This columnist was jolted after reading the argument of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio saying that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos was dishonorably discharged as commander-in-chief as a result of the 1986 Edsa revolt. I could not believe we have a justice who would unabashedly exhibit his canine devotion to former President Fidel Ramos whose election in 1992 was equally questioned by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago for massive electoral fraud. Carpio said, since there was a revolt that successfully ousted Marcos, ergo he was dishonorably discharged from his post as commander-in-chief.
Such simplistic deduction is shocking because no justice in his right mind would say that a successful coup d’ etat is legal. Even constitutionalists only use the word “ousted” or “removed” from office, and the one who removed the de jure President can only be called de facto President until after a new constitution is ratified or an election is held wherein he could formally assume the title of de jure President. Nobody calls such extraordinary political transition carried outside the provision of the Constitution as unconstitutional or illegal.
Maybe it is for political science to justify that. But political science has its own ratio decidendi: that the incumbent President can be removed from office, or to be precise, toppled with or without any valid or legitimate reason. The so-called constitutional basis which many misplaced lawyers and justices invoke under that given circumstance is redundant to any consummated act of revolt, much that nobody can stop any power-hungry political animal from carrying out his plot to wrest power. Even foreign governments can broker a coup hatched by agitators like what the renegade soldiers, the oligarchy and the Church with the complicit collaboration of the Left. We call that realpolitik.
This explains why an ousted president cannot be dishonorably discharged because the act of removing him is political rather than a constitutional act. In the case of soldiers, they cannot be dishonorably discharged from the service unless they are formally tried and found guilty by court martial of the specific Articles of War they violated. In the case of the ousted president, there is no antecedent process like holding a trial where he could be pronounced guilty to justify his removal by coup d’ etat to ludicrously stretch that as equivalent to having been dishonorably discharged. As said, any president can be ousted from power without any reason.
If many things are said of the ousted president, all those remain propaganda intended to reassure the people that the new order is firmly in control. If the new government believes the ousted president committed criminal acts, it can prosecute him without invoking the constitution it violated. Given the fact that there is no law or court to declare their act of ousting Marcos as illegal or unconstitutional, the Supreme Court to which Carpio now parades himself as an associate justice, cannot now posthumously declare him as having been dishonorably discharged.
Just like that kibitzing lawyer named Neri Colmenares, Justice Carpio is citing Republic Act No. 289 to justify his objection to the burial of the former President at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. First, R.A. No. 289 is an act providing for the construction of a national pantheon for presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots of the country. The relatives and the faithful followers of Marcos are not demanding the construction of a special pantheon for him but are requesting that he be buried beside his comrades-in-arms.
Second, as previously argued, the memorandum circular issued by Ramos was onerous and immoral because it defies tradition, decency and respect for the dead, notwithstanding that the honor was bestowed on Marcos by a grateful Motherland. Section 2, (c) of R.A. No. 289 enumerates those who are qualified to be interred: a) the remains of all Presidents, b) national heroes and; c) patriots.
Third, the memorandum is illegal because it specifically wants to amend R.A. No. 289 which cannot be done except by another legislation amending that existing law. If they do not recognize that he served as president, they cannot deny he was a bemedalled soldier and is entitled to that honor.
While it can be said that the legal terms of right to equal protection and against discrimination is for the living, nonetheless it is the law that points out to them that he is qualified. Yes, he was ousted, but those who engineered his ouster adhere to the same system. There was merely a change of administration. Chief Justice Sereno cannot proceed in hearing issues like human rights violation as if to litigate a dead man just to prevent him from being buried at LMNG, unless she wants to be remembered as the most stupid chief justice.
The afterthought decision of Ramos to join the revolt did not result in the overhauling of the system in what the Marxist would say change in the superstructure where a new ideology replaces the old one. What happened in 1986 did not include a change in our ideological interpretation of history where we would replace our present heroes with the names of people who died fighting for their system, I mean replacing all of them from Bonifacio down to the last soldier.
Taken in this context, we could rightly agree to the comment to this latent enemy of the state that Marcos is not worthy of inspiration and emulation because of his alleged human rights abuses and plunder during his term. But do Colmenares and his gang have the right to object when they openly profess their commitment to destroy the system and replace our version of history based on their ideology? It would have been logical for Colmenares to reject altogether in calling the sacred ground Libingan ng mga Bayani for strictly speaking, he would have nothing to do with it.
The same argument applies to what Justice Carpio is saying, for it seems he is not only ignorant of his law but is completely without any idea as to when a change in the superstructure of society takes place. I say this because it is not for him to prejudge Marcos because the coup d’ etat launched by his benefactor was merely a change in leadership.
What took place did not result in radical change because Ramos and company subscribed to the same ideology as that of Marcos despite their political differences in what the Left would term “liberating our people from the yoke of capitalism, feudalism and imperialism.” Rather, the opportunism of this ideological charlatan is glaring for while he objects to the process of honoring heroes carried out by people who adhere to the system he rejects, his cohorts are in Netherlands pretending to seek peace they know has the greater possibility of being co-opted. He is the lousiest wolf to ever disguised himself with a sheepskin.
Addendum: When President Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte offered to former Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago the post of chief justice of the Supreme Court, many were surprised with some saying impossible! They failed to analyze that the position can be replaced anytime, and President Duterte knows that. Respect for the position of chief justice is merely a protocol usually based on seniority, but to appoint one is a constitutional act that can only be exercised by the President.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno was appointed by the good-for-nothing President to the post, but there is no guarantee she could hold on to her post. Sereno cannot invoke that protocol because her appointment was also made in violation of that protocol. President Duterte can replace her anytime. And Justice Carpio will be the loneliest man watching from the sideline the changing of the guards with him again being by-passed.