hilao v. estate of ferdinand marcos 103 f.3d 767 (9th cir. 1996)

8/18/2019 Hilao v. Estate of Ferdinand Marcos 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996)

1/38

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

·

103 F.3d 767 (th Cir. 16!

"#$A% &. 'SA' %FF')*#NAN* +A)C%S

Share

Sae

-*F

SU++A)#'S F)%+ SUS'/U'N CAS'S (!

I. “Holding that "TVPA creates a cause of action against one who

commits torture or extrajudicial killing"”'SA' %F CA'$$% . F')NAN*'2

$A)#%S, 17 F. Supp.d 134 (S.*. Fla. 001!

II. “Holding that district court did not ause its discretion in certif!ing a

class of #$### %lainti&s with claims for human rights auses”5-A*'" .

'++ANU'$, 61 F.).*. 67 (S.*. Fla. 00!

'()* +,''A)I*+

5' -ASSA8'S F)%+ "#S CAS' (3!

I. “The summar! mention of an issue in a footnote$ without reasoning in

su%%ort of the a%%ellant-s argument$ is insucient to raise the issue on

a%%eal.” /uoted ti9es

II. “The district court instructed the jur! that it could /nd the *state liale

if it found either that 01 'arcos directed$ ordered$ cons%ired with$ or

aided the militar! in torture$ summar! execution$ and "disa%%earance"

https://casetext.com/case/estate-of-cabello-v-fernandez-larioshttps://casetext.com/case/estate-of-cabello-v-fernandez-larioshttps://casetext.com/case/kpadeh-v-emmanuelhttps://casetext.com/case/kpadeh-v-emmanuelhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=3YTLJxw1YN98s0vd8C-noghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=3YTLJxw1YN98s0vd8C-noghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=3YTLJxw1YN98s0vd8C-noghttps://casetext.com/case/kpadeh-v-emmanuelhttps://casetext.com/case/kpadeh-v-emmanuelhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tNIoCMrPPtgB44yO28CCUwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=3YTLJxw1YN98s0vd8C-noghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=3YTLJxw1YN98s0vd8C-noghttps://casetext.com/case/estate-of-cabello-v-fernandez-larioshttps://casetext.com/case/estate-of-cabello-v-fernandez-larios


2/38

or 021 if 'arcos knew of such conduct ! the militar! and failed to use

his %ower to %re3ent it.” /uoted 7 ti9es

III. “(nce the defendant makes a showing of remedies aroad which ha3e

not een exhausted$ the urden shifts to the %lainti& to reut !showing that the local remedies were ine&ecti3e$ unotainale$ undul!

%rolonged$ inade4uate$ or o3iousl! futile.” /uoted 6 ti9es

IV. “The %rocedural %ractice of international human rights triunals

generall! holds that the res%ondent has the urden of raising the

nonexhaustion of remedies as an armati3e defense and must show

that domestic remedies exist that the claimant did not use.” /uoted 4

ti9es

V. “The district court de/ned the class as5 All current ci3ilian citi6ens of

the )e%ulic of the Phili%%ines$ their heirs and ene/ciaries$ who

etween 782 and 79: were tortured$ summaril! executed or

disa%%eared while in the custod! of militar! or %aramilitar!

grou%s.” /uoted 3 ti9es

VI. “Proximate ;ause The *state challenges an instruction gi3en ! the

district court in the liailit! stage of the trial5 To determine the *stateof the late President 'arcos is liale to an! %lainti& for wrong alleged

! the %lainti&s$ !ou must determine whether the injur! alleged ! a

%lainti& has een shown ! a %re%onderance of the e3idence to ha3e

een caused ! reason of a %erson eing taken into custod! ! an

order of


3/38

VIII. “This lea3es me "with a %rofound dis4uiet$" as =udge Higginotham %ut

it in In re


4/38

criminal res%onsiilit! if he knew or had reason to know that the

suordinate was aout to commit such acts or had done so and the

su%erior failed to take the necessar! and reasonale measures to

%re3ent such acts or to %unish the %er%etrators thereof."1 see

generall! Ft. ;mdr. Keston >. Lurnett$ ;ommand )es%onsiilit! and a

;ase +tud! of the ;riminal )es%onsiilit! of Israeli 'ilitar!

;ommanders for the Pogrom at +hatila and +ara$ #8 'il.” /uoted

ti9es

BII. “,nder international law$ res%onsiilit! for torture$ summar! execution$

or disa%%earances extends e!ond the %erson or %ersons who actuall!

committed those acts M an!one with higher authorit! who authori6ed$

tolerated or knowingl! ignored those acts is liale for them.” /uoted ti9es

BIII. “All of the soldiers and ocers in the Haitian militar! res%onsile for

the aritrar! detention and torture of %lainti&s were em%lo!ees$

re%resentati3es$ or agents of defendant A3ril$ acting under his

instructions$ authorit!$ and control and acting within the sco%e of

authorit! granted ! him."1.” /uoted ti9es

BIV. “The TVPA creates a cause of action against one who commits torture

or extrajudicial killing and was intended to codif! judicial decisions

recogni6ing such a cause of action under the Alien Tort ;laims

Act.” /uoted ti9es

BV. “The Act %ro3ides that "Ga court shall decline to hear a claim under

this section if the claimant has not exhausted ade4uate and a3ailale

remedies in the %lace in which the conduct gi3ing rise to the claim

occurred".” /uoted ti9es

BVI. “Therefore$ as a general matter$ the committee recogni6es that in most

instances the initiation of litigation under this legislation will e

3irtuall! %rima facie e3idence that the claimant has exhausted his or

her remedies in the jurisdiction in which the torture occurred. The

https://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=8d9qENit0ZmJApC2hcj_PQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=8d9qENit0ZmJApC2hcj_PQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=8d9qENit0ZmJApC2hcj_PQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=8d9qENit0ZmJApC2hcj_PQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=_ddjhBoxhUZ1FvGwQe8vNAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=u9m3UPk50CcHHF60ucXdyQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=I8tx2xP09pqgZ0JEw0tWtghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=OJeHLobSQRKu9s_hghASnAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=YqoP76JzGU4x3Y9b5Y3rjQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=8d9qENit0ZmJApC2hcj_PQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=8d9qENit0ZmJApC2hcj_PQ


