(UPDATED) The son of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos thanks the High Court for its ‘magnanimous act to uphold rule of law’ and President Rodrigo Duterte for his ‘unwavering commitment’ to deliver on a campaign promise
2016 Vice-Presidential Candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos continues to visit various places in the north on the second day of his election sortie on Wednesday, February 10. Photo by Jasmin Dulay/Rappler
Speaking on behalf of the Marcos family, the former senator said in a statement, “It is our sincerest hope that this will lead the nation towards healing as we endeavor to move the country forward to give every Filipino a better life.”
Marcos thanked the Supreme Court for allowing the interment of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. He said by this, the High Court has upheld the rule of law.
He also thanked President Rodrigo Duterte for his “unwavering commitment” to deliver on his campaign promise to his family.
“We are deeply grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision to allow the burial of my father, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Once again, the Supreme Court has taken a magnanimous act to uphold the rule of law,” said Marcos.
“We also would like to extend our sincerest gratitude to President Rodrigo Duterte as his unwavering commitment to this issue sustained us these past several months. Our family will forever be thankful for his kind gesture,” he added. The Marcoses supported Duterte in the last campaign.
In an interview with reporters in Tacloban City, where he attended the commemoration of the 3rd anniversary of Super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan), the former senator reiterated his position that a hero’s burial for his father “is a good step in terms of healing we have been fighting for 30 years.”
He said his family would now restart discussions on details of the state burial, including the date, which would be decided upon by their mother, Leyte First District Representative Imelda Marcos.
Duterte expressed his support for Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani during the presidential campaign, and promised the Marcoses and Ilocanos that he would make this happen if he won the presidency. – with reports from Jazmin Bonifacio/Rappler.com
The once relentless call for justice has started to fade out. The criminal is now the hero.
He died in 1989. But he continues to haunt all of us.
Soon Marcos will be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. His family after all cannot wait. But the story of his resurrection is just beginning.
To blame the Supreme Court though is a mistake. Long before the magistrates made their decision, fundamental questions about what defines our soul had already become trivial. If the values cherished by a society constituted its soul, then ours has long been deeply divided. And early this year, a survey showed that 50% of respondents believed that Marcos “was worthy to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.” The other half rejected the idea.
Misleading question
There could be no more opportune time than this to hijack heroism. Marcos in this light is alive again. Not just because of the legalists who invoked the silence of the law, but because many have decided they don’t care anymore. Together they have drowned out the cry for justice among those who reject the heroic claim of the former dictator.
There are thus three sides to the story of his resurrection: the legalists, the moralists, and those who are tired they don’t care anymore.
To then keep Marcos lying in state in Batac has been a very wise move for his family. They knew that this day would come, when people would no longer remember his crimes. They would recast him as the leader of the country’s glorious past and pit him against the failures of the present.
Many ask what the decision’s consequences are on our society. But that is a misleading question. We should instead be asking ourselves what brought us to where we are today: weak institutions, lingering distrust of the government, miseducation of the youth, and the neoliberal project that turns our people into laborers devoid of historical and political consciousness.
Deeply divided
So where are we now? Our society is deeply divided and we are always looking for heroes. This is the space that has been hijacked.
And it is clever. As a result, the once relentless call for justice has started to fade out.
The criminal is now the hero.
The legalists may continue to claim that the decision does not turn him into one. But why insist on it in the first place? Precisely because cemeteries are not neutral spaces where the dead are left to decay. They are commemorative spaces where kinship patterns linger and legacies are rehearsed time and again.
He is not a hero but he will be buried among heroes. No other vindication will trump this honor in favor of the man who orchestrated the murder of hundreds, the silencing of his critics, and the looting of wealth much of which remains unreturned.
At his resurrection, many are celebrating.
But many too are weeping. Think about the coconut farmers. Think about the families of desaparecidos. Think of those who were tortured still reeling from trauma and pain. Think of those who gave up their dreams to fight for liberty and the rule of law. Think of those who lost their lives so we might live today.
Alive again
Marcos is alive again. But perhaps he never died in the first place.
Those who supported his burial among heroes carry the heaviest burden. Explain to the rest of us how we are now to move on.
From this day forward, the wounds of injustice are open once again. The onus is back on those who fought hard for Marcos’s burial. How can healing, as Bongbong Marcos claims, now proceed? How then shall we live?
The answers they offer are all oblique, appealing to an imaginary future that looks bright. But unless the injustices of the past are rectified, hollow is the rhetoric of this claim. In this light, the world will soon see that the resurrected hero remains soulless.
