bury somebody, it has to be the whole person viewed from what he is in history, what to his relatives, family and friends.’

But Calida said that while the Duterte administration acknowledged the numerous human rights violations committed during the martial law, it had nothing to do with his decision to allow Marcos to be buried at the Libingan and that the reparation of the martial law victims was already ongoing.

For his part, Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza was apparently not convinced by the arguments raised by Duterte for allowing Marcos to be buried at the Libingan.

“You have to convince me as to why a President who was a dictator, plunderer and human rights violator deserves to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani,” Jardeleza told Calida during his interpellation.

Calida said the matter rest “solely and exclusively” on presidential prerogative under residual powers and that Marcos is not disqualified to be buried under AFP regulations.

He also said that cases against the Marcoses would not be affected even if the SC allowed Marcos burial.

SC Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa asked Calida on the effectivity of Presidential Decree 105 signed by Marcos in 1973 which declares national shrines as “hollowed and sacred places” due to their significance and importance in the lives of the country’s heroes and eminent leaders and as such must never be desecrated.

Caguioa said that since the Libingan was a national shrine, it was the policy of the State to hold it as a hollowed and sacred ground but Calida pointed that the Libingan did not fall under the definition of national shrine under the said decree.

“It is our position that the Libingan is not covered by PD 105. This proclamation states that national shrines are the sites of the birth, exile, imprisonment, detention or death of great and eminent leaders of the nation and the Libingan clearly does not fall under this,” the Solicitor General answered.

Calida argued that Marcos, being a former president and duly recognized soldier and war veteran, should be entitled to interment at the Libingan.

He said the Libingan is not exclusive for heroes as the national pantheon under Republic Act No. 289 was never really built.

Calida explained that the decision of President Duterte is not really to honor Marcos as a hero but rather “to accord him a simple mortuary rites befitting a former president, commander-in-chief and soldier.”

He stressed that it was a campaign promise of the President, who won in the elections with over 16 million votes.

During interpellation, however, he clarified that the government does not plan to accord state honors for Marcos burial but “only a simple graveyard military honor.”

The top government counsel invoked the President’s authority under the Constitution and Revised Administrative Code to decide on political question that does not involve any justifiable issue for the high court to resolve.

The petitioners insisted that allowing Marcos to be buried at the LNMB would distort history, foster division instead of unity and even glorify him despite the numerous human rights violations and rampant graft and corruption during his term.

Among the petitioners were Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Satur Ocampo, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman and former Commission on Human Rights chair Etta Rosales; a group led by former senator Heherson Alvarez; a group of University of the Philippines students; and former Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao human rights chair Algamar Latiph. (MANILA, Sept. 7/PNA)


When Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr was 26, living in Hawaii after his father was deposed by a people power rebellion in February 1986, a first-hand account shows that he was privy to the Marcos deposits in the Swiss banks, particularly Credit Suisse. It is not clear if he knew the amounts involved but these were estimated at $10 to $20 billion, alleged to have been illicit wealth. Part of this has since been transferred to the Philippine government.

Deposed  President Ferdinsnd Marcos assigned to Bongbong the task of coordinating with their contact in Credit Suisse to keep their funds intact.


marcos 3

Bongbong Marcos haughty and utterly arrogant–Atom

MARTIAL LAW“Haughty and utterly arrogant,”  a group that played an active role in toppling dictator President Ferdinand Marcos, said of Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s continuing refusal to apologize for his father’s martial law rule.

“While taking pride in his name may be ascribed to filial loyalty, it is the height of vulgarity and shameless insolence for Bongbong Marcos to say he has nothing to apologize for during the years when tyranny ruled the land,” said Ramon Pedrosa, chair of the executive committee of the August Twenty One Movement (Atom). READ MORE