5/38

committee elie3es that courts should a%%roach cases rought under

the %ro%osed legislation with this assum%tion.” /uoted ti9es

BVII. “G2 As discussed ao3e$ howe3er$ the +enate )e%ort makes clear

that in enacting the TVPA$ ;ongress intended to im%ose exactl! thet!%e of liailit! that the jur! instructions allowed in this case5 GA higher

ocial need not ha3e %ersonall! %erformed or ordered the auses in

order to e held liale. G)es%onsiilit! for torture$ summar! execution$

or disa%%earances extends e!ond the %erson who actuall! committed

those acts M an!one with higher authorit! who authori6ed$ tolerated or

knowingl! ignored those acts is liale for them.” /uoted ti9es

BVIII. “+%ecial 'aster-s )ecommendations The district court then a%%ointed+ol +chreier as a s%ecial master 0and a courtCa%%ointed ex%ert under

)ule 8#: of the


6/38

BBIII. “Another ex%ert witness testi/ed that man! 3ictims of torture in the

Phili%%ines did not re%ort the humanCrights auses the! su&ered out of

intimidation and fear of re%risals this fear seems %articularl!

understandale in light of testimon! on the sus%ension of haeas

cor%us etween 782 and 79$ and on the e&ecti3e de%endence of

the judiciar! on 'arcos.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBIV. “G?# A. >e/nition of the ;lass GE The *state challenges the

certi/cation of the class ecause$ it argues$ the class does not meet

the re4uirement of )ule 2? that a %ro%osed class e made u% of %eo%le

to whom e&ecti3e notice of the %ending action can e gi3en and who

will e ound ! an! judgment entered.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBV. “As to whether an! %articular injur! was caused ! 'arcos- act or

omission$ this 4uestion was resol3ed ! the liailit! /nding$ discussed

elow$ that 'arcos was liale for an! act of torture$ summar!

execution$ or "disa%%earance" committed ! the militar! or

%aramilitar! forces on his orders or with his knowledge.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBVI. “The existence of an agenc! relationshi% is a 4uestion for the judge

under )ule #E0a1 and must e %ro3ed ! sustantial e3idence ut not

! a %re%onderance of the e3idence.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBVII. “Ke ha3e found no ruling ! the district court ex%ressl! choosing

Phili%%ine law$ ut the district court-s jur! instruction on exem%lar!

damages is 3irtuall! identical to the jur! instruction %ro%osed ! Hilao$

and that %ro%osed jur! instruction lists as two of its sources Phili%%ine

;i3il ;ode Articles 2227 and 22?.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBVIII. “Indeed$ while the *state com%lains that its rights were 3iolatedecause the jur! was not instructed that a reasonale relationshi%

must exist etween the amounts of com%ensator! and exem%lar!

damages$ the actual instructions a%%ro3ed ! the +u%reme ;ourt in

Hasli% contained no such ex%lanation.” /uoted 1 ti9e

https://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=uXq9UccK7LYJTSLDhKsqqAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=qKGsVhvW39IBaukBsOwI0whttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LqPMTPEMv1ueiq86IFIaoQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=LAaXHnuDLRic4__PizHTxghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=xdXr04StTzjT_UUN_PDFMghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=aci2HI3uH6GEt8HxdDWA9Q


7/38

BBIB. “G7 A. >istrict ;ourt 'ethodolog! The district court allowed the use

of a statistical sam%le of the class claims in determining com%ensator!

damages.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBB. “+chreier then re3iewed the claim forms 0which had een com%letedunder %enalt! of %erjur!1 and de%ositions of the class memers in the

sam%le.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBBI. “He then %erformed the following calculations to determine the

numer of 3alid class claims remaining5 Torture +ummar!

>isa%%earance *xecution ;laims isa%%earance *xecution ;lass Awards 2@$97$9 E#7$7$8:#

7E$7#$:E# +am%le Awards ?$?#$### :$E2@$8:8 $9??$@@

T(TAF+ 2@@$27$9 E@$:8$@28 7:$8EE$@@ Adding together the

suclass awards$ +chreier recommended a total com%ensator!

damage award of 8:8$E7$E7?.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBBII. “>annemiller testi/ed that the selection of the random sam%le met thestandards of inferential statistics$ that the successful e&orts to locate

and otain testimon! from the claimants in the random sam%le "were

of the highest standards" in his %rofession$ that the %rocedures

followed conformed to the standards of inferential statistics$ and that

https://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=hzcfi96QGsKqNXGANZ0lDwhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=K32eGqcdIMF56pE8YehN_ghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXg


8/38

the injuries of the randomCsam%le claimants were re%resentati3e of the

class as a whole.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBBIII. “If the *state had a legitimate concern in the identities of those

recei3ing damage awards$ the district court-s %rocedure could a&ectthis interest.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBBIV. “Hilao-s interest in the use of the statistical method$ on the other hand$

is enormous$ since ad3ersarial resolution of each class memer-s claim

would %ose insurmountale %ractical hurdles.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBBV. “G7 )J'*)$ ;ircuit =udge$ ;oncurring in Part and >issenting in Part5