For those of us on the losing end, we admit that we are disheartened. But we must continue to stand for what is right. Even if unpopular. Even if we’ve lost all the courage to do so.m
Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, PhD is a sociologist and the director of the Development Studies Program. He contributed to High Chair’s most recent issue on historical revisionism. Follow him on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio.
We look back at a 1989 Supreme Court verdict, when the Tribunal upheld Cory Aquino’s decision barring Ferdinand Marcos from returning to the Philippines to die.
Flashback to 27 years ago: Marcos vs. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA 668.
It is the Philippine Supreme Court (SC) decision that law students are taught and recite on regarding the President’s “residual unstated powers.” On this basis, the SC en banc upheld President Corazon Aquino’s decision barring former President Ferdinand Marcos from getting his wish to return from his Hawaii exile to the country to die.
The right to return to one’s country then is certainly much more fundamental than the Marcos issue now at hand in the SC regarding his entitlement to be buried in the national cemetery of heroes, the Libingan ng mga Bayani. (READ: SC: Verdict on Marcos burial on hold until November 8)
The full 15-member SC vote during that period was a close 8-7. The majority 8 were the following:
Justice Irene Cortes (the ponente or decision writer)
Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan (with a separate concurring opinion)
Justice Andres Narvasa
Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera
Justice Emilio Gancayco
Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino
Justice Leo Medialdea
Justice Florenz Regalado
The minority 7 were the following:
Justice Hugo Gutierrez Jr
Justice Isagani Cruz
Justice Teodoro Padilla
Justice Abraham Sarmiento
Justice Edgardo Paras
Justice Abdulwahid Bidin
Justice Florentino Feliciano
Except for Bidin and Feliciano, the other dissenters issued separate dissenting opinion
Unanimous on Marcos’ role
While the vote was divided, turning as it did on the balance between presidential power to act on “a serious threat to national interest and welfare” on one hand and an individual’s right to return to his country on the other hand, the decision and most of the separate opinions – whether concurring or dissenting – were remarkably unanimous in their negative assessments of the role of Marcos in recent Philippine history, even by the dissenting Justices who voted to uphold his right to return to the country.
To be clear, these negative assessments of Marcos were not the ratio decidendi (legal reasoning basis) for the decision (and we are not going back here to the core constitutional argumentation therein). Those negative assessments of Marcos can be considered mere obiter dicta or side commentaries or opinions that may be relevant to but are not the actual basis, factual and legal, for resolving the constitutional issue.
Those negative assessments of Marcos may however be more relevant to the Marcos Libingan burial issue at hand, pending in the SC, such as along the lines of the petition therein of martial law victim Etta Rosales.
The Marcos vs. Manglapus Decision itself, to start with, contains a “class by itself” caveat while summarizing that negative assessment of Marcos, thus: “This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by itself.” But maybe no longer.
The ponente Justice Cortes goes on to say: “We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions.
Then, We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice.” “Of judicial notice,” meaning recognized as fact without need of further proof.
Chief Justice Fernan had this to say in his separate concurring opinion: “… It must be remembered that the ouster of the Marcoses from the Philippines came about as an unexpected, but certainly welcomed, result of the unprecedented ‘people’s power” revolution. Millions of our people braved military tanks and firepower, kept vigil, prayed, and in countless manner and ways contributed time, effort and money to put an end to an evidently untenable claim to power of a dictator. The removal of the Marcoses from the Philippines was a moral victory for the Filipino people; and the installation of the present administration, a realization of and obedience to the people’s will.”
Dissenting opinions
Senior dissenting Justice Gutierrez, Jr, for his part, puts it in terms of human rights for all: “…It was precisely the banning by Mr. Marcos of the right to travel by Senators Benigno Aquino, Jr., Jovito Salonga, and scores of other ‘undesirables’ and ‘threats to national security’ during that unfortunate period which led the framers of our present Constitution not only to re-enact but to strengthen the declaration of this right.
Media often asks, ‘what else is new?’ I submit that we now have a freedom loving and humane regime. I regret that the Court’s decision in this case sets back the gains that our country has achieved in terms of human rights, especially human rights for those whom we do not like or those who are against us.” Might we hear that again not being set back these days: “the gains that our country has achieved in terms of human rights…”
Dissenting Justice Cruz, a renowned constitutionalist and libertarian, said: “It is my belief that the petitioner, as a citizen of the Philippines, is entitled to return to and live — and die — in his own country. I say this with a heavy heart but say it nonetheless. That conviction is not diminished one whit simply because many believe Marcos to be beneath contempt and undeserving of the very liberties he flouted when he was the absolute ruler of this land.”
