The Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos

Summary

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed a district court's preliminary injunction preventing Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and associated defendants from transferring assets. The court held that the Republic of the Philippines had standing to assert civil RICO claims, that pendent jurisdiction supported related claims under state and foreign law, and that the act-of-state, political-question, and forum non conveniens defenses did not preclude the action on the record presented. The court further concluded that the Republic showed a fair chance of success and sufficient risk of irreparable harm to justify preserving assets for potential equitable relief.

Holdings

1. A foreign governmental body is a person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), and the foreign nature of the Republic did not deprive it of statutory personhood or standing to assert RICO claims.
2. The complaint sufficiently alleged a RICO pattern and enterprise involving mail fraud, wire fraud, and transportation of stolen property affecting United States commerce; those allegations were sufficient to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
3. The district court had pendent jurisdiction over the Republic's related non-RICO claims because they arose from a common nucleus of operative fact and were claims that ordinarily would be tried in one judicial proceeding.
4. The act of state doctrine did not bar adjudication on the present record. The doctrine did not provide a form of sovereign immunity for a deposed leader, and the defendants had presented no evidence establishing that the challenged conduct constituted protected acts of state.
5. The political-question doctrine did not bar the claims because allegations of bribery, theft, embezzlement, extortion, fraud, and conspiracy were susceptible to concrete judicial proof, including proof of foreign law.
6. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds before issuing the preliminary injunction.
7. The asset freeze was an equitable in personam preliminary injunction, not an attachment, and therefore was not restricted by California's attachment limitations for contract claims.
8. The district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the Republic showed a fair chance of success or serious questions on the merits, irreparable injury, and a balance of hardships decidedly favoring the Republic.
9. The district court could enjoin defendants before it from transferring assets wherever located because the injunction operated in personam rather than in rem.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Republic of the Philippines qualified as a statutory person and had standing to assert civil RICO claims.
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged a RICO pattern, enterprise, and effect on United States commerce to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether the state- and foreign-law claims arose from a common nucleus of operative fact sufficient for pendent jurisdiction.
4. Whether the act of state doctrine or political-question doctrine barred adjudication of the Republic's claims at the preliminary-injunction stage.
5. Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
6. Whether the district court could preserve assets through an in personam preliminary injunction rather than an attachment.
7. Whether the evidence and balance of hardships supported issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Disposition

affirmed