Lecause I elie3e that determining causation as well as damages !

inferential statistics instead of indi3iduali6ed %roof raises more than

"serious 4uestions" of due %rocess$ I must dissent from Part IB of the

majorit! o%inion.” /uoted 1 ti9e

BBBVI. “In accordance with the district court-s order$ the +%ecial 'aster was to

determine "01 whether the ause claimed came within one of the

de/nitions$ with which the ;ourt charged the jur! at the trial held in

Hawaii$ of torture$ summar! execution$ or disa%%earance 021 whether

the Phili%%ine militar! or %araCmilitar! was or were in3ol3ed in suchause and 0?1 whether the ause occurred during the %eriod

+e%temer 782 through


9/38

is a 4uestion on which the defendant has a right to due %rocess. If due

%rocess in the form of a real %ro3eCu% of causation and damages

cannot e accom%lished ecause the class is too ig or to do so would

take too long$ then 0as the *state contends1 the class is unmanageale

and should not ha3e een certi/ed in the /rst %lace.” /uoted 1 ti9e

'()* PA++AD*+

G (PINI(N


10/38

In 77$ the district court certi/ed the Hilao case as a class action$ de/ningthe class as all ci3ilian citi6ens of the Phili%%ines who$ etween 782 and79:$ were tortured$ summaril! executed$ or "disa%%eared" ! Phili%%inemilitar! or %aramilitar! grou%s the class also included the sur3i3ors ofdeceased class memers. ;ertain %lainti&s o%ted out of the class and

continued$ alongside the class action$ to %ursue their cases directl!.A default judgment was entered in 77 against 'arcos- daughter$ Imee'arcosC'anotoc$ u%on one of the direct %lainti&s- com%laints. That judgmentwas a%%ealed to this court$ which armed the district court in 772$rejecting arguments that 'arcosC'anotoc was entitled to foreign so3ereignimmunit! and that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Alien Tort;laims Act$ 29 ,.+.;. Q ?@#$ and under Article III of the ,.+. ;onstitution. Trajano 3. 'arcos 0In re *state of


11/38

The district court then ordered the damage trial ifurcated into one trial onexem%lar! damages and one on com%ensator! damages. The court orderedthat notice e gi3en to the class memers that the! must /le a %roofCofCclaimform in order to o%t into the class. Notice was %ro3ided ! mail to knownclaimants and ! %ulication in the Phili%%ines and the ,.+. o3er #$###

forms were /led.In


12/38

the argument when the *state made it in a %rior a%%eal. +ee *state I$ 789I+;,++I(N G2 I. +tatute of Fimitations

The *state argues that the district court erred in not sujecting Hilao-sclaims to a twoC!ear statute of limitations. The 4uestion of the a%%ro%riatestatute of limitations is a 4uestion of law that we re3iew de no3o. 'ende6 3.

IshikawajimaCHarima Hea3! Indus. ;o.$ @2 istrict of Hawaii$ the *state argues that Hawaii-s twoC!ear statute oflimitations for tort claims should a%%l!. The *state argues alternati3el! thatthe a%%ro%riate statute of limitations might e that im%osed ! Phili%%inelaw$ which a%%ears to re4uire that claims for %ersonal injur! arising out theexercise ! a %ulic ocer of authorit! arising from martial law e rought

within one !ear. Phili%%ine ;i3il ;ode$ Art. E:. Hilao argues that the tenC!ear statute of limitations in the Torture Victim Protection Act$ 29 ,.+.;. Q?@# 0note$ Q 20c11 0the TVPA1$ is the most closel! analogous federal statuteof limitations$ and cites to a recent district court case a%%l!ing that limit toclaims under oth the Alien Tort ;laims Act and the TVPA. +ee Buncax 3.Dramajo$ 99: . 'ass. 77@1. Alternati3el!$ Hilao %oints tothe conclusion in *state II that a claim under the Alien Tort ;laims Act isclosel! analogous to a 3iolation of E2 ,.+.;. Q 79?$ 2@


13/38

is im%risoned or inca%acitated. +. )e%. No. 2E7$ #2d ;ong.$ st +ess.$ at 0771. +ection 79? generall! orrows its statute of limitations from statelaws$ =ohnson 3. )ailwa! *x%ress Agenc!$ Inc.$ E2 ,.+. E@E$ E:2 078@1$ andincor%orates e4uitaleCtolling %rinci%les of either state or federal law in caseswhere a defendant-s wrongful conduct$ or extraordinar! circumstances

outside a %lainti&-s control$ %re3ented a %lainti& from timel! asserting aclaim. +ee$ e.g.$ Hardin 3. +trau$ E7# ,.+. @?: 07971 Lianchi 3. LellinghamPolice >e%t.$ 7#7


14/38

G29 III. ;lass ;erti/cationA district court-s decision to certif! a %ro%osed class is re3iewed for an auseof discretion. Larer 3. Hawaii$ E2


15/38

The *state argues that the claims of the Hilao re%resentati3es are not t!%icalof the claims of the class as re4uired ! )ule 2?0a10?1 ecause there aresigni/cant indi3idual 4uestions in each case related to 01 the statute oflimitations$ 021 whether an! com%ensale injur! exists$ 0?1 whether an!injur! was caused ! 'arcos- acts or omissions or was justi/ale.

As to the statute of limitations$ as discussed ao3e$ an! a%%licale statutewas tolled during the %eriod that 'arcos was in oce in the Phili%%ines$ sothere are no rele3ant indi3idual statuteCofClimitations issues5 the a%%licalestatute egan to run at the earliest not when humanCrights auses wereinicted on each %articular class memer ut in


16/38

militar!U%aramilitar! forces or knew of them !et failed to take e&ecti3emeasures to %re3ent them.

