High Court Rules Marcos Has No Legal Immunity, Paving Way for Pair’s Trials

WASHINGTON â€”  The Supreme Court said Monday that former Philippines President Ferdinand E. Marcos has no legal immunity from prosecution in U.S. courts, clearing the way for legal action against Marcos and his wife, Imelda, in Los Angeles and New York.

The high court action leaves intact court orders freezing an estimated $1.5 billion in assets controlled by the ailing Marcos and his wife while two massive lawsuits against them proceed. Also, it resolves legal questions over whether U.S. courts have the authority to rule on actions taken by foreign leaders in their official capacities.

Meanwhile, the justices refused to revive an environmentalists’ lawsuit seeking a ban on the chemical Alar. The high court action, in a jurisdictional dispute, leaves the matter where it began: with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Seek Court Directive

In 1986, the National Resources Defense Council and several public interest law firms filed suit against the EPA after it dropped a proposal to ban Alar. The groups contended that the agency should be compelled to take action because the chemical, used to promote ripening and uniform color in apples, had demonstrated adverse health effects.

On Monday, the high court declined to intervene in the dispute (Nader vs. EPA, 88-1146). But two months ago, the EPA announced that it would move for a complete ban on Alar in July, 1990, if new studies confirm that it has cancer-causing properties, so the case may well become moot. Several months ago, a public awareness campaign launched by the resources defense council triggered nationwide concern over Alar, prompting the Los Angeles school district and others to briefly ban the sales of apples.

“Sometimes consumer pressure works a lot faster than government or the courts,� Albert H. Meyerhoff, a lawyer for the council in San Francisco, said Monday.

The legal actions on Marcos have been moving through the courts since shortly after he was deposed and moved to the United States in February, 1986.

Wife to Face Trial

U.S. attorneys in New York have charged Marcos and his wife with an array of criminal violations, alleging that they stole funds from their homeland and invested them secretly in the United States and elsewhere. Although the ailing former ruler cannot travel, a trial will proceed against his wife.

At the same time, lawyers representing the current Philippines government are pursuing a civil case in a federal court in Los Angeles seeking recovery of money that was transferred to the United States.

Lawyers for Marcos contended that U.S. judges have no authority to “pass judgment on the acts of a foreign sovereign� in his handling of foreign funds. Citing high court rulings from the 19th Century, they said that it is well-established legal doctrine that officials of other nations cannot be dragged into a U.S. court to answer for their actions.

In 1987, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, in a 2-1 vote, agreed. However, the full 9th Circuit Court in California decided to reconsider and overruled the three-judge panel in December. Judge John Noonan, writing for the majority in the 9-2 decision, said that there is no legal doctrine preventing former officials from being brought into U.S. courts. Rather, only “practical� considerations about U.S. foreign policy must be taken into account.

Without comment or dissent, the justices denied Marcos’ appeal of that ruling (Marcos vs. Philippines, 88-1431).

In other actions, the court:

--Agreed to decide whether a judge as part of a desegregation decree can force a school district to double its property taxes to improve its schools (Missouri vs. Jenkins, 88-1150). The ruling came in Kansas City, Mo., where U.S. District Judge Russell Clark said that the city schools must be upgraded to match those of its suburbs. To pay for nearly $300 million in improvements, Clark ordered the property tax hike. Lawyers for the state, calling Clark’s order unprecedented, appealed.

--Agreed to decide whether Congress can turn abandoned railroad lines into nature trails (Preseault vs. ICC, 88-1076). Owners whose land was bisected by abandoned rail lines say that the property should revert to them. A government order taking it away without payment violates their constitutional rights, they argue.

--Refused to overturn a $15-million jury award stemming from the takeover of a California manufacturer of semiconductor test equipment (Eaton Corp. vs. the PKL Companies, 87-1354). Without comment, the court rejected an appeal by Eaton Corp. of Cleveland, which was ordered to pay the money as punitive damages to PKL Companies Inc., of New York City.

The case had its origins in the mid-1970s when a company called Cutler-Hammer Inc. sought to acquire the stock of Macrodata Corp., which made semiconductor test equipment in California.