Whether recognition of a foreign judgment based on a fictitious assertion of in rem jurisdiction is barred as contrary to fundamental principles of due process?

This proceeding was brought by the United States on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, seeking recognition and enforcement of a Philippine forfeiture judgment. The funds at issue have been at Merrill Lynch in New York since 1972. The funds were deposited in the name of a Panamanian corporation, Arelma, Inc., which was an alter ego of Ferdinand E. Marcos, a former President of the Republic. In an interpleader filed by Merrill Lynch in 2000, a federal court awarded the funds to a Class of 9,539 Filipino human rights victims in partial satisfaction of the Class’s judgment against Marcos. In 2008, this Court reversed that judgment, holding the Republic, which exercised its sovereign immunity, was a required party that could not be joined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. Philippines v. Pimentel , 553 U.S. 851 (2008). In 2009, a Philippine court entered a judgment forfeitting the funds to the Republic. Despite the funds being in custodia legis of a United States federal court, the Philippine court held that it possessed in rem jurisdiction over the funds. The district court held that Philippine law applied, and it was bound by the Philippine court’s conclusion of law as to in rem jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. This proceeding presents the following questions: 1. Whether recognition of a foreign judgment based on a fictitious assertion of in rem jurisdiction is barred as contrary to fundamental principles of due process? 2. Whether recognition of the foreign judgment is barred by the Republic’s failure to give notice to the ii Class members, the adjudicated owners of the funds, at the outset of the Philippine forfeiture case, contrary to the explicit text of 28 U.S.C. §2467? 3. Whether recognition of the Philippine forfeiture judgment is barred by 28 U.S.C. §2462 since the Republic’s cause of action accrued 30 years earlier, well beyond the five (5) years permitted?