When a man is gone, human decency dictates that he be remembered for the good he accomplished, and not for his mistakes. None of us wants to be remembered for his failings, and worse, to be condemned to oblivion because of our frailties. If that rule is good for us all, then it must be good for Ferdinand Marcos.
On many counts he was an outstanding Filipino: outstanding as a law student, outstanding as a lawyer, outstanding as a legislator, with a degree of intelligence few Filipinos have matched and can match.
He had the courage to do what was unpopular though needful at the time: declare martial law —something the Constitution of 1935 allowed him to do, the metes and bounds of which, that Constitution never set.
I refuse to blame him for every single act of abuse of his subordinates, considering that if that were our mode of reckoning, all our past presidents would be condemnable on account of one or the other wicked deed of some underling.
The most important reason, however, is that I do not want one version of history to be absolutized and enshrined as historical dogma. This is the version of those who oppose Marcos, because there is another version of the story (one which I favor) that maintains that he acted in his best lights, as the law and the system at that time allowed, and committed the sins and faults to which all of us must in one way or the other plead guilty!
My real question is this: What exactly is the opposition to his burial at Libingan ng mga Bayani? By what logic? By what philosophical principle? By what ethical norm? By what legal precept? By what equitable standard?