In defending the decision of President Duterte for a hero’s burial, the Solicitor General submits 11 documents to the Supreme Court that attempt to prove Ferdinand Marcos was a war hero
MANILA, Philippines – The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) has submitted to the Supreme Court (SC) documents that would attempt to prove the late President Ferdinand Marcos was a war hero.
The SC held the first day of oral arguments on these petitions on Wednesday, August 31, and is set to hear the side of the government and the Marcos heirs next week.
The 54 pages of attachments to the OSG’s Consolidated Comment include 11 documents that supposedly show that past administrations have recognized Marcos as a soldier, a war hero, and a recipient of the Medal of Valor.
The OSG’s 90-page pleading says Marcos was called to active duty as a Third Lieutenant under the United States Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) on November 15, 1941. He left the service as a colonel in 1963.
Marcos was given the Medal of Valor for his “prevention of the possible decimation of withdrawing USAFFE troops in a ‘suicidal action against overwhelming enemy forces,’ thus helping delay the inevitable fall of Bataan,” the pleading said.
The annexes to support the pleading include:
General Order Number 167, dated October 16, 1968, and signed by then Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Alfonso Arellano. It is a two-page narrative of how Marcos led his men in defending Salian Junction along the Abucay Line against Japanese forces on January 22-26, 1942. It says Marcos only had “a hundred fighting men against a regiment of about 2,000 highly-trained and well-equipped Japanese troops.”
Checks from the Philippine Veterans Bank and the Land Bank of the Philippines that were issued to Marcos’ widow, now Ilocos Norte Representative Imelda Marcos, in 2003 and 2004. The PBV checks represent the late president’s pension as a retired soldier; the LBP checks were “payment of gratuity pay/medal of valor.”
Certification issued by the AFP General Headquarters on March 4, 1986, and signed by Philippine Army Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Martin. The two-page certification says that, “according to records of Colonel Ferdinand E. Marcos, he was recipient of a ‘Medal of Valor,’ 3 ‘Distinguished Conduct Stars,’ and two ‘Distinguished Service Stars,’” among others.
The petitions with the High Court have named AFP chief of staff Ricardo Visaya, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and the heirs of Ferdinand Marcos (as represented by Imelda) as respondents. – Rappler.com
On Wednesday morning, August 31, the Supreme Court hears arguments on the petitions filed by Martial Law victims to stop the burial of the late president Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
MARCOS BURIAL. The Supreme Court will hold its oral arguments on Wednesday, August 31, to resolve whether the late President Ferdinand Marcos deserves a slot at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
MANILA, Philippines – Three decades after toppling the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines has yet to settle the debate on whether the late president deserves to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes’ Cemetery).
At 10 am on Wednesday, August 31, the Supreme Court (SC) will hear arguments from the groups that have petitioned against President Rodrigo Duterte’s order to allow a military interment for Marcos, as well as from the government and Marcos sides.
The High Court earlier issued a status quo ante order on the burial until September 12.
Six petitions – since consolidated into one case – have been filed before the SC by groups made up of activists and Martial Law victims.
The respondents named in the petitions are the heirs of Marcos, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Deputy Chief of Staff of the military’s Reservist and Retiree Affairs Rear Armiral Ernesto Enriquez, Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff General Ricardo Visaya, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, and Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) Administrator Lieutenant General Ernesto Carolina.
They are all represented by Solicitor General Jose Calida.
Rappler lists here the issues raised by the petitioners against the burial of the late dictator at the national shrine, followed by counter-arguments submitted by the Solicitor General.
The 1987 Constitution
Petitioners
Hero’s burial for the late dictator contradicts the 1987 Constitution, which is an “anti-dictatorship constitution.”
It “amounts for a total denial of the abuses committed by the Marcos regime.”
It violates sections 11 and 13, Article II, of the Constitution, which mandates the state to uphold human rights by educating the youth.
It defies Section 17, Article VII, which calls for the faithful execution of existing laws, such as the law creating the national pantheon for Presidents, National Heroes and Patriots (Republic Act 289) and the Martial Law Victims Reparations Law (Republic Act 10368).
