Term: 2007
Docket: 06-1204
Philippines v. Pimentel
- Pro
06-1204 PHILIPPINES V. PIMENTEL DECISION BELOW: 464 F.3d 885 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPUBLIC) AND ITS PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), HAVING BEEN DISMISSED FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION BASED ON THEIR SUCCESSFUL ASSERTION OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT’S DETERMINATION THAT THEY WERE NOT INDISPENSABLE PARTIES UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 19(b); AND WHETHER THE REPUBLIC AND ITS PCGG HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEEK THIS COURT’S REVIEW OF THE COURT OF APPEALS’S OPINION AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT. CERT. GRANTED 12/3/2007 QUESTION PRESENTED: This interpleader action was brought to settle ownership of assets misappropriated by Ferdinand Marcos when he was President of the Republic of the Philippines. The assets are claimed both by the Republic, which under Philippine law is the owner of property acquired though the misuse of public office by Philippine officials, and by a class of private judgment creditors of the Marcos estate. The Republic was dismissed from the action on sovereign immunity grounds. In the Republic’s absence, however, the district court held that the Republic is not an indispensable party to the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), proceeded to resolve the interpleader action, and awarded the disputed assets to the class of private claimants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The case presents the following question: Whether a foreign government that is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit under Rule 19(a) and has successfully asserted sovereign immunity is, under Rule 19(b), an “indispensable” party to an action brought in the courts of the United States to settle ownership of assets claimed by that government. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-16401, 04-16503, 04-16538
In the case of Philippines v. Pimentel (2007), the Republic of the Philippines and its Presidential Commission on Good Government sought to recover assets allegedly stolen by Ferdinand Marcos, former president of the Philippines, during his time in office. The disputed assets were held in a New York brokerage account under Merrill Lynch's control but claimed by both parties: Arelma S.A., a Panamanian corporation formed by Marcos; and Pimentel as class representative for human rights victims who had won judgment against Marcos' estate. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that it was improper for lower courts to proceed with an interpleader action when one party - here, Arelma - is immune from suit due to sovereign immunity laws and has not waived this immunity or consented to participate in litigation. This decision effectively blocked efforts by human rights victims seeking compensation from these funds without participation or agreement from all claimants.
In the dissenting opinion for Philippines v. Pimentel, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision to dismiss the interpleader action was premature and inconsistent with established principles of equity jurisprudence. He contended that a judgment in favor of either party would not necessarily prejudice any absent parties or violate their due process rights because they could still assert their claims in subsequent proceedings. Furthermore, he believed that it was inappropriate for the Court to consider foreign policy implications as part of its analysis under Rule 19(b) since those considerations are typically within the purview of political branches rather than courts. Lastly, he expressed concern about how this ruling might impact future cases involving complex international disputes by creating an overly rigid approach to determining whether a case can proceed without indispensable parties.
