The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused enforcement of a judgment giving control over $40 million from the estate of Ferdinand Marcos held in a U.S. account to the Republic of the Philippines.
Marcos, who was president of the Philippines from 1965 to 1986, was described in court papers as “a dictator and kleptocrat” who “stole billions of dollars from the country and its people” and “used networks of foreign financial accounts and shell corporations to hide stolen funds.” He described his own reign as “constitutional authoritarianism.”
His son was elected president of the Philippines in 2022.
The victims of Marcos’s regime, who claim human rights abuses, won a $2 billion judgment against the estate and want control over the $40 million. They filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 30.
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Nov. 5 stayed an Aug. 18 judgment issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit until further notice. She did not provide a reason for her ruling.
The appeals court had affirmed a federal district court ruling supporting the claims of 9,539 individuals it described as “victims of Marcos’s human rights abuses.”
However, the district court ruling is in favor of the government of the Philippines, as opposed to the victims themselves. The U.S. judgment, which came at the conclusion of a lawsuit the U.S. attorney general filed on behalf of the Philippines, is based on a judgment that was issued in 2009 in the Philippines by an anti-corruption court called the Sandiganbayan.
The victims wish to execute on the $40 million that Marcos previously held in an account at Merrill Lynch in New York City.
Jose Duran, who represents the victims, asked the Supreme Court to stay the judgment to give him time to file a petition for certiorari, or review, with the high court, according to the application.
In the United States, a federal interpleader action was previously initiated.
That is a legal proceeding initiated by a party holding property who has received competing claims to that property. The idea is that disputes over the property will be resolved in a single court case, preventing the property holder from having all claimants litigate their claims against each other.
The U.S. government had filed a lawsuit in U.S. courts under Section 2467 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code to enforce the 2009 judgment of a Philippine court. Section 2467 allows the federal government to sue to enforce a foreign court’s judgment for “any violation of foreign law that would constitute a violation or an offense for which property could be forfeited under Federal law if the offense were committed in the United States.”
The federal government also brought the lawsuit under a 1994 treaty between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines committing the two countries to assist each other in matters of criminal law, including forfeiture of assets.
The victims argue that U.S. courts should not recognize the foreign judgment because the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction, the statute of limitations had lapsed, and the victims were never given proper notice.
On Jan. 12, 2024, a federal district court granted summary judgment recognizing the foreign judgment.
Duran appealed to the Second Circuit. On Aug. 18 of this year, the appeals court denied the appeal.
On Oct. 21, Duran asked the Second Circuit to stay the judgment because he intended to petition the Supreme Court for review. On Oct. 27, the request was denied.
Duran said in the application that the Second Circuit went against its own precedents and longstanding Supreme Court precedents.
The appeals court’s decision “is the first in American jurisprudence to recognize the in rem jurisdiction of a foreign court over property held in custodia legis of a U.S. federal court,” Duran said.
In rem jurisdiction means jurisdiction in a legal action taken directly against property, as opposed to a person. Property that is held in custodia legis is under the control of a court during a legal proceeding.
Sotomayor directed the federal government to file a response to the application by 4 p.m. on Nov. 12.
The Epoch Times reached out for comment to Duran’s attorney, Robert Swift of Kohn, Swift, and Graf, in Philadelphia, and the U.S. Department of Justice but received no responses.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Nov. 10, 2025, in The Epoch Times.
Photo: Official Portrait of Justice Sonia Sotomayor