Respondents
There is no item in the Constitution that “expressly prohibits” the late President’s interment at the Heroes’ Cemetery.
Republic Act 289: An Act Providing for the Construction of a National Pantheon for Presidents of the Philippines, National Heroes and Patriots of the Country
Petitioners
Section 1 only allows interment for presidents and national heroes “worthy of emulation,” which is not evident in Marcos due to the human rights violations committed during his time.
Section 2 names the “Secretaries of Interior, Public Works and Communications, Education and two private citizens appointed by the President” as members of the Board of the National Pantheon authorized to order the burial of departed Presidents and national heroes.
Respondents
The pantheon referred to in RA 289 is not the existing Heroes’ Cemetery. “It refers to the site in East Avenue, Quezon City, approved by President Quirino on May 12, 1953. To date, no National Pantheon has been erected at the site.”
President Marcos, through Proclamation 208, declared the Libingan ng mga Bayani located in Fort Bonifacio a national shrine.
Republic Act 10368: Human Rights Victims Reparations Act
Petitioners
This is a recognition of the human rights violations committed during Martial Law, thus disqualifying Marcos from having an honored burial. The law also calls for the recognition of the sacrifices of Martial Law victims by providing compensations for the damages and establishment of memorials.
Respondents
Calida and the Marcos family claim that this is irrelevant to the issue of the burial. They say the victims’ monetary reparations and other forms of recognitions would not be affected by the decisions of the case.
Marcos family’s 1992 agreement with then president Fidel Ramos
Petitioners
President Marcos’ right to be buried at the national cemetery has been “waived” due to his heirs’ agreement with former president Fidel Ramos in 1992. The deal permitted the family to bring home to the Philippines the remains of the exiled president as long as it would be brought straight to Ilocos Norte without military honors. It also specified that he would not be buried at the national shrine.
Respondents
Duterte is not bound by the agreement since it is “doctrinal” that “incumbent presidents are free to determine [their own] policies.”
International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights
Petitioners
The burial violates the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and international norms on the right to the truth and the duty of the state to preserve memory and guarantee non-repetition.
ICCPR mandates the state to ensure that a person whose rights are violated must be recognized and be given “effective remedy.”
Allowing a hero’s burial for Marcos denies Martial Law victims the “remedies awarded to them by competent authorities.”
Respondents
The government does not violate international covenants because the petitioners’ premises are that the interment will make Marcos a hero and there will be a “re-writing” of history.
The administration is not “re-writing” history by allowing the burial as they are not naming Marcos a hero but only recognizing him as a former president and soldier.
The notion that only “heroes” can be buried at the Libingan is a “legal and historical” misconception.
Marcos’ military records
Petitioners
Petitioners cited the study conducted by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), which proved that Marcos’ service as a soldier and a World War II veteran is fake.
They also said that he was “dishonorably discharged” when he was ousted in 1986.
Respondents
The NHCP study is incomplete.
The Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO) recognizes Marcos as a member of the retired army personnel based on a certification issued on August 18, 2016.
PVAO records show that Marcos was a World War II veteran and among retired military personnel.
Because of PVAO’s certification, Marcos is considered “honorably discharged” from the service.
Burying the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani would be an ‘injustice to the thousands of Martial Law victims,’ says the Philippine Debate Union
‘MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.’ The Philippine Debate Union strongly opposes the planned hero’s burial for the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine Debate Union (PDU) on Saturday, August 20, condemned the planned burial of former president Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (Heroes’ Cemetery).
In a statement, the nationwide association of college debate societies said that to transfer Marcos from Batac, Ilocos Norte to the Libingan ng mga Bayani would be an injustice.
“To bury Marcos at the Libingan would be morally reprehensible,” PDU said. “It is an injustice to the thousands of victims of Martial Law who, in their ongoing search for closure, had endured decades worth of suffering.”
“We call upon the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte to recognize this and discontinue his plan to give the former dictator the honor of a hero’s burial,” PDU said.
For the group, matters concerning the Marcos administration “are not up for a debate.”
“We urge the Filipino nation, especially the youth of today, to ask what is heroism? PDU believes that heroes are persons of integrity, honesty, and selflessness,” the group said.