*xam%les of the challenged statements include5

"I found out the! were elements of the Intelligence +ecurit! Drou% of

the Kestern Police >istrict of 'anila."

"The! were memers of the DTC2#@$ 2d 'ID$ and the 2?st P;com%an! and the on-t !ou worr!$ the President would knowaout this . . . and ! eight o-clock he will get the re%ort in front ofhim."

"Kho arrested !ou" "'I+D militar! %ersonnel$ sir."

"Khat does 'I+D stand for" "'ilitar! Intelligence +ecurit! Drou%$ sir."". . . Fieutenant Pedro Tangco Gwho showed me the search warrantelongs to the 'I+D$ or the 'etrocom Intelligence +ecurit! Drou%."

". . . ;olonel Antonia ,! . . . informed m! husand that his release waseing countermanded ! the President and from that time he will e%laced under house arrest . . ."

G@ +ection 9#0d10210>1 %ro3ides that "A statement is not hearsa! if . . . Gthestatement is o&ered against a %art! and is . . . a statement ! the %art!-sagent or ser3ant concerning a matter within the sco%e of the agenc! orem%lo!ment$ made during the existence of the relationshi%".

1

The existence of an agenc! relationshi% is a 4uestion for the judge under)ule #E0a1 and must e %ro3ed ! sustantial e3idence ut not ! a%re%onderance of the e3idence. ,nited +tates 3.


17/38

court ma! consider an outCofCcourt statement in making its )ule #E0a1determination of the admissiilit! of a statement under )ule 9#0d10210*1. This court$ rel!ing on Lourjail!$ has held that "outCofCcourt statements ma!themsel3es e considered in determining the %reliminar! 4uestion$ under)ule 9#0d10210>1$ of the sco%e of Gthe agent-s em%lo!ment duties". Ari6ona

3. +tandard (il ;o. of ;alifornia 0In re ;oordinated Pretrial Proceedings inPetroleum Products Antitrust Fitigation1$ 7#:


18/38

district court did not ause its discretion in admitting those statements under)ule 9#0d10210>1$ we decline to reach the *state-s )ule 9#?02E1 challenge.

GE7 L. >ocumentsG8 The *state challenges the admission under )ule 9#?091 of 3ariousPresidential ;ommitment (rders 0P;(s1 Arrest$ +earch and +ei6ure (rders0A++(s1 and Pre3enti3e >etention Actions 0P>As1 signed ! 'arcos. )ule9#?091 allows the admission of "Grecords$ re%orts$ statements$ or datacom%ilations$ in an! form$ of %ulic oces or agencies$ setting forth 0A1 theacti3ities of the oce or agenc!$ or 0L1 matters oser3ed %ursuant to dut!im%osed ! law as to which matters there was a dut! to re%ort . . .$ or 0;1 . . .factual /ndings resulting from an in3estigation made %ursuant to authorit!granted ! law. . . ."

G9 The *state alleges that the challenged documents relate to 3arious

detainees$ not to the acti3ities of an! oce or agenc! within the Phili%%ines.It is %ellucidl! clear$ howe3er$ that the district court did not ause itsdiscretion in holding that letters from President 'arcos to the 'inister ofNational >efense a%%ro3ing re4uests for P;(s and P>As are records "settingforth . . . the acti3ities of the oce" of the President.

The *state also challenges the admission of the documents under )ule9#?02E1. As it did with the hearsa! statements discussed ao3e$ the districtcourt admitted the documents on a numer of alternati3e grounds$ including)ule 9#?091 and )ule 9#?02E1. Lecause we arm the admission of thedocuments on the asis of )ule 9#?091$ we decline to reach the *state-s

9#?02E1 challenge.

G@? V. Instructions on Fiailit! of the*state

A claim that the trial court misstated the elements that must e %ro3en attrial is a 4uestion of law to e re3iewed de no3o. (gles! 3. +outhern Paci/c Trans%ortation ;o.$ :


19/38

ocial" on those grounds$ and that the district court essentiall! made the*state liale on a res%ondeat su%erior theor! that is ina%%licale inintentional torts.G7 The %rinci%le of "command res%onsiilit!" that holds a su%eriorres%onsile for the actions of suordinates a%%ears to e well acce%ted in

,.+. and international law in connection with acts committed in wartime$ asthe +u%reme ;ourt-s o%inion in In )e Jamashita indicates5

GThe gist of the charge is an unlawful reach of dut! ! %etitioner asan arm! commander to control the o%erations of the memers of hiscommand ! %ermitting them to commit- the extensi3e andwides%read atrocities s%eci/ed. . . . GThe law of war %resu%%oses thatits 3iolation is to e a3oided through the control of the o%erations ofwar ! commanders who are to some extent res%onsile for theirsuordinates. . . . GPro3isions Gof international law %lainl! im%osed on%etitioner$ who at the time s%eci/ed was militar! go3ernor of the

Phili%%ines$ as well as commander of the =a%anese forces$ anarmati3e dut! to take such measures as were within his %ower anda%%ro%riate in the circumstances to %rotect %risoners of war and theci3ilian %o%ulation. This dut! of a commanding ocer has heretoforeeen recogni6ed$ and its reach %enali6edG$ ! our own militar!triunals.

In Re Yamashita$ ?28 ,.+. $ EC: 07E:1.

