Republic of Philippines v. Marcos
Citation and Court
862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc)
Facts
The new Philippine government, after the fall of Ferdinand Marcos, sued Marcos and his associates in U.S. federal court to recover assets allegedly stolen during his presidency. Marcos argued that the act of state doctrine and head-of-state immunity barred the suit.
Issue
Whether the act of state doctrine or head-of-state immunity bars the Philippine government’s claims against its former president for corruption and theft of state assets.
Holding
Neither the act of state doctrine nor head-of-state immunity bars the suit; the act of state doctrine does not protect a former head of state sued by his own government for acts outside the scope of legitimate sovereign authority.
Rule / Doctrine
The act of state doctrine protects official acts of a foreign sovereign taken in its governmental capacity, but does not shield corrupt acts taken for personal benefit that the sovereign itself now seeks to redress. Head-of-state immunity likewise does not protect a former official where the successor government has waived any such immunity by bringing suit.
Significance
The case established an important limitation on the act of state doctrine and head-of-state immunity: neither protects former officials from suit by their own government for theft of public resources. It has been influential in transnational corruption and asset-recovery litigation.