As this developed, the Sandiganbayan said the settlement is not yet binding since it has yet to be acknowledged and enforced by Philippine courts.

A statement from the Palace suggested for the first time that the Marcoses may not get back a cent of the estimated $590 million in Marcos funds which Swiss banks had transferred to an escrow account in the Philippine National Bank.

The Marcos family has signed a tentative settlement with nearly 10,000 human rights victims agreeing to pay them $150 million. In return, the victims agreed to renounce "forever" all further civil claims for human rights violations.

The agreement, signed by former First Lady Imelda Marcos and her son Ferdinand Jr., is subject to final approval by Philippine courts.

"The judicial approval of the compromise agreement ... will not constitute an exoneration of the Marcoses of human rights violations and abuses," the statement said. It said the waiver clause applied only to victims who signed the agreement.

Malacañang said the government and others not involved in the deal "are not precluded from filing separate criminal and civil suits against them (the Marcoses) with respect to other moneys or properties illegally obtained by the Marcos family."

Under the compromise, the $150 million is to be drawn from the Marcos Swiss bank deposits now held in escrow by the semi-government-owned bank.

"The remaining balance of $440 million will not be released to the Marcoses, as the government's position that this account is ill-gotten and should revert to the national treasury remains unchanged," the Palace added.

The Marcoses earlier asked to keep 25 percent of the deposits.

Manila has filed scores of other lawsuits against the Marcoses alleging that they stole billions of dollars from the economy during the 20-year of Marcos rule. The cases are pending in local courts.

The US District Court in Hawaii in 1993 found the Marcos estate liable for damages and awarded the victims, mostly leftist dissidents, about $2 billion. The victims' lawyers said they decided on a compromise settlement to avoid further legal battles.

Some claimants refused to accept the compromise, calling it a sellout.

Meanwhile, Sandiganbayan presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena said the $150-million deal, which was tentatively approved in Hawaii, needs to be upheld by a regional trial court (RTC) here before the money can be distributed to the torture victims.

"It is the RTC that is authorized by the rules to approve the foreign judgment. The foreign judgment has to be established in the Philippines, in the manner provided by law," he told reporters.

Garchitorena also said that the Philippine government was not made a party to the Hawaii agreement, adding that he doesn't have any idea how the deal will be implemented.

He said the Sandiganbayan's approval of the settlement will focus on the portion of the fund that has to be withdrawn from the $590-million escrow account.

In a resolution it issued last year, the anti-graft court said it has the "exclusive jurisdiction" over the funds because it "is the only forum for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth."

In a related development, former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez accused President Estrada of "conspiring with the Marcoses in inflicting and perpetrating a brazen lie against the Filipinos."

"That settlement is being pursued before a US court where neither the Philippine government nor the PCGG (Presidential Commission on Good Government) is a party. Therefore, the Estrada administration's approval of said settlement agreement is totally immaterial," he said in a statement.

He added: "Settlement between the human rights victims and the Marcoses is an impossible dream unless the Marcoses, by a show of sincerity, would themselves shell out $150 million to the human rights victims ... The victims have been taken for a ride."

The former chief government lawyer reiterated that the money would not be released unless two important and "conjunctive" conditions are met.

These are the final conviction of former First Lady Imelda Marcos and a reasonable compensation to human rights victims.

"It's not either or, but both conditions must be met. If one is not met, which is a criminal condition, the Swiss court will not allow the transfer of the money," he said.

`Immunity clause is standard, legal'

Ilocos Norte Rep. Imee Marcos said the insertion of an immunity clause in her family's settlement with the torture victims is a "standard legal provision" common in any out-of-court settlement.

"The reason why we are entering into a compromise settlement is to make the matter a closed book ... If, after this settlement, the matter would again be an issue in court, then that would constitute double jeopardy," she said in a radio interview.

The lawmaker admitted having initially opposed any compromise deals with the torture victims, especially in the case involving the death of student leader Archimedes Trajano.

Before he died, Trajano was engaged in a heated debate with the solon, who was then the chairman of the Kabataang Barangay.

A US court had found Rep. Marcos and her mother guilty of murdering the student leader. The two were ordered to pay the family of the victim $4.9 million.
The judgment, which was approved in the local court, is under appeal before the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Makati Rep. Joker Arroyo (LAMP) urged the government to tax the Marcoses on the $150-million deal.

Arroyo found unacceptable a provision in the agreement between the Marcoses and the victims which states the $150-million payment would not be subject to tax here.

He insisted both the Marcos family and the claimants should be taxed.

"While the Bureau of Internal Revenue goes after tax evaders, the government will condone the income taxes and transfer taxes due on the $150 million which the Marcoses cannot explain," he said.

He added that if the government waives taxes on the huge amount, this would set a precedent that could be invoked to cover other Marcos assets, including the balance of their $590-million Swiss deposits.

Arroyo said Mr. Estrada, his party boss, cannot convince Congress to enact new tax measures if the administration is selective in enforcing the law.

He said the government should not involve itself in the agreement between the Marcoses and the torture victims.

"The Republic of the Philippines cannot be a party to an agreement that vindicates, however inferentially, government policy and the Constitution. The government is duty-bound to uphold certain immutable principles."

In other developments yesterday, the Commission on Human Rights said it would not involve itself in the settlement claims of the torture victims.

The CHR said it is barred by law from participating in such civil matters. By Marichu Villanueva, Delon Porcalla, Jose Rodel Clapano, Jess Diaz, Perseus Echeminada, Sean Reyes, wire reports