+ee also Art. 9:021$ Protocol to the Dene3a ;on3entions of August 2$ 7E7$o%ened for signature >ecemer 2$ 788$ re%rinted in : I.F.'. ?7$ E2707881 0"The fact that a reach of the ;on3entions or of this Protocol wascommitted ! a suordinate does not asol3e his su%eriors from %enal Gordisci%linar! res%onsiilit! . . . if the! knew$ or had information which shouldha3e enaled them to conclude in the circumstances at the time$ that he wascommitting or was going to commit such a reach and if the! did not take allfeasile measures within their %ower to %re3ent or re%ress the reach."1 Art.80?1$ +tatute of the International Triunal for the Prosecution of Persons)es%onsile for +erious Violations of International Humanitarian Faw;ommitted in the Territor! of the


20/38

Military Commanders for the Pogrom at Shatila and Sabra$ #8 'il. F. =. [email protected]# The ,nited +tates has mo3ed toward recogni6ing similar "commandres%onsiilit!" for torture that occurs in %eacetime$ %erha%s ecause the goalof international law regarding the treatment of noncomatants in wartime M

"to %rotect ci3ilian %o%ulations and %risoners . . . from rutalit!"$ Jamashita$?28 ,.+. at @ M is similar to the goal of international humanCrights law. Thismo3e is e3idenced in the legislati3e histor! of the TVPA5

GA higher ocial need not ha3e %ersonall! %erformed or ordered theauses in order to e held liale.

,nder international law$ res%onsiilit! for torture$ summar! execution$or disa%%earances extends e!ond the %erson or %ersons who actuall!committed those acts M an!one with higher authorit! who authori6ed$tolerated or knowingl! ignored those acts is liale for them.

+. )e%. No. 2E7$ #2d ;ong.$ st +ess. at 7 0771 0footnote omitted1 0citing


21/38

G:# VI. Torture Victim Protection Act0TVPA1

G The *state challenges three as%ects of the district court-s jur!instructions on the asis of the TVPA.

The TVPA creates a cause of action against one who commits torture orextrajudicial killing and was intended to codif! judicial decisions recogni6ingsuch a cause of action under the Alien Tort ;laims Act. 29 ,.+.;. Q ?@#$note +. )e%. No. 2E7$ #2d ;ong.$ st +ess.$ at ?C@ 0771 H.). )e%. No.?:8$ #2d ;ong.$ st +ess.$ at ?CE 0771. The *state suggests in a footnote in its o%ening rief that the district courterred ! retroacti3el! a%%l!ing the TVPA$ which was enacted on 2 'arch772.

The summar! mention of an issue in a footnote$ without reasoning in su%%ortof the a%%ellant-s argument$ is insucient to raise the issue on a%%eal. +ee)etlaw Lroadcasting ;o. 3. N.F.).L.$ @?


22/38

Therefore$ as a general matter$ the committee recogni6es that in mostinstances the initiation of litigation under this legislation will e3irtuall! %rima facie e3idence that the claimant has exhausted his orher remedies in the jurisdiction in which the torture occurred. Thecommittee elie3es that courts should a%%roach cases rought under

the %ro%osed legislation with this assum%tion.

'ore s%eci/call!$ . . . the inter%retation of section 201 should einformed ! general %rinci%les of international law.4

The %rocedural %ractice of international human rights triunalsgenerall! holds that the res%ondent has the urden of raising thenonexhaustion of remedies as an armati3e defense and must showthat domestic remedies exist that the claimant did not use. 6

(nce the defendant makes a showing of remedies aroad which ha3e

not een exhausted$ the urden shifts to the %lainti& to reut !showing that the local remedies were ine&ecti3e$ unotainale$ undul!%rolonged$ inade4uate$ or o3iousl! futile. The ultimate urden of %roof and %ersuasion on the issue of exhaustion of remedies$ howe3er$ lieswith the defendant.

+. )e%. No. 2E7 at 7C#. The *state has %ointed to no e3idence that it %utforth e3en to raise the issue that Hilao had unexhausted remedies a3ailaleelsewhere$ let alone e3idence sucient to carr! its urden. The district courttherefore did not err in not declining to hear Hilao-s TVPA claim on

exhaustion grounds.

G:E L. >irect 3. Vicarious Fiailit! The *state next argues that the district court failed to instruct the jur! that itcould onl! /nd the *state liale for acts actuall! committed !


23/38

GA higher ocial need not ha3e %ersonall! %erformed or ordered theauses in order to e held liale. G)es%onsiilit! for torture$ summar!execution$ or disa%%earances extends e!ond the %erson who actuall!committed those acts M an!one with higher authorit! who authori6ed$tolerated or knowingl! ignored those acts is liale for them.

+. )e%. No. 2E7 at 7. Thus$ the district court-s instructions on liailit! were%ro%er under the TVPA.

G:9 ;. +tatute of Fimitations


24/38

after the district court-s main instruction on liailit!$ which re4uired the jur!to /nd either that 'arcos had "directed$ ordered$ cons%ired with$ or aided" intorture$ summar! execution$ and disa%%earance$ or that he had knowledge of that conduct and failed to use his %ower to %re3ent it. Thus$ it is clear thatthe jur! was re4uired to /nd not merel! that the %lainti&s were taken into

custod! under 'arcos- authorit! ut that once in custod! the %lainti&s weretortured$ executed$ or disa%%eared on 'arcos- orders or with his knowledge. The district court did not ause its discretion in gi3ing the challengedinstruction. Alternati3el!$ if there was an! error in the district court-sinstruction$ it is more %roale than not that the error was harmless andtherefore re3ersal is not re4uired. (gles!$ : amages G8@ A.*xem%lar! >amages against an

*state The 4uestion of whether exem%lar! damages are a3ailale against an estateis a 4uestion of law and therefore suject to de no3o re3iew. Twent!CThreeNineteen ;reekside$ Inc. 3. ;ommissioner$ @7


25/38

against an estate. Ke conclude that the district court did not err in allowingexem%lar! damages against the *state.Article 2227 %ro3ides that "Gexem%lar! or correcti3e damages are im%osed$! wa! of exam%le or correction for the %ulic good$ in addition to the moral$tem%erate$ li4uidated or com%ensator! damages". Article 22? %ro3ides that

"Gin 4uasiCdelicts$ exem%lar! damages ma! e granted if the defendantacted with gross negligence".

