Unfunny

It was an interview that should never have happened. Watching President Bongbong Marcos Jr. badgered and embarrassed by a TV journalist employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) over the oppressive regime of his father – the late President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. – is akin to undergoing a root canal: excruciating and highly uncomfortable. If I were a member of the Palace communications team, I would not have allowed our Head of State to be disrespected in any way by a foreign media entity. Moreover, I would have resigned right away for doing a lousy job.

In the first place, the Western media has been openly antagonistic to the Marcos family since the 1986 People Power revolution. In fact, ABC helped produce “A Dangerous Life,” an anti-Marcos miniseries that dramatized the last days of the dictatorship. The TV drama was released in 1988. Decades later, the broadcast network remains critical of the Marcos family. In 2022, it referred to the landslide victory of the “disgraced dictator’s son” as emblematic of our country’s “broken democracy.”

The President could have been spared the embarrassment had his comms team been thoroughly mindful of ABC’s stance against the Marcoses. The interviewer was like a blunt object with her hard-hitting questions on the Marcos family’s ill-gotten wealth and human rights record. At one point, a visibly nonplussed PBBM broke into a nervous chuckle when queried about the plunder of our country’s resources. It triggered the acerbic broadcaster to ask why the President found the question funny.

Jurisprudence

Of course, there was nothing remotely amusing about the matter. There is overwhelming literature, publications and research materials that have exposed, documented and analyzed the excesses and atrocities of the Marcos dictatorship.

More importantly, the Supreme and Appellate Courts of the Philippines, Switzerland and the United States have handed down landmark decisions on plunder and human rights atrocities committed during the reign of the elder Marcos.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the Swiss deposits of the Marcoses are considered ill-gotten wealth and forfeited in favor of the State under Republic Act 1379 or forfeiture to the State of all illegally acquired properties by any public officer or employee. Voting 12-0 with one abstention, the Court said the Marcos family failed to justify they acquired the contested assets lawfully, given the undeniable circumstances and the avalanche of documentary evidence presented against them (Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan).

“…The Swiss deposits, which were transferred to and are now deposited in escrow at the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the estimated aggregate amount of $658 million as of January 2002, are hereby forfeited in favor of the petitioner Republic of the Philippines,” the High Court stated.

Following the SC decision, the Swiss government released the $683 million in funds to the Philippine Treasury in 2004. According to the Swiss Federal Office, the Federal Council froze the bank accounts in 1986. In 1997, the Swiss Supreme Court established that majority of the Marcos foundation assets were of criminal origin and permitted their transfer a Philippine bank, even though no Philippine court ruling had yet been issued (Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative). The Court decided to transfer $100 million of the US$500-million frozen Marcos accounts to the Philippine government through a PNB escrow account (The New York Times).

In 1996, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the $1.9-billion verdict of a Honolulu jury against the estate of the late president Marcos. The San Francisco court said the late Marcos Sr. was responsible for massive human rights abuses (Los Angeles Times).

The Hilao v. Marcos Estate is a class suit filed under the Alien Torts Claims Act. The Chief Executive has a pending Bench Warrant for contempt issued in 1995 by a Federal Court that rendered judgment in the class suit. The contempt judgment in the amount of $353 million is for the failure of the Marcos Estate to pay monetary judgment in favor of the complainants. Marcos Jr. and former first lady Imelda Marcos are subjects of the contempt judgment as joint executors of the estate.

Defense mechanism

On the other hand, the Marcos family has had to repeatedly deal with these issues in legal and public fora, domestically and internationally, post-EDSA revolution. Imagine being subjected to the same questions and accusations for nearly 40 years. I recall that in a 2016 vice presidential debate, PBBM had the same nervous laugh. His rival candidates collectively bashed and ganged up on him on the same issues. I reckon his reaction is a defense mechanism against tension-filled or absurd situations.

Be that as it may, I was caught off-guard by PBBM’s succeeding remarks that downplayed the ill-gotten cases as propaganda by the Presidential Commission on Good Government. In essence, he said actual investigations uncovered facts that would prove the issue was a product of anti-Marcos propaganda. He also asserted the Marcoses had signed many quit claims for assets recovered by the Philippine government.

As a UniTeam supporter and lawyer, I take exception to his comments. I expected him to echo the position of Senator Imee Marcos, who has been thankful to Filipinos across the world for giving their family another chance at redemption. The presidential sister even vowed to oppose any action or effort that puts the Marcos family name in a bad light. It would have been better if PBBM assured the Filipino nation and the international community that he would rectify the mistakes of the elder Marcos vis-à-vis human rights protection and anti-corruption practices.  

Addendum

In 2016, I sponsored House Bill 226, which called for a permanent Human Rights Claimant Board. The proposed law sought to amend Republic Act 10368 or the rules and regulations implementing the reparation and recognition of human rights victims. My position then and now is that the Philippines is constitutionally and legally bound to provide reparations to victims of human rights violations. It is an integral part of their right to legal remedy.

The right to reparation is a well-established principle in international law and recognized by the jurisprudence of domestic and international courts. All international human rights treaties carry mandatory provisions. The proposed law highlighted the State’s obligation to deter its agents, agencies and instrumentalities from abusing their authority and committing rights violations.

I crafted the measure with the victims of martial law atrocities and slain newsmen in mind. Perhaps, the Marcos administration can ask its allies in Congress to push for a similar measure, if only to demonstrate the government’s commitment to preserve and respect the rights of every Filipino.