A SUPREME Court justice suggested Wednesday that President Rodrigo Duterte’s overwhelming victory in the May elections affirmed his campaign promise to have the remains of former President Ferdinand Marcos buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
During oral arguments on petitions seeking to stop the government from giving Marcos a hero’s burial, Associate Justice Jose Perez broached the idea that the voters may have taken into account Duterte’s campaign promise when they voted for him.
“Is that not a decision by the sovereign itself…You are going to say what the electorate voted in favor of, we will now nullify?” Perez said, in questioning the lawyers of the petitioners opposing the internment.
The President won with 16 million votes, six million more than his closest rival, Manuel Roxas II.
Former Bayan Muna lawmaker Neri Colmenares, arguing for the petitioners, said that even if the Marcos burial was part of Duterte’s campaign promise, there is basis in law to show that the President committed grave abuse of discretion when he ordered Marcos’ burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Colmenares said the main basis of their petition is the Constitution, not the election results.
Perez and several justices also hinted that the Supreme Court may lack the jurisdiction to decide over who are those supposed to be buried at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani.
Associate Justice Teresita de Castro said based on existing rules and regulations pertaining to the cemetery, “there seems to be no established guidelines as to who are heroes, who are disqualified.”
“Even the spouses of secretaries of national defense are allowed to be buried there. Are there any guidelines by which we can say they are entitled to be treated like heroes? There’s not even a body which determines which are heroes… entitled to this privilege being buried at the LNMB,” De Castro noted.
De Castro also asked the petitioners whether the Court should be the one to decide who are entitled to be interred at the LNMB due to the absence of clear guidelines.
Colmenares insisted that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide on the matter.
“Yes the Court can decide. First, interring President Marcos does not make him a hero. It is just a symbol anyway. What’s the problem with Marcos being interred there? We say the issue at hand being raised here is if the standard is worthy of emulation and inspiration. That is… a discernable standard by the Court. Second, symbolism. He will become probably a hero. Is he worthy of inspiration and emulation as required by the law?” Colmenares said.
De Castro also observed that those interred in the cemetery are mostly those who had a connection with the military establishment and that later on other persons without any military background were allowed to be buried there as well.
Nonetheless, she recognized that the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of the Department of National Defense have the final say who can be buried in the cemetery.
Perez also noted that Republic Act 289, an Act on providing for the construction of national pantheon for presidents of the Philippines, national heroes and patriots of the country does not specify any criteria on who are “worthy of inspiration and emulation of this generation and of generations still unborn.”
“There is no established body or agency who can determine who is a hero or not…not the Supreme Court, the legislative or the President,” Perez noted.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno also asked the petitioners whether the judiciary is authorized under the Constitution to enact remedies for the petitioners.
Lawyer Ibarra Gutierrez, counsel for the Coalition Against Marcos Burial, insisted that the Court can act on the petitions under the rule-making powers of the judiciary.
Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco also noted that there has been no declaration by any government agency of a national pantheon and that there is no existing board of national pantheon.
But Colmenares said it was important for human rights victims that Marcos not be buried in the heroes’ cemetery.
“Their tormentor should not be in the place for people worthy of inspiration and emulation…The dishonorable cannot join the honorable,” Colmenares said.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said Marcos does not deserve a hero’s burial because he was “dishonorably discharged” by the people in 1986.
“Marcos cannot be buried there [at the Libingan ng mga Bayani],” Carpio said, in questioning Colmenares.
Carpio cited the Armed Forces of the Philippines Regulation 161-375, which disqualifies those dishonorably discharged from service or convicted by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The senior magistrate warned President Duterte of the repercussion if he changed the AFP rules.
“But if the incumbent President says that ‘[Marcos] can still be buried there upon my instruction, that cannot be done because it is against the Constitution because you are using public funds and property for a private purpose,” Carpio said.
Colmenares agreed with Carpio, saying the President’s directive favoring the burial could not change the objective of Republic Act 289, which provides that only people worthy of public emulation be given a space at the LNMB.
The petitioners also argued that non-conviction of Marcos of any offense involving moral turpitude until his death in 1989 does not mean he was qualified for a hero’s burial.
Responding to a question raised by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Gutierrez, counsel for another group of petitioners, said there was no opportunity to make Marcos accountable for his crimes during his 20-year rule because he had immunity as president.
When Marcos was removed through a People Power uprising, Gutierrez said the former leader fled to Hawaii where he died while in exile.
“But the Supreme Court had said in several occasions that Marcos is guilty of plunder and human rights violations,” Gutierrez said.
Gutierrez also insisted that the President’s discretion on the burial is not absolute and is bound by several laws and numerous decisions of the Supreme Court.
“It is crystal clear that the burial of Marcos at the [Heroes’ Cemetery] does not serve any legitimate public purpose,” Gutierrez said. “Most certainly, Marcos had no contribution to Philippine history and culture that is worthy of recognition.”
The oral argument ended after seven hours and will continue on Wednesday next week, Sept. 7, with the presentation of government’s arguments by Solicitor General Jose Calida.
Last week, the high tribunal issued a status quo ante order temporarily stopping the Defense Department and AFP from proceeding with the interment pending resolution of the petitions.
The order is effective for 20 days or until Sept. 12.