G87 L. Instructions and Procedure The *state argues that e3en if exem%lar! damages are a3ailale against adeceased-s estate$ the district court 3iolated its rights under the >ue Process;lause ! holding the exem%lar!Cdamage %hase of the trial efore thecom%ensator!Cdamage %hase and ! not instructing the jur! that anexem%lar!Cdamage award must ear a relationshi% to com%ensator!damages.

G9 . >ue Process ;laimsG@ The *state claims that the se4uence in which the district court held thedamage %hases of the trial 3iolated its right to due %rocess. Ke re3iew deno3o a claim of a 3iolation of the >ue Process ;lause. In its most recentdiscussion of %uniti3e damages$ the +u%reme ;ourt wrote that "Gonl! whenan award can fairl! e categori6ed as grossl! excessi3e- in relation to Ga+tate-s legitimate interests Gin %unishing unlawful conduct and deterring itsre%etition does it enter the 6one of aritrariness that 3iolates the >ue

Process ;lause". L'K of North America$ Inc. 3. Dore$ SSS ,.+. SSS$ SSS$ : +.;t. @97$ @7@ 077:1. +ee also TB( Production ;or%. 3. Alliance )esources;or%.$ @#7 ,.+. EE?$ E@9 077?1 0+te3ens$ =.1. The L'K ;ourt identi/ed three"guide%osts" for measuring gross excessi3eness5 "the degree ofre%rehensiilit! Gof defendant-s conduct the dis%arit! etween the harm or%otential harm su&ered ! Gthe %lainti& and his %uniti3e damages awardand the di&erence etween this remed! and the ci3il %enalties authori6ed orim%osed in com%arale cases". L'K$ SSS ,.+. at SSS$ : +.;t. at @79C77.

The *state-s argument a%%ears to challenge the district court-s %rocedureand instructions as de/cient with res%ect to the second L'K "guide%ost".

The ;ourt-s discussion of this issue$ howe3er$ o&ers little su%%ort to the*state-s argument. The ;ourt noted the "long %edigree" of "Gthe %rinci%lethat exem%lar! damages must ear a reasonale relationshi%- tocom%ensator! damages". Id. at E?E. The ;ourt also %ointed out that it had"re/ned this anal!sis Gin TB( ! con/rming that the %ro%er in4uir! is"whether there is a reasonale relationshi% etween the %uniti3e damagesaward and the harm likel! to result from the defendant-s conduct as well asthe harm that actuall! has occurred-"". Id. 04uoting TB($ @#7 ,.+. at E:#


26/38

0em%hasis in original1 04uoting Paci/c 'utual Fife Insurance ;o. 3. Hasli%$ E77,.+. $ 2 077#111. ue Process ;lause$ Hasli%$ E77 ,.+. at7$ these instructions did not grant the jur! unrestrained discretion in itsexem%lar!Cdamage determination.

The rele3ant %ortions of the instructions are as follows5

*xem%lar! damages are damages that are awarded ! wa! of exam%leor correction for the %ulic good. In other words$ exem%lar! damagesreect an award to the %lainti&s which ma! ser3e as a warning ordeterrence to others that the! should not co%! or emulate the conductfor which !ou found


27/38

awarded if !ou determine . . . that defendant-s conduct . . . wasmalicious$ wanton or o%%ressi3e. . . .

There is no exact standard for /xing the amount of exem%lar!damages. The amount Gis an! amount !ou elie3e necessar! to ful/ll

the ojecti3e of exem%lar! damages$ which is to deter similar conductin the future ! others. An! award !ou make should e fair in light ofthe e3idence. Jou ma! consider the /nancial resources of the *state of


28/38

892 s)eco99endations

The district court then a%%ointed +ol +chreier as a s%ecial master 0and a

courtCa%%ointed ex%ert under )ule 8#: of the


29/38

1

+chreier then re3iewed the claim forms 0which had een com%leted under%enalt! of %erjur!1 and de%ositions of the class memers in the sam%le. (nthe instructions of the district court$ he e3aluated

01 whether the ause claimed came within one of the de/nitions$ withwhich the ;ourt charged the jur! at the trial . . .$ of torture$ summar!execution$ or disa%%earance 021 whether the Phili%%ine militar! or%aramilitar! was . . . in3ol3ed in such ause and 0?1 whether theause occurred during the %eriod +e%temer 782 through


30/38

+chreier then made recommendations on damage awards to the remainingclass memers. Lased on his recommendation that : of the ?8 claims in therandom sam%le 0E.?8O1 e rejected as in3alid$ he recommended thea%%lication of a /3eC%erCcent in3alidit! rate to the remaining claims.

1

He then %erformed the following calculations to determine the numer of3alid class claims remaining5

Torture +ummar! >isa%%earance *xecution

;laims isa%%earance *xecution

;lass Awards 2@$97$9 E#7$7$8:# 7E$7#$:E#

+am%le Awards ?$?#$### :$E2@$8:8 $9??$@@

T(TAF+ 2@@$27$9 E@$:8$@28 7:$8EE$@@

Adding together the suclass awards$ +chreier recommended a totalcom%ensator! damage award of 8:8$E7$E7?.

