The rights victims, who have been divided into two factions because of an "irreconcilable rift," said they lost the case because their lawyers used the case of the rich plaintiffs and not of the poor majority.

Lawyer Rod Domingo, co-counsel in the class suit, said Makati RTC Judge Antonio Ranada ruled on the case based on its "technicality" and not on merits. Domingo said they would go to the Court of Appeals on Monday to insist that the rights victims only wanted recognition and enforcement of the US court judgment, that they were not after the collection of money.

Ranada said the rights victims had paid an incorrect filing fee of P400 million         Heroic cabbie instead of P472 million. ``Why would the plaintiffs pay to enable themselves to get compensated?'' Domingo said.

The rights victims belonging to the Samahan ng mga Ex-detainees Laban sa Detensyon at para sa Amnestiya (Selda) blamed Domingo and lead counsel Robert          against Swift for using the case of Claimants 1081 in filing the enforcement case.

Selda secretary general Marie Hilao-Enriquez said Swift and Domingo did not use the original class action case, Hilao versus Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, that won the US jury's judgment that the Marcos estate was liable for human rights violations.

Instead, Enriquez said, the two lawyers used the case of Sectoral Rep. Loretta Ann "Etta" Rosales, Judge Priscilla Mijares, Sr. Mariani Dimaranan, and movie director Joel Lamangan.

She said this prompted the Marcos lawyers to invoke the Manchester doctrine, which requires the payment of filing fees if the plaintiffs cannot be considered "pauper litigants."

The Marcos lawyers asked Ranada to dismiss the case, saying that Mijares and the three others could not be considered pauper litigants and that they should pay the filing fees.

Apart from this, the Marcos lawyers also contested the Makati RTC's jurisdiction over the case.

In an earlier talk with the Inquirer, Rosales of Claimants 1081 said Swift opted to use their case because Selda had been "antagonizing" him. "Selda refused to cooperate with Swift," Rosales said.

Domingo said that even if they used the case of Rosales et al., all of the 9,539 victims of human rights violations were also represented.

"Although the majority of the plaintiffs are poor, we cannot say that all of them are pauper litigants," the lawyer pointed out.

But Enriquez said only less than one percent of the 9,539 victims were not that poor. "Both Domingo and Swift should have thought about the interest of the majority of the poor plaintiffs, and not the interest of the few rich plaintiffs," she said.

Domingo, however, said the compensation talks or claims settlement would not be affected by Ranada's dismissal of the case.

"The compensation talks will continue, and we are confident that the Marcoses will soon be giving in to our demand of 30 percent, or $171 million of the total $570 million in escrow account," he said.

In fact, Domingo said, former first lady Imelda Marcos' offer of consenting to the release of $150 million to the victims would be a good start.

Enriquez said Ranada's decision only strengthened the position of the National Democratic Front to ask the government to sign an agreement that the US judgment would be recognized by the government.

A provision in the proposed agreement between the NDF and the government says that the government would help the rights victims in their effort to pursue the compensation claims, including those assets that would be recovered outside of US jurisdiction.

By Christine Herrera