Dissenting Justice Sarmiento, whose son and himself were martial victims, was the most gallant to his tormentor, a despot nonetheless: “The power of the President, so my brethren declaim, ‘calls for the exercise of the President’s power as protector of peace.’…. This is the self-same falsehood Marcos foisted on the Filipino people to justify the authoritarian rule. It also means that we are no better than he was…. . I am for Marcos’ return not because I have a score to settle with him. [My son] Ditto’s death or my arrest are scores that can not be settled….I feel the ex-President’s death abroad (presented in the dailies as ‘imminent’) would leave him ‘unpunished’ for his crimes to country and countrymen. If punishment is due, let this leadership inflict it. But let him stand trial and accord him due process…. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, let no more of human rights violations be repeated against any one, friend or foe. In a democratic framework, there is no such thing as getting even.” Wow!
Finally, for whatever it may be worth for the Marcos Libingan burial issue at hand, dissenting Justice Paras had this practical suggestion then: “It is therefore clear to me, all other opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, that the former President should be allowed to return to our country under the conditions that he and the members of his family be under house arrest in his hometown in Ilocos Norte, and should President Marcos or any member of his family die, the body should not be taken out of the municipality of confinement and should be buried within ten (10) days from date.”
As we said early on, the above quoted passages from the SC Decision in Marcos vs. Manglapus are mere obiter dicta, and were not decisive for that case.
But as judicial pronouncements in a SC decision that is already “part of the legal system of the Philippines,” what value if any do they have for the Marcos Libingan burial issue at hand pending in the SC?
Some judicial notice had already been given 27 or “one score and seven years” ago to “the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country.”
Has change come after 27 years to that historical verdict of sorts? We do not think so. The historical verdict should stand. What perhaps remains in the Marcos Libingan burial case in the SC is to place that historical verdict in a constitutional frame. There appears to be sufficient constitutional grounds to do so, starting with the history itself of that Constitution. May law and history collaborate in its resolution.
Soliman M. Santos Jr is presently the Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 61 in Naga City. He is the author of a number of books, including Justice of the Peace: The Work of a First-Level Court Judge in the Rinconada District of Camarines Sur (Quezon City: Central Books, 2015). He has been a political activist and martial law detainee; a long-time human rights and international humanitarian lawyer; legislative consultant and legal scholar; peace advocate, researcher and writer.
(UPDATED) This is the second time the High Court has extended the status quo ante order on a hero’s burial for the dictator
The Supreme Court started its oral arguments on the burial of former president Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani on August 31, 2016
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – The Supreme Court (SC) has extended until November 8 the status quo ante order (SQAO) on the interment of former president Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
This is the second extension made by the High Court on the order. On August 23, the SC issued an SQAO on a hero’s burial for Marcos until September 13, which it later extended to October 18.
Informed sources at the SC said it is, thus far, a very close vote among the justices. A tie would be a go-signal for a state burial. Those opposing it will need 8 votes to block a Marcos burial at the Libingan. (READ: Ahead of SC decision, Martial Law victims ‘pray for 8’ votes)
The extension of the SQAO will give the justices more time to deliberate and convince each other to vote for their respective preferences.
MARCOS BURIAL. Supporters of the former dictator wait outside the Supreme Court grounds in Padre Faura, waiting for the High Court’s decision. Photo by Patty Pasion/Rappler
Martial Law victims and the Marcos family and their supporters had anticipated a decision from the SC on October 18, when the SQAO was to lapse.
Marcos supporters, mostly from Ilocos Norte, have camped outside the SC along Padre Faura Street in Manila since October 17.
Human rights victims of the Marcos regime, who are petitioners against the state interment, also held a vigil at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation in Quezon City.
Duterte made a last plea to the High Court at a news briefing on October 16, when he urged it not to decide on the basis of “emotion” on the issue, but reiterated his position that he would abide by the decision of the Court.
He maintained his position that laws and military guidelines grant the late dictator a burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes’ Cemetery).
The defense department had said that Marcos is qualified for burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, because he was a soldier, a former war veteran, an ex-defense secretary, and a former president. (READ: Marcos ‘qualified’ for hero’s burial based on AFP rules) – Rappler.com
(UPDATED) Marcos loyalists will arrive at the Supreme Court in Manila ahead of the expiration on October 18 of the status quo ante order issued by the High Court
MARCOS PA RIN. Supporters of the Marcos family gather for a vigil in front of the Supreme Court during the oral arguments on a hero’s burial for the late strongman. Photo from Marcos Presidential Center
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Supporters of the late president Ferdinand Marcos began a 4-day march from Ilocos Norte to Manila on Friday, October 14, in time for the anticipated Supreme Court ruling on petitions against a state burial for the late strongman.
Supporters of the Marcoses in their bailiwick, Ilocos Norte, joined the “Kailian March” headed by Governor Imee Marcos. Kailian is Ilocano for fellow member of a community.
From Paoay Church, 500 Ilocanos will pass through the Solid North provinces of Ilocos Sur, La Union, and Pangasinan to meet with fellow loyalists as they make their way to Manila.
They will hold prayer vigils in Ilocos Sur, Pangasinan, and Tarlac.
The Marcos supporters will also visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in San Fernando City, La Union, to honor the soldiers who died during World War II.
The Marcos supporters are expected to arrive at the SC in Manila on Monday, October 17 – a day ahead of the expiration of the status quo ante order (SQAO) issued by the SC. Governor Marcos, together with some Ilocos Norte mayors, will join the group on Monday for a prayer vigil.
On September 7, the SC extended its SQAO on a hero’s burial for Marcos at the national shrine to October 18, after two rounds of oral arguments.
Martial law victims and human rights advocates filed 6 petitions against the decision of President Rodrigo Duterte to grant Marcos a hero’s burial, the Chief Executive’s campaign promise to Ilocanos and the Marcoses.
Ms. Quimpo recalls the tortures that her siblings experienced and the anguish her family went through. Photo by John Nesperos, Gr. 9 – St. Francis Borgia
“Sinabi niya sa ‘kin bago umalis, ‘mag-eenrol lang ako. Dito ako maghahapunan, tirhanan mo ‘ko ng pagkain’… pero hindi na namin siya nakita muli.”
A powerful line said during Ms. Susan Quimpo’s talk on Martial Law last Tuesday, September 20 at the XSN Multi Purpose Centre. Ms. Susan Quimpo, a woman who lived through the Marcos regime, shared with us the experience of how life was during this time. She gave a different kind of talk by having a more personal perspective on one of the darkest times in Philippine history. The abuse, the maltreatment, and the disrespect of human life and dignity upon our own fellow Filipinos–almost unfathomable. The talk was held for the Grades 7 to 11 in hopes of raising awareness of the truth of what really happened during Martial Law so that the students can be inspired to be more socially active and spark change.
Her talk, unlike most Martial Law talks, had a different perspective. It centred not so much on Marcos and the Aquinos; instead, it was centered on the students, the youth of this time. She started by talking about how there was already aggression against the Marcos administration even before Martial Law. According to her, most, if not all, rallies were led by students. She explained how a lot of them–some even our age–attended these rallies. With her words, she painted a picture of a passionate, selfless, and brave generation of young people who were committed to social change.
The second part of her talk was about Martial Law itself and especially the atrocities committed to the Filipinos during this time by the government. Ms. Susan Quimpo shared with us the absurd reasons for detainment during the suspension writ of habeas corpus under the Martial Law, of how just by having glasses, a UP ID card, and looking Chinese, you can already be suspected of being a communist and/or a rebel against the government. That by being a student leader, a student writer (oh my), or just plain smart, it was enough to take you away from your families and subject you to torture. And that wasn’t all. She explained, in quite a lot of detail, the various methods of torture and the stories of people during their imprisonment. People our age, my age, being tortured and treated like animals- even worse than animals in fact. It was horrific to imagine.
The heart of her talk was when she talked about her brother. Martial Law became real to all of us audience members because this was her brother she was talking about. Someone she knew. This wasn’t some story she learned from a textbook, or something she heard from a friend. This was her brother, someone with whom she grew up. Her brother, who, just by having glasses, a UP ID card, and looking Chinese, was abducted by the military in his friend’s house.
She told in great detail the story the torture her brother had to endure for 5 months. Torture that included, but was not limited to, live wire electrocution, beatings, and much more. He underwent 5 months of not only physical torture, but psychological as well. He was traumatized so much that even when her brother came home after being released, they would hear him screaming and shouting in the middle of the night because of the nightmares caused by his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This was the experience of her brother, who was older than us by only a few years. As someone in the same age group, I am compelled to ask myself, could I endure what her brother endured?
The Reaction
“…and remember, these were people your age.”
