# The Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 2, 1988 · 862 F.2d 1355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478465

## Case

- **Full name:** The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ferdinand E. MARCOS, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 2, 1988
- **Citations:** 862 F.2d 1355; 1988 WL 126901
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fletcher
- **Judges:** Browning, Anderson, Schroeder, Fletcher, Pregerson, Alarcon, Canby, Norris, Brunetti, Noonan
- **Cited by:** 288 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478465

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that court had jurisdiction over RICO claim where “[t]he effect on the commerce of the United States of engaging in [the fraud was] palpable” and “[t]he criminal enterprise which [the defendants were] charged with conducting consisted in operations taking place within …
- explaining that Ferdinand Marcos used Swiss bank accounts to hide $1.3 billion of the Philippines’ money, and while the banks eventually froze the assets, they fought against returning the assets to the Philippines
- finding that the complaint “sufficiently allege[d] a RICO offense” against the former president of the Republic of the Philippines, a situation where the FSIA did not apply
- holding that, where the former leader of the republic of Philippines diverted public funds for private financial gain, his actions could not be attributed to the sovereign

## Opinion text

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially in Judge SGHROEDER’s concurring and dissenting opinion:
I concur fully in the following portions of Judge Schroeder’s opinion: its discussion of the basis for finding jurisdiction based on a well-pleaded RICO claim; its discussion of the basis for concluding that the act of state doctrine is not a prudential bar at this stage of the proceedings in this case.
I concur only in its conclusion that the injunction should be vacated and remanded for further consideration in that I do not agree with its restrictive view of pendent jurisdiction (by the same token, I cannot agree with the majority’s expansive approach). Also, I would stay the vacation of the injunction for a reasonable period of time to allow the district court to reconsider the injunction and its scope in light of the current state of the record.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9478465. Public record. Not legal advice.