THE $150-million settlement agreement between the Marcoses and the human rights victims has stirred a full-blown controversy thanks to what appears to be some "midnight provisions" inserted into the document, that will absolve the Marcoses from guilt on the human rights score and civil and criminal liabilities.

First PCGG chair and former Senate President Jovito Salonga, who has become the guardian of the Filipino people's rights in the Marcos issue (he still insists in a recent 19-page letter to PCGG Chair Magdangal Elma that the $590 million supposedly held in escrow in the PNB is still not in government hands, but that's another story) has once again raised a number of issues on the agreement with the human rights victims, and not the least among them is the central issue of sovereignty of this government. These queries are valid and ought to be discussed in full.

Salonga stressed the need for a full public disclosure of the entire settlement, in order to dispel any doubt about the following: (l). the real parties to the agreement; (2) the intrinsic fairness of the whole document, not just a part; (3) whether government has been duly represented, and (4) the concessions given to the Marcoses in the light of their demand that the settlement should be "global." The Marcoses are now demanding that all the cases against them, civil and criminal, be dropped, and they be given full immunity from prosecution and exemption from taxes on the share to be assigned to them.

* * *

Salonga also termed as "pregnant with ambiguity" the revelation by Robert Swift, the lawyer for the human rights victims, that the $150 million will be distributed to the victims through the US District Court in Hawaii, "once the settlement is approved," to quote Swift. Salonga raises a battery of questions: Who will approve the settlement? The Philippine government through President Estrada? Did he approve it beforehand? The Sandiganbayan, where the forfeiture suit and other cases against the Marcoses are pending? He notes that the graft court has not done so. Has Congress been consulted, as promised by the President? What about the Philippine Supreme Court, which, by virtue of its reviewing authority and the conditions it laid down in its Dec. 9, 1998 decision in Chavez vs PCGG? Salonga said Swift and his collaborating lawyers in the Philippines should tell us what they mean by "approval."

He also stressed that however grateful we may be to Swift and Co. for their efforts in winning the class action suit against the Marcoses in the US, "why should it be left to an American court to distribute the $150 million? Did the Philippine government and the human rights victims agree to this stipulation? If there is no such agreement, "by virtue of what law and what authority can the American court impose that condition?" Then too, he observes that under our Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the proceeds from the ill-gotten wealth shall go to agrarian reform, for the benefit of our farmers. He points out that inasmuch as this law has not been amended yet, "how can it be violated and subverted with apparent impunity?"