Scribd
Upload
78 views17 pages

Hilao Vs Estate (Muarip)

This document discusses the case Hilao v. Estate of Marcos regarding sovereign immunity. Five lawsuits were filed against Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos for human rights violations committed under martial law in the Philippines. The lawsuits were consolidated and certified as a class action against the Marcos Estate. Hilao was awarded damages against the Estate and sought to enjoin the Republic of the Philippines from aiding the Estate. The Republic argued it had sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, while Hilao argued the injunction was valid against those aiding the Estate regardless of jurisdiction over the Republic. The decision focused on whether the FSIA was the sole basis for jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Czaraine Dy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
78 views17 pages

Hilao Vs Estate (Muarip)

This document discusses the case Hilao v. Estate of Marcos regarding sovereign immunity. Five lawsuits were filed against Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos for human rights violations committed under martial law in the Philippines. The lawsuits were consolidated and certified as a class action against the Marcos Estate. Hilao was awarded damages against the Estate and sought to enjoin the Republic of the Philippines from aiding the Estate. The Republic argued it had sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, while Hilao argued the injunction was valid against those aiding the Estate regardless of jurisdiction over the Republic. The decision focused on whether the FSIA was the sole basis for jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Czaraine Dy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 17

Hilao v Estate of Marcos

Sovereign Immunity
Ferdinand Marcos and his wife
Imelda fled to Hawai'i.
 Fivesuits filed in the Northern
District of California and the District
of Hawai'i by individuals alleging that
they or their relatives had been
arrested, tortured, or executed by
military intelligence personnel acting
pursuant to martial law declared by
Marcos in 1971.
 The district courts dismissed all five
suits on the ground that the Act of
State doctrine precluded liability.
The human rights cases were
eventually consolidated in the
Hawaii district court and the
consolidated case was certified as
a class action suit against the
Estate.
Republic also sued the Estate.
Settlement of Estate and Republic
 Meanwhile, Hilao was eventually awarded
punitive and compensatory damages against
the Estate. He also requested an injunction
against the RP, as aiders and abettors of the
Estate to seize from disposing of the
latter’s assets. The District Court granted
the injunction which the Republic opposed.
REPUBLIC’S ARGUMENT

 District
Court lacked authority to
subject the Republic to Injunction
because it enjoys sovereign immunity
under the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act. (FSIA)
HILAO’S ARGUMENT
 District court need not even assume jurisdiction
over the RP. In this case, the FSIA does not govern
because Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure makes an injunction binding upon
"those persons in active concert or participation
with" an enjoined party to the action where those
persons have actual notice.
DECISION:

FSIA AS
SOLE BASIS
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
HILAO’S ARGUMENT:
There is no sovereign immunity
against charges of torture.
 The prohibition against official torture
carries with it the force of jus cogens
norm which enjoys the highest status
in international law,
Claims under ATCA make it possible
to subject sovereign acts to
claims. This thus makes it unwise
for states to commit violations.

You might also like