G#E 2. =ur! ProceedingsA jur! trial on com%ensator! damages was held in =anuar! 77@.

https://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Qhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=KkIs0pcRyOxvID6IIxI76Q


31/38

1

>annemiller testi/ed that the selection of the random sam%le met thestandards of inferential statistics$ that the successful e&orts to locate andotain testimon! from the claimants in the random sam%le "were of thehighest standards" in his %rofession$ that the %rocedures followed conformedto the standards of inferential statistics$ and that the injuries of the randomCsam%le claimants were re%resentati3e of the class as a whole. Testimon!from the ?8 randomCsam%le claimants and their witnesses was introduced.+chreier testi/ed as to his recommendations$ and his re%ort was su%%lied tothe jur!. The jur! was instructed that it could acce%t$ modif! or reject+chreier-s recommendations and that it could inde%endentl!$ on the asisof the e3idence of the randomCsam%le claimants$ reach its own judgment asto the actual damages of those claimants and of the aggregate damagessu&ered ! the class as a whole. The jur! delierated for /3e da!s efore reaching a 3erdict. ;ontrar! to themaster-s recommendations$ the jur! found against onl! two of the ?8claimants in the random sam%le. As to the sam%le claims$ the jur! generall!ado%ted the master-s recommendations$ although it did not follow hisrecommendations in E: instances.As to the claims of the remaining classmemers$ the jur! ado%ted the awards recommended ! the master. Thedistrict court suse4uentl! entered judgment for ?@ of the ?8 claimants inthe sam%le in the amounts awarded ! the jur!$ and for the remaining%lainti&s in each of the three suclasses in the amounts awarded ! the jur!$to e di3ided %ro rata.

The jur! awarded more than recommended to six torture claimants and lessthan recommended to /3e torture claimants more than recommended forlost earnings to two execution claimants and less than recommended for lost

earnings to nineteen execution claimants more than recommended for %ainand su&ering to three execution claimants and less than recommended toone execution claimant less than recommended for lost earnings to six"disa%%earance" claimants and more than recommended for %ain andsu&ering to one "disa%%earance" claimant and less than recommended forthree "disa%%earance" claimants.

Although ne3er ex%ressl! ex%lained ! the district court$ the mechanics ofthis di3ision$ as re%resented ! Hilao$ are as follows5 The ?@ randomCsam%leclaimants whose claims were found to e 3alid would recei3e the actualamount awarded ! the jur! the two sam%le claimants whose claims were

held in3alid would recei3e nothing. All remaining 7$E#E claimants withfaciall! 3alid claims would e eligile to %artici%ate in the aggregate award$e3en though the aggregate award was calculated ased on a @O in3alidit!rate of those claims.

G#8 L. *state-s ;hallenge

https://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=l8pc5BHniUE7FQdMA5gFXg


32/38

G7 The *state-s challenge to the %rocedure used ! the district court is 3er!narrow. It challenges s%eci/call! onl! "the method ! which Gthe districtcourt allowed the 3alidit! of the class claims to e determined"5 themaster-s use of a re%resentati3e sam%le to determine what %ercentage ofthe total claims were in3alid.

In its re%l! rief$ the *state for the /rst time "also 4uestions the %ro%riet! ofthe methodolog! em%lo!ed ! the district court for determining the 4uantumof com%ensator! damages". )e%l! Lrief at ?. Issues raised for the /rst timein a re%l! rief$ howe3er$ are generall! deemed wai3ed$ >ille! 3. Dunn$ :E


33/38

G22 Although %oorl! %resented$ the *state-s dueC%rocess claim does raiseserious 4uestions. Indeed$ at least one circuit court has ex%ressed "%rofounddis4uiet" in somewhat similar circumstances. In re


34/38

determine an aggregate damage award for the class$ the ;imino %rocess%resented to the jur! a statisticall! signi/cant random sam%le of class claimsand awarded each of the nonCsam%le claims the a3erage of the damagesawarded in the sam%le claims.After


35/38

@# ,.+. at . The interest of the *state that is a&ected is at est aninterest in not %a!ing damages for an! in3alid claims.

1

If the *state had a legitimate concern in the identities of those recei3ingdamage awards$ the district court-s %rocedure could a&ect this interest.

In fact$ howe3er$ the *state-s interest is onl! in the total amount of damagesfor which it will e liale5 if damages were awarded for in3alid claims$ the*state would ha3e to %a! more. The statistical method used ! the districtcourt o3iousl! %resents a somewhat greater risk of error in com%arison toan ad3ersarial adjudication of each claim$ since the former method re4uiresa %roailistic %rediction 0aleit an extremel! accurate one1 of how man! ofthe total claims are in3alid. The risk in this case was reduced$ though$ ! thefact that the %roofCofCclaim form that the district court re4uired each classmemer to sumit in order to o%t into the class re4uired the claimant tocertif! under %enalt! of %erjur! that the information %ro3ided was true and

correct.1Hilao-s interest in the use of the statistical method$ on the other hand$ isenormous$ since ad3ersarial resolution of each class memer-s claim would%ose insurmountale %ractical hurdles.

The "ancillar!" interest of the judiciar! in the %rocedure is o3iousl! alsosustantial$ since 7$@E indi3idual ad3ersarial determinations of claim3alidit! would clog the docket of the district court for !ears. ,nder thealancing test set forth in 'athews and >oehr$ the %rocedure used ! thedistrict court did not 3iolate due %rocess.Hilao suggests that this risk is alanced in %art ! other ene/ts the *state

recei3ed from the district court-s method$ including the %lainti&s- decision toforego certain damages 0e.g.$ costs of medical treatment1 that would not e"generic to the class memers" and the s%ecial master-s recommendation0followed ! the jur!1 of a ceiling on damages for oth lost wages and %ainand su&ering.