Personally, I’ve always hated Martial Law. I couldn’t imagine how a leader would be able to be so cruel to the very people he had sworn to protect. At an early age, I was able to gather a substantial amount of knowledge regarding the whole period. Important facts such as when it started (September 21, 1972), who called for it (Ferdinand Marcos), even the proclamation number (Proclamation No. 1081). And that’s what I thought the talk was going to be about. Just a simple “who, what, when.” Marcos. Aquino. EDSA. The “usual” topics we hear when it comes to Martial Law talks. But that’s where her twist came in. When she talked about the students, it felt more realistic. The story of Martial Law felt less like an abstract concept. It wasn’t difficult to picture myself in their shoes, because these people were as old as I am today.
I believe what made the talk most memorable were 2 things: the fact that these were personal stories, and how her stories were about students. The stories she told were people she knew: her brothers, her sister, her friends. The stories didn’t come from a book, not something that she just read. Her stories came from her family and friends. They came from her heart. In front of us was someone who lived during the time. She might have not been tortured herself (thank God), but it didn’t diminish the impact of her stories. We are reminded that Martial Law isn’t some abstract event; it really happened. Real people were killed. Real Filipinos–brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and friends. All of them lost to the brutalities during Martial Law.
What was more horrifying to me is that a lot of the victims were also students–people my age fighting for our nation’s freedom. And to me, that’s surprising. I can’t imagine the youth today doing such things. Not putting my generation down, but the amount of commitment and patriotism that was displayed by the students back then isn’t something we often see today, not even in our daily lives.
Overall, I truly appreciated the entire event. It was good exposure for me and the rest of the study body to the Martial Law era. I really felt Ms. Quimpo’s sincerity in reaching out to us youth. Looking back, I realized how strong of a woman she must be. I can’t imagine how hard it must be for her to share these stories with students, with strangers. Despite the difficultly in doing so, she still continues to do talks in schools and universities. Why? Because that’s how much she cares. It is her way of commemorating the memory of her lost loved ones, and more importantly, this is her way of ensuring that events like these, times like Martial Law, aren’t repeated.
The Call to Action
“Kaya nyo ba gawin yung ginawa nila?”
After the talk, I was compelled to ask myself, “What am I called to do? What do I do now?” I believe the best way we can properly honor the Martial Law victims is by making sure it doesn’t happen again. Unlike many Marcos apologists, our only source of Martial Law shouldn’t just be Facebook memes. Right now, as high school students, there is admittedly a limited number of things we can do. I myself wondered on what we can do given the limitations we have. According to Ms. Quimpo, the best thing to do would be to educate ourselves, and fight the trolls.
By educating ourselves, not only do we honor the lives lost to Martial Law, we also prepare ourselves for college. Once in college, we are given a louder voice to share our opinions and more freedom to fight for what we believe in. Educating ourselves doesn’t just mean we know about Martial Law, but we know the truth behind it, the stories, the lives of people in what was without a doubt one of the darkest times in Philippine history.
We also need to fight the trolls. For those unfamiliar, “trolls” refer to the people online who leave offensive and inflammatory comments on posts and/or spread lies online. An example of trolls would be those who say, “Martial Law was only declared because there was a great communist threat.” Now we know that to be false because according to Ms. Quimpo and her research, there were only 600 reported communists at the beginning of Martial Law, but by the end of this era, the number had ballooned to around 20,000.
When Ms. Quimpo said “fight the trolls,” she meant to reply to them in an effort to correct the false information and fallacies that they spread. I believe that this is a good place to start as a high school student. If these trolls can comment on posts and share lies online so that people will be fooled, why can’t we reply with the truth? If we allow these trolls to continue posting and commenting, people would just think these trolls are saying the truth. I asked Ms. Quimpo on sites which have credible sources regarding Martial Law so that we have a good source to cite our comments on, and she recommended sites such as Bantayog ng Mga Bayani and The Martial Law Chronicles Project, which contain stories of and during the Martial Law.
I feel that we are all compelled to become a more socially aware community, to see the parallelism between then and today. After knowing more about Martial Law, I can’t help but see the eerie similarities today such as the deaths, the extrajudicial killings. It seems as though through the 44 years, all we’ve done is replace the word “communist” to “drug pusher.” Like before, there is a dehumanisation of people. Aside from that, our current State of Lawlessness feels like just one step away from a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
However, we must not end with being just socially aware. Awareness may be the key to change, but it is only when we move our hands can the lock be opened. The talk inspires us to take action and fight for what we believe in. Despite the challenges we face, we should always strive for truth and justice.
MARCOS BURIAL. Supporters of the former dictator wait outside the Supreme Court grounds in Padre Faura, waiting for the High Court’s decision. Photo by Patty Pasion/Rappler