“Gross violation of human rights warrants none of these traits.”
Corruption and lies
Duterte has repeatedly said that the decision to bury Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is based solely on Marcos being a Filipino soldier and a former president.
PDU, however, said that being a soldier and a president are “not enough justification to be buried a hero.”
“Burial at the Libingan is denied to soldiers dismissed for offenses involving moral turpitude, of which Marcos is certainly guilty,” the group said.
The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) also disputed Marcos’ record as a soldier during World War II, saying it is “fraught with myths, factual inconsistencies, and lies.” (READ: NHCP objects to Marcos burial at Libingan ng mga Bayani)
“He inherited a strong economy and left it in shambles by the time he was ousted by popular revolution,” the group said. “His presidency eroded our political institutions and cemented a legacy of impunity in politics, leaving us a debt we have to repay until 2025.”
‘Not unifying’
The statement was signed by 21 leaders of debate organizations based in colleges and universities across the country, including Lyceum Debate Society from Duterte’s alma mater Lyceum of the Philippines University-Manila.
The planned burial, PDU said, will not unite the Philippines.
“In no way will his burial bring unity to the country,” the group said.
“The call to move on limits the public imagination, excluding any narrative that can be described as truly unifying for there can be no unity without justice,” it added. (READ: #AnimatED: Marcos, Duterte and burying our history)
PDU is the latest organization to express opposition to the planned hero’s burial for Marcos.
Martial Law victims have also filed petitions asking the Supreme Court to stop the burial. Oral arguments are set to begin on Wednesday, August 24. – Rappler.com
3 US medals that Marcos was said to have received are fake, according to the National Historical Commission of the Philippines
Former president Ferdinand Marcos wearing 3 medals said to be awarded by the United States in 1946. Photo from the Presidential Museum and Library PH Flickr page
MANILA, Philippines – The National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) released a study debunking, among others, the supposed “war medals” of former president Ferdinand Marcos.
The commission said that Marcos “lied about receiving US medals: Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, and Order of the Purple Heart, which he claimed as early as 1945.”
Yet these claims seem to persist, notably among supporters of the dictator.
All 3 medals are conferred by the United States for heroic, outstanding, and courageous acts in combat.
The Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) is the 2nd highest military decoration for any member of the US Army, next to the Medal of Honor. Equivalent honors are the Navy Cross and the Air Force Cross.
According to the US Department of Defense, this medal is awarded for extraordinary heroism under the following circumstances:
While engaged in action against an enemy of the United States
While engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force
While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party
Third in rank is the Silver Star, which can be given to any member of the US Armed Forces, under the same grounds as the DSC.
Meanwhile, the Order of the Purple Heart is a military decoration awarded to any member of the US Armed Forces who is “wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy.” If the personnel was killed in action or died due to injuries sustained in action, he or she will be awarded posthumously, with his or her next of kin receiving the medal.
Filipinos who served under the US military in WW2 may receive the said medals.
In Marcos’ case, the US military noted that during the liberation period, he was officially “serving with the 14th Infantry USAFIP, NL [US Armed Forces in the Philippines, Northern Luzon], i.e., December 1944 to May 1945 and is recognized as a major in the roster of the 14th Infantry USAFIP, NL as of 12 December 1944 to his date of discharge.”
What Marcos claims
Official Marcos biographies provide accounts on the 3 medals supposedly received during World War II.
In addition, a website under the name of his wife Imelda Marcos has photos and newspaper clippings that support these claims. As stated in a page entitled “Most Decorated War Hero”, Marcos was said to have received a total of 32 medals. (Retired Army officer and former congressman Bonifacio Gillego, who also looked into these claims, counted 33.)
Among them are the 3 medals:
Distinguished Service Cross – “for extraordinary heroism in action on or about 18 January 1942” in a “commando action” at Mount Natib, Bataan
Silver Star – “for gallantry in action during February 1942 in Bataan while serving as Assistant G-2, 21st Division, Philippine Army”
Purple Heart – a clipping noted that Marcos “received 4 of these medals for being wounded in 4 separate encounters in Bataan”
Another newspaper clipping said that Marcos was awarded two Silver Star medals. This second Silver Star, according to Marcos of the Philippines by Hartzell Spence, was for “defending Bessang Pass” from Japanese forces in Ilocos Sur.