G8 ;(N;F,+I(N The district court had jurisdiction o3er Hilao-s cause of action. Hilao-s claimswere neither arred ! the statute of limitations nor aated ! 'arcos-

death. The district court did not ause its discretion in certif!ing the class. The challenged e3identiar! rulings of the district court were not in error. Thedistrict court %ro%erl! held 'arcos liale for human rights auses whichoccurred and which he knew aout and failed to use his %ower to %re3ent. The jur! instructions on the Torture Victim Protection Act and on %roximatecause were not erroneous. The award of exem%lar! damages against the*state was allowed under Phili%%ine law and the *state-s dueC%rocess rightswere not 3iolated in either the determination of those damages or of

https://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=x5rGki4lfDuwHmyVwMgWighttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=x5rGki4lfDuwHmyVwMgWighttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=x5rGki4lfDuwHmyVwMgWighttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=x5rGki4lfDuwHmyVwMgWighttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=x5rGki4lfDuwHmyVwMgWighttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=x5rGki4lfDuwHmyVwMgWighttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=tOtmZrHB5iE8i7JQyt1veAhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=V1idVsXVn-0EYNAMFLmNaghttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQhttps://casetext.com/case/hilao-v-estate-of-ferdinand-marcos-2?passage=gJk2b26eqabHGp4WONDFHQ


36/38

com%ensator! damages. The judgment of the district court is thereforeAissenting in Part5Lecause I elie3e that determining causation as well as damages !inferential statistics instead of indi3iduali6ed %roof raises more than "serious4uestions" of due %rocess$ I must dissent from Part IB of the majorit!o%inion. (therwise$ I concur.

Here-s what ha%%ened5 Hilao-s statistical ex%ert$ =ames >annemiller$ createda com%uter dataase of the ause of each of the #$#@7 3ictims ased onwhat the! said in a claim form that assumed the 3ictim-s torture. Although

>annemiller would ha3e said that ?9E claims should e examined to achie3egenerali6ailit! to the larger %o%ulation of #$#@7 3ictims within @%ercentage %oints at a 7@O con/dence le3el$ he decided that onl! ?:randoml! selected claims would e re4uired in light of the "antici%ated3alidit!" of the claim forms and testimon! at the trial on liailit! that thenumer of auses was aout #$###.

He selected three inde%endent sam%le sets of 2E2 0! random selection uteliminating du%licates1. Hilao-s counsel then tried to contact and holdhearings or de%ositions with each of the claimants on the /rst list$ ut whenattem%ts to contact a %articular claimant %ro3ed fruitless$ the same numerin the next list was used. Khen the sam%le results for the /rst ?8 3ictims%ro3ed insucient to %roduce the le3el of sam%ling %recision desired for the%roject$ Hilao-s counsel continued from case ?9 to case E@. *3entuall!$ 2Ewere com%leted from list A$ from list L$ and 2 from list ;.

The %ersons culled through this %rocess went to 'anilla to testif! at ade%osition 0which >annemiller thought was "remarkale"1. >annemillerNarrati3e +tatement$ %. :. He o%ined that "this random selection method indetermining the %ercentage of 3alid claims was fair to the >efendant" as "Garandom selection method of a grou% of 7@E indi3iduals is more accuratethan where each indi3idual is contacted." Id.


37/38

In accordance with the "com%uterCgenerated %lan de3elo%ed ! =ames>annemiller$" the +%ecial 'aster o3ersaw the taking of the ?8 de%ositionsin the Phili%%ines.

1

In accordance with the district court-s order$ the +%ecial 'aster was to

determine "01 whether the ause claimed came within one of thede/nitions$ with which the ;ourt charged the jur! at the trial held in Hawaii$of torture$ summar! execution$ or disa%%earance 021 whether the Phili%%inemilitar! or %araCmilitar! was or were in3ol3ed in such ause and 0?1 whetherthe ause occurred during the %eriod +e%temer 782 through


38/38

*3en in the context of a class action$ indi3idual causation and indi3idualdamages must still e %ro3ed indi3iduall!.

1

As m! colleagues on the +ixth ;ircuit ex%lained in contrasting genericcausation M that the defendant was res%onsile for a tort which had the

ca%acit! to cause the harm alleged M with indi3idual %roximate cause andindi3idual damage5Although such generic causation and indi3idual causation ma! a%%earto e inextrical! intertwined$ the %rocedural de3ice of the class action%ermitted the court initiall! to assess the defendant-s %otential liailit!for its conduct without regard to the indi3idual com%onents of each%lainti&-s injuries. Howe3er$ from this %oint forward$ it ecame theres%onsiilit! of each indi3idual %lainti& to show that his or her s%eci/cinjuries or damages were %roximatel! caused ! Gthe defendant-sconduct. Ke cannot em%hasi6e this %oint strongl! enough ecause

generali6ed %roofs will not suce to %ro3e indi3idual damages. Themain %rolem on re3iew stems from a failure to di&erentiate etweenthe general and the %articular. This is an understandal! eas! tra% tofall into in mass tort litigation. Although man! common issues of factand law will e ca%ale of resolution on a grou% asis$ indi3idual%articulari6ed damages still must e %ro3ed on an indi3idual asis.

+terling 3. Velsicol ;hem. ;or%.$ 9@@

hilao v. estate of ferdinand marcos 103 f.3d 767 (9th cir. 1996)

Documents