Court Upsets Hold Placed on Marcos Assets

A federal appeals court Thursday overturned a lower-court order freezing the assets of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and said the government of Corazon Aquino has little chance of winning its suit claiming that the Marcoses stole $1.5 billion from the Philippines.

By a 2-1 vote, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the Aquino government’s contention that the couple’s U.S. investments were bought with proceeds of Marcos’ looting of the Philippines during his reign raised political and foreign-policy questions that are beyond this nation’s courts.

Thursday’s ruling, if it stands, would lift an order issued last June by U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in Los Angeles freezing all of the Marcoses’ assets worldwide, with a value estimated by the Aquino government at $1.55 billion.

Even if Marcos seized dictatorial power in violation of Philippine law and used it to fill his pockets, as the Aquino government claims, a U.S. court would have no standards by which to judge his actions, said the majority opinion by Judge Alex Kozinski.

“Offensive as such absolute government may be to our sense of justice, no legal restraints can prevail against dictatorial power,” Kozinski wrote. “A dictator can do whatever he can get away with. A court in this country simply cannot second-guess how that power is exercised.

”. . . Just as we cannot second-guess the outcome of an election or the success of a revolution in a foreign country . . . so can we not adjudicate whether Mr. Marcos was within his rights in asserting dictatorial control over the Philippines, starting in 1972.”

In addition, Kozinski said, court action in the case could embarrass U.S. foreign policy--for example, if the court ruled that the Marcoses acted legally, or if power in the Philippines changed hands.

Judge Dorothy Nelson dissented sharply, saying the court appeared to be placing foreign dictators above judicial review and was ignoring the desires of both the U.S. and Philippine governments to take jurisdiction over the case.

John Bartko, a lawyer for the Marcoses, said the ruling conforms with their view that the suit raises political questions “best adjudicated in the courts of the Philippines,” where Marcos is willing to return to defend the case.

Justifies Belief

Marcos, reached in Honolulu, said the decision “certainly justifies my belief in the American system of justice.”

“It seems to conclude that they (Philippine officials) have not substantiated the allegations of ill-gotten wealth,” he said. “That seems to be the point.”

However, the decision appeared to conflict with a ruling last November by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a freeze on Marcos’ purported holdings in New York and declared that U.S. courts could judge such a case. The U.S. Supreme Court could decide to resolve the conflict.

Representatives of the Philippine government who filed the suit did not immediately return telephone calls seeking their reaction to the ruling.