I appreciated receiving your article "Buying Manila" in the December Multinational Monitor. Your headline, among other things, however, is off its feet.
The recent unanimous decision of a Tribunal of the International Court of Arbitration (ICC) was a resounding affirmation of Westinghouse's position that there was no "scheme of bribery and corruption" in the Philippine Nuclear Power Plant contract. As we filed the award with the federal court in New Jersey last week, it is now a matter of public record.
You now have the opportunity and obligation to inform your readers that an international tribunal of eminent jurists has ruled that Westinghouse in no way "bought Manila" or otherwise bribed Marcos to get this contract. Your readers must be informed of your article's mistaken statements - based on allegations by the Republic of the Philippines that have been refuted by the arbitral tribunal - that Sabol and his notes somehow implicate Westinghouse in improper payments. With this decision you can correct the erroneous and now discredited insinuations of Mr. Hull, Mr. Jesus Disini and others.
Westinghouse was vindicated on all the key issues before the tribunal after a full adjudicative proceeding. For example, the jurists held:
"[The Republic of the Philippines and the NPC] have failed to carry their burden of proving Westinghouse's alleged bribery."
"[T]here is no indication that [commission payments] were disbursed to any entity in which Marcos had an interest."
"[T]here is no evidence in the record indicative that Marcos ever received any benefits or payments from any [Herdis] companies."
"[T]here is no evidence either of any agreement between Marcos and Westinghouse, or that Disini acted as an agent for Marcos."
This impartial and respected tribunal, which was selected and paid for by the Philippines and Westinghouse and Burns & Roe, issued a persuasive 130-page decision based on voluminous submissions of briefs, documents, affidavits and deposition excerpts, and two evidentiary hearings with examination and cross examination of witnesses. As the decision makes clear, the allegations respecting bribery in the New Jersey complaint are identical to the allegations rejected by the arbitral tribunal after a full two-and-a- half-year review of all of the evidence.
The arbitration provided the Republic of the Philippines and the NPC a full and fair opportunity to adjudicate their case on the issue of bribery. Since the issues in the district court are the same, there is no reason to believe that the outcome - should there be a full trial - would be any different.
The Federal District Court in New Jersey will soon consider Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment based on the decision of the ICC. That is, the federal court will decide whether the arbitral decision in favor of Westinghouse should become the final, binding adjudication of these issues, thus precluding further litigation on the charge of bribery.
Jonathan D. Schiller
Donovan Leisure, Rogovin,
Huge & Schiller