But Swift, lead counsel of 9,539 human rights victims in the class suit against the Marcoses who claimed he had spent more than $1 million in his involvement in the case, said he preferred to give a bigger share to the heirs of victims who disappeared.

The $171 million represents 30 percent of the $570 million Marcos money being held in escrow at the Philippine National Bank.

President Estrada had threatened to pursue forfeiture cases against the Marcoses if they refused to settle.

But Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena cautioned the government against entering into a compromise deal with the rights victims, saying the $570 million was still covered by a pending litigation. "We can do the distribution on a bottom-up approach and everybody gets an equal amount," Swift told the Inquirer shortly before he returned to the United States.

He said the $171 million would be coursed through the court, which would then write to each of the claimants to provide them the ``quickest and most direct payment.''

``We hope to achieve all this within 30 to 60 days so that by Christmas, the victims could get on with their lives,'' he said.

Whether the victims belong to the militant Samahan ng mga Ex-detainees Laban sa Detensyon at para sa Amnestiya (Selda) or to the breakaway group Claimants 1081, each of them could get an equal share, according to him.

At P43 to the dollar, the $171 million would amount to P7.353 billion. Dividing this equally among the human rights victims would give each P770,835, he explained. Of the claimants, 5,475 were victims of torture, 3,184 victims of summary executions, and the rest victims of disappearances.

Most of the victims were poor and from Mindanao, said the US court-appointed counsel. Swift, however, saw a little glitch in this equal distribution approach.

Since the full amount of $2.5 billion awarded by the US court to the claimants would not be recovered, distributing the 30 percent equally might create ``differences,'' he said. ``Some have lost their loved ones because they were summarily executed and that's much more severe,'' he said.

``And the heirs of victims of disappearances may be severely injured not only because their loved ones were summarily executed, they were also probably tortured and they never had a body to bury. They would always wonder what happened,'' he added.

He said he would get the consensus of the victims themselves on the distribution. Swift maintained that the quest for indemnification would end after the settlement, and it would be up to the government to drop or pursue criminal cases against the Marcoses.

What is important, according to Swift, is that ``the $2.5-billion verdict would be recorded in the history books and the world knows the Marcoses committed human rights violations against the Filipinos.''

He claimed he had spent about $1 million in the past 12 years of litigating the case and involvement in the efforts to recover the Marcos assets abroad.

He said he was able to recover about $1 million from the sale of the Marcos mansion in Makiki Heights, Hawaii for $3 million and a Mercedez limousine for $30,000.

Selda counsel Romeo Capulong warned Swift against making secret negotiations and taking unilateral moves without consulting the victims and their organizations.

``There should be full transparency in the negotiations whether such negotiations are conducted by Robert Swift and Claimants 1081 or Selda and PILC (Public Interest Law Center),'' said Capulong.

``But far more important than indemnification is the prosecution and punishment of the violators and plunderers, the establishment of guarantees against impunity and repetition of these practices,'' he added.

Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Garchitorena said the Marcos Swiss funds were covered by civil case no. 141--the only forfeiture case filed against the Marcoses--which was still pending in the Sandiganbayan's first division.

``It would be very difficult for the Philippine government or for anyone for that matter to enter into any agreement over a property that is still in the court,'' Garchitorena told reporters. ``The money is the subject of a particular case in court.''

By Christine Herrera and Donna S. Cueto