BY EVANGELINE DE VERA
MALAYA
MALAYA
THE Philippine government is not likely to honor the award for damages granted by a Hong Kong court to victims of the August 2010 Luneta hostage-taking incident in Manila where eight Hong Kong tourists were killed and seven others were injured during the 11-hour standoff.
Justice Secretary Leila de Lima yesterday said the ruling of the Hong Kong high court is not binding on the Philippines.
“No foreign government can grant its citizens leave to sue another government and bind the other government to such an action. International law grants sovereignty to each nation and a primary character of this sovereignty is the immunity of states from suits,” she said.
“The grant of Hong Kong government to the relatives of the hostage victims has neither legal consequence nor significance in international law,” she added.
De Lima was apparently referring to the international law doctrine of comity of nations wherein one state, to the greatest extent possible, recognizes the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another, as states seek to fully assert their sovereignty and traditionally refuse to recognize or enforce the judicial decisions of others.
Under this principle, she said a government may be sued only with its consent, whether by a foreign government or citizens of that foreign government.
Thus, the Hong Kong court’s award of damages is nothing more than an “expression of moral support to the victims of the Luneta incident by their government,” she said.
Reports quoting the Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) last October 12 said a high court master had granted a “Legal Aid Appeal” from survivors and relatives of the fatalities in the Aug. 23, 2010 incident.
In particular, they were demanding that the Philippine government issue a formal apology and provide compensation for the victims and their families.
Among those from whom they seek damages are those they believe were responsible for the bungled hostage rescue operation, including Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and the police force.
Democratic Party legislator James To was quoted in the report as saying the application for legal aid by the survivors and relatives of victims was rejected by the Hong Kong’s Legal Aid Department at first because the Philippines may invoke state immunity as a defense.
While President Aquino already expressed regret over the incident and admitted that the crisis should have been handled better, the government refused to apologize.
De Lima, who headed the Incident Investigation and Review Committee that probed the hostage-taking incident, said last year after a visit with her Chinese counterpart in Beijing that she would welcome the request of the hostage survivors and their families to inquire about the status of the cases against those found liable for the death of their loved ones.
She expressed doubt that the plans of the victims to file a lawsuit against the Philippine government, allegedly based on the prodding of some political figures in Hong Kong, would prosper.
However, she said they may file a civil suit under Philippine laws for payment of damages.
“Under the Philippine law and justice system, anyone has the right to seek redress by way of damage…If they are asking to consider negotiating for the purpose of getting compensation, the response is: nothing can prevent them from making demands,” she said.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Roan Libarios, another member of the IIRC, said the move of the victims to claim for damages should not come as a surprise.
“Some officials could be really held liable for negligence based on our report,” he said.
IBP spokeswoman Trixie Angeles said while the Hong Kong court may not be able to impose its ruling on the Philippine government, the Manila hostage survivors and their relatives can file a case in the Philippines against individual respondents.
Angeles said the hostage survivors may use the decision of the Hong Kong court as evidence in pursuing the case in the country.
“They may file the case here just to establish their right to sue the person responsible, but they cannot sue the government, unless the government waives its immunity from suit. They may file the case against persons not acting in their official capacity, or those who acted in excess of their official capacity,” she said.
However, the survivors may run into the “same obstacles” because government is not likely to waive its immunity, she said.
“That means that they will have to litigate the case here, which also requires the presentation of evidence and the acquisition of jurisdiction over the government. Even here, they will run into the same obstacle since the government cannot be sued without its consent,” she said.
The IIRC, which was formed to probe those responsible for the fiasco, originally identified 13 individuals as probably liable. However, when a two-man Malacañang panel reviewed the IIRC report, only SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza, the brother of hostage-taker Rolando Mendoza, was charged in court.
Later on, President Aquino dismissed from service Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales for failure to act immediately on Rolando’s administrative case.
A recent Supreme Court ruling reinstated Gonzales, saying Malacañang erred in dismissing him on alleged mishandling of the graft case against the hostage-taker, which triggered the hostage crisis.
Rolando Mendoza hijacked a tourist bus in Intramuros and commandeered the bus to the Luneta Park. After foiled talks with police negotiators, he shot the passengers. He was eventually killed by snipers.
No comments:
Post a Comment