Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Wednesday, July 19, 2000Human rights abuse
award is still unpaidCOLLECTING the $150 million compromise settlement in the lawsuit by human rights victims of the Marcos regime has been a frustrating experience. Visiting federal District Judge Manuel Real scheduled a September hearing on a motion by the victims' attorneys to terminate the settlement of a $2 billion judgment awarded the 9,500 victims by a jury here in 1994. So far nothing has been recovered.The issue: The attorneys for thousands of human rights victims of the Marcos regime have asked a federal judge to terminate a $150 million settlement of a $2 billion award for lack of compliance.
The settlement had been approved by the court here in April 1999, but three months later a Philippine court blocked the transfer of the funds. The court ruled that the agreement could end up exempting the Marcos estate from further judicial inquiries into the Marcos fortune.
Both the Philippine government and the Marcos family had agreed to set aside the $150 million to compensate the plaintiffs. However, representatives of many of the victims rejected the settlement on the ground that it absolved the Marcoses of responsibility for the abuses.
Now the attorneys for the victims have gone back to court to terminate the settlement agreement, charging that Marcos' widow, Imelda, their son, Ferdinand "Bong Bong" Marcos Jr. and daughter Imee Marcos Manotoc had managed to avoid making the payments.
Judge Real agreed to set aside the settlement as it applied to Marcos Manotoc but deferred a decision on the remainder of the request.
At the time of the Philippine court's decision last year, a spokesman for President Joseph Estrada said he would ask the court to reconsider the decision. However, the government subsequently decided against filing an appeal.
From the outset of the case it was evident that the victims would have difficulty collecting the $2 billion award. The Marcos wealth was located in several countries, much of it hidden. Some of it was in Swiss bank accounts that were not readily accessible.
Moreover, the Philippine government took the position that the Marcos fortune was stolen from the country and should be used for the benefit of all the people, not only the human rights victims.
Further complicating the case were the opposition of some of the victims to the language of the settlement, which they interpreted as absolving the Marcoses, and the decision of the Philippine court.
Termination of the compromise agreement would leave the victims free to pursue the entire $2 billion of the jury award, but the likelihood of their receiving such an amount is slim at best. If the victims couldn't collect $150 million, how can they collect $2 billion?
Judge Real postponed the hearing until Sept. 11 to give the parties more time to comply with the settlement. However, it would be surprising if compliance was achieved by that date.
The victims' grievances are real. But it was always questionable that a suit brought in the United States -- specifically in Hawaii -- could succeed in recovering damages from the Marcoses, who do not live in the United States, from wealth scattered in several countries for abuses that occurred in the Philippines.
Six years after the award was made, that question remains.
Medical privacy law
is causing confusionTHE state medical privacy law that went into effect this month is causing confusion among insurance agencies and other organizations that deal with medical records. Revisions may be needed to clarify its provisions and eliminate unanticipated problems.
However, it would be premature to attempt to address these issues at this time, when the persons affected are only beginning to have experience with the measure.
In a rare show of independence, Lt. Gov. Mazie Hirono has proposed a special session of the Legislature to deal with these issues. Governor Cayetano's response -- a sensible one -- is that any flaws in the law can be addressed in the Legislature's 2001 session.
Hirono characterized the situation created by the privacy law as "mass confusion." She said the law seems to require each health-care provider to obtain several release forms from each patient for processing insurance claims. The amount of paperwork required "would be enormous," she said.
That should not be surprising. The purpose of the law is to protect personal health information, while allowing review of medical information for research and to prevent fraud and abuse. It is the product of years of work by a health-care task force.
Certainly it is going to require a lot of paperwork. That is the price the Legislature decided to pay to protect patients' privacy. However, the legislators may not have realized just how much paperwork would be needed.
Special legislative sessions should only be called to deal with emergencies, and then only when a clear consensus already exists as to what action is required. If those conditions were not met, the session could go on indefinitely or end without results.
By the time the 2001 Legislature convenes the situation should be clearer. Let's wait until then.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