A document Ang Mga Maharlika: Its History in Brief – which Marcos provided the US military to prove the existence of his supposed guerrilla unit – also talked about the 3 medals.
What NHCP, historians say
The NHCP, in its study, concluded that the US officials “knew that Mr. Marcos had never received the DSC and the Silver Star,” citing a telegram sent days before Marcos’ state visit to the US in September 1982.
The commission also noted that the official websites of these 3 medals “do not list Maj. Marcos as a recipient of these awards.” The NHCP likewise reiterated the result of a US military investigation, where it did not recognize Marcos’ supposed guerrilla unit, Ang Mga Maharlika.
The research by historian and professor Ricardo Jose was also cited in NHCP’s study. Jose said that he was not able to find any reference to a claim in Marcos’ biographies that General Douglas MacArthur himself pinned the Distinguished Service Cross on the young major.
In his research, Gillego discovered that out of the 33 medals Marcos reportedly received, only two could be given during the war: the Philippine Gold Cross and the US Distinguished Service Cross. Nonetheless, these two citations were debunked by two of Marcos’ superiors themselves in the 14th Infrantry, whom Gillego was able to interview.
Two retired US war veterans refuted Gillego’s findings. But another investigation by then-Washington Post assistant foreign editor John Sharkey found no records from US military archives and World War II survivors to corroborate Marcos’ US war medal claims.
“An 18-month effort to verify Marcos’ claims to high American decorations raises serious doubts about whether he actually was awarded them,” Sharkey wrote.
There were also doubts raised about Marcos’ travails at Bessang Pass. An ABS-CBN reportquoted the son of Colonel Conrado Rigor Sr as saying that his father was the real hero of Bessang Pass, and that Marcos was not even there.
The Supreme Court also orders the military and former First Lady Imelda Marcos to respond to the petition vs the planned burial of the late dictator at the Libingan ng mga Bayani
THROWBACK. The Marcos family upon the arrival of the remains of the late president Ferdinand Marcos in Laoag City on Sept 7, 1993. File photo by AFP
In an en banc order on Tuesday, August 16, the Supreme Court also directed the respondents in the case – Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), as well as former First Lady Imelda Marcos – to attend a preliminary conference at 2 pm on Monday, August 22.
They were also given until Monday to respond to the petition filed by Martial Law victims asking the SC to stop the burial of Marcos at the Libingan next month.
Named respondents in the petition were Mrs Marcos, representing the heirs of Marcos; Lorenzana; Rear Admiral Ernesto Enriquez, deputy AFP chief of staff for reservist and retiree affairs; and General Ricardo Visaya, AFP chief of staff.
In their petition, Martial Law victims asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Marcos’ burial at the Libingan. They argued that it is contrary to the Constitution and violates existing laws.
If the planned burial is allowed, the petitioners said, this would likely jeopardize their US$2- billion claim for damages against the Marcoses for their human rights violations.
“The said judgment is pending execution and the burial of Marcos in LMB could affect the already difficult search for Marcos hidden wealth and the full execution of the judgment,” said the petitioners led by former Bayan Muna representative Neri Colmenares and Satur Ocampo.
They said Lorenzana committed “grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” when he ordered Marcos’ burial at the Libingan through a memorandum on August 7, 2016. Visaya later sent the same order to the military.
The order, emanating from a verbal directive of President Rodrigo Duterte, is illegal since Marcos does not meet the qualifications of a soldier who ought to be buried there, according to the petitioners.
The petitioners also insisted on the validity of the 1993 agreement between then President Fidel Ramos and the Marcos family that the late strongman will be buried in Ilocos Norte, where his remains are.
(UPDATED) Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, a declaration of Martial Law can be revoked or extended by Congress and reviewed by the Supreme Court
WHAT THE LAW SAYS. Does the 1987 Philippine Constitution allow martial law? Graphic by Nico Villarete
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – President Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday, May 23, declared martial law over Mindanao following the attack of the Maute Group in Marawi City.
Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella, who made the announcement in Moscow, Russia, said that it is “on the grounds of rebellion because of what is happening in Mindanao.” (TIMELINE: Marawi clashes prompt Martial Law in all of Mindanao)
The declaration, he added, will last 60 days.
This is the second localized martial law declaration. On December 5, 2009, then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared martial law in Maguindanao through Proclamation 1959, following the massacre of 58 people – mostly members of the media – in the town of Ampatuan.
She lifted it 7 days later on December 12, 2009 upon the recommendation of the Cabinet.
Duterte is the 3rd president to declare martial law since after the war.
Why was the whole Philippines placed under Martial Law in 1972?
Proclamation 1081 which placed the entire Philippines under Martial Law was signed by former president Ferdinand Marcos on September 21, 1972. On September 23, at exactly 7:15 pm, he appeared on television to formally announce it.
Marcos cited the increasing threat of communism to justify the declaration.
Meanwhile, according to Marcos’ diary entry for September 22, 1972, the alleged ambush of then defense secretary Juan Ponce Enrile made the “martial law proclamation a necessity.”
There were reports that the ambush was staged, as claimed by Oscar Lopez and his family who lived near the area where it happened. Enrile, in his 2014 memoir and documentary, insisted that it was all real. Yet the Official Gazette says that in 1986, Enrile himself disclosed that the supposed ambush was staged to justify Martial Law. (READ: Enrile’s tale: Hypocrisy and contradictions)
It was the start of almost 10 years of martial rule in the country.
What were Marcos’ general orders under Martial Law?
Aside from Proclamation 1081, Marcos also released general orders (GO) that guided his martial rule. (READ: Marcos’ Martial Law orders)
Included were orders to transfer all powers to the president, authorizing the military to arrest individuals conspiring to take over the government, the enforcement of curfew hours, and the banning of group assemblies.
Letters of instruction were also released in the following days, ordering the closure and seizure of private media and public utilities, among others.
What changed under the 1987 Philippine Constitution pertinent to Martial Law?
Five years after ending Martial Law, Marcos was toppled from power through the 1986 People Power Revolution. Corazon Aquino, the widow of Marcos critic Benigno Aquino Jr, ascended to the presidency.
In April 1986, through Proclamation No. 9, Aquino created the 1986 Constitutional Commission (Con-Com) which was responsible for drafting a replacement for the 1973 constitution. (FAST FACTS: The 1987 Philippine Constitution)
The new constitution, she said, should be “truly reflective of the aspirations and ideals of the Filipino people.”
Unlike the 1935 Constitution which Marcos based his proclamation on, the 1987 Philippine Constitution was more explicit on when Martial Law can be declared.
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution says that the President, as commander-in-chief, may “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it” suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the country under martial law.
The martial law period or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus should, however, not exceed 60 days. The writ safeguards individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Unlike the previous constitutions, the 1987 Philippine Constitution specifies that a state of martial law cannot override the function of both the judiciary and legislative branches of the government.
The latest constitution also does not “authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function.”
A state of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Its suspension shall only apply to “persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.”
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, those arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within 3 days, or otherwise released.
What’s the process that should be followed after declaring martial law under 1987 Constitution?
Under the latest constitution, other branches of government have a say in the declaration of martial law to prevent grave abuse of discretion on the part of the chief executive.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution says that the declaration shall be affirmed by the Congress via a vote and even reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Within 48 hours after its declaration, the president shall submit a report “in person or in writing” to Congress.
Congress then has the power to revoke the proclamation by a vote of at least a majority of all members of both the Senate and the House. Congress can also – if requested by the President and if public safety requires it – extend the period of Martial Law beyond the mandated 60 days.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, may review the “sufficiency of the factual basis” of the proclamation of Martial Law in an “appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen.”
Dangers of Martial Law
There are people who laud the Martial Law period in the Philippines, claiming that it was the “best years” of the country.
According to Amnesty International, about 70,000 people were imprisoned while 34,000 were tortured, and 3,240 were killed during Martial Law from 1972